There are 12 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: New Cases for Siye derived from postpositions?
From: Alex Fink
1b. Re: New Cases for Siye derived from postpositions?
From: Anthony Miles
2a. Re: Grammatical complexity
From: Adam Walker
3a. Re: A reinterpretation of the Tatari Faran case system
From: H. S. Teoh
4a. OT: Grant writing??
From: Roger Mills
4b. Re: OT: Grant writing??
From: George Corley
5a. Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
From: Padraic Brown
5b. Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
From: C. Brickner
5c. Screen Reader Semantics, was: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
6a. Re: Suggestions of Linguistically realistic movies
From: John H. Chalmers
6b. Re: Suggestions of Linguistically realistic movies
From: Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones
7a. Re: Suggestions of linguistically realistic movies.
From: Leonardo Castro
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: New Cases for Siye derived from postpositions?
Posted by: "Alex Fink" 000...@gmail.com
Date: Sat May 25, 2013 12:23 pm ((PDT))
On Sat, 25 May 2013 12:58:46 -0400, Anthony Miles <mamercu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In the Siye causative construction with an imperfective verb, Siye puts the
>subject of the internal clause in the instrumental case if inanimate and in
>the genitive (or possessive? not sure which would be more natural)
What's the difference between them? What was the etymological sense of this
noun _e_ that supplies the instrumental: would it have gone with the genitive
or possessive before (and if) its sense was bleached away?
> case plus a post-positional noun in the instrumental case if animate:
>
>Le ine eki liyo elelipunama.
>le-0 i-ne e-ki liyo-0 e-le-li-pu-sum-na-ma
>1-NOM 3-GEN 4-INS food-ABS 4-1-eat.IMPFV-SG-CAUS-DIR.UP-IMPFV.POS.REALIS
>I will feed him (=I will cause him to eat the food)
>
>Could this evolve into an animate instrumental -neki (-meki)? The
>dative-benefactive -tu and dative-allative -su already exhibit that split
>between animate and inanimate. The various locative postpositions - emsum,
>emkim, emtu - could coalesce with the preceding -ne to form elative -nemsum,
>inessive -nemkim, and illative -nemtu, contrasting with ablative -sum,
>locative -kem, and allative -su.
Makes eminent sense to me.
>I've already been thinking of adding an infix -(e)mtu- 'into'
really an infix, or just a suffix in one of several suffix slots?
>to change the intransitive sentence 'um siline emtu ituputuna' 'The man went
>into the house' into the transitive sentence 'um sili itupumtuna' but the
>possibility of expanding the case system seems more organic, especially since
>I'm not sure how far I can expand the directional slot - it and the
>applicative slot before it are the only open categories,
I agree regarding what seems natural, but I don't understand what the contrast
between open and closed inflectional categories are.
>and I'm reluctant to kitchen-sink either category rather than allowing organic
>growth. If all the above were the case, -ne, the genitive suffix, (or maybe
>the possessive suffix -me) has become -ne- (-me-?), the base for forming
>oblique stems.
Alex
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: New Cases for Siye derived from postpositions?
Posted by: "Anthony Miles" mamercu...@gmail.com
Date: Sat May 25, 2013 10:31 pm ((PDT))
>In the Siye causative construction with an imperfective verb, Siye puts the
>subject of the internal clause in the instrumental case if inanimate and in
>the genitive (or possessive? not sure which would be more natural)
What's the difference between them? What was the etymological sense of this
noun _e_ that supplies the instrumental: would it have gone with the genitive
or possessive before (and if) its sense was bleached away?
R: Possessive case -me is used with inalienable possession, Genitive case -ne
with inalienable possession. Alienability, of course, is a bit more complicated
to define in a particular language than this (for instance, 'mistress' uses the
Possessive and 'handmaiden' uses the Genitive, because you can fire the maid
more easily than you can sell a house, assuming that it's not illegal to sell
it at all). e- is simply the third person inanimate pronoun (listed as fourth
person below). I suppose the indefinite pronoun 'mu' could serve equally well
syntactically – but 'mu' can be animate or inanimate, and e- can only be
inanimate. Upon consideration, I prefer -ne, since the syntax is a case of
jury-rigging rather than intimate and cohesive connection.
> case plus a post-positional noun in the instrumental case if animate:
>
>Le ine eki liyo elelipunama.
>le-0 i-ne e-ki liyo-0 e-le-li-pu-sum-na-ma
>1-NOM 3-GEN 4-INS food-ABS 4-1-eat.IMPFV-SG-CAUS-DIR.UP-IMPFV.POS.REALIS
>I will feed him (=I will cause him to eat the food)
>
>Could this evolve into an animate instrumental -neki (-meki)? The
>dative-benefactive -tu and dative-allative -su already exhibit that split
>between animate and inanimate. The various locative postpositions - emsum,
>emkim, emtu - could coalesce with the preceding -ne to form elative -nemsum,
>inessive -nemkim, and illative -nemtu, contrasting with ablative -sum,
>locative -kem, and allative -su.
Makes eminent sense to me.
>I've already been thinking of adding an infix -(e)mtu- 'into'
really an infix, or just a suffix in one of several suffix slots?
>to change the intransitive sentence 'um siline emtu ituputuna' 'The man went
>into the house' into the transitive sentence 'um sili itupumtuna' but the
>possibility of expanding the case system seems more organic, especially since
>I'm not sure how far I can expand the directional slot - it and the
>applicative slot before it are the only open categories,
I agree regarding what seems natural, but I don't understand what the contrast
between open and closed inflectional categories are.
R: This is a summary of my current writing on verbal composition on FrathWiki:
http://www.frathwiki.com/Siye#Verb_and_Participle_Structure
Position 1 and 2 are the person prefixes – the categories here are set.
Position 3 is the root. Position 4 is the grammatical number. That category
too, is closed. Position 5 is the causative suffix. This grammaticalized so
quickly that everything else ended in Position 6, the derivatives (which I
called applicatives above, but that isn't a terribly accurate name either).
Positions 8& 9 combine aspect (imperfective and perfective), polarity (positive
and negative) and mode (realis and irrealis). Position 10 is a relational
(relatives, interrogatives, etc.).
Position 6 includes inceptive, durative, terminative, volitive, positive and
negative imperative, and abilitive suffixes, as well as a marker to convert
aspect into tense and possibly an iterative. This category is open because I
keep thinking of new things in this slot. But – and this is important – you can
have only one at a time.
Position 7 includes the five directionals (-ki is odd, but useful). This is an
open category because it is possible to move in more than five directions. The
three new directionals would increase this to eight directionals, The new
three, however, as I currently understand it, behave halfway between
applicatives and directionals. I'm not sure why I feel that the allative
directional -su should have no effect on transitivity, but an illative
directional -emtu should make it transitive. A sense of completion, perhaps?
That just feels right for some reason, so any a posteriori justification would
be appreciated.
I should clarify here (and later on the wiki) that the difference between a
locative case suffix like -sum and its equivalent Position 7 directional suffix
-su is that the directional is focused on the subject of the verb, while the
case suffix is syntactically determined.
>and I'm reluctant to kitchen-sink either category rather than allowing organic
>growth. If all the above were the case, -ne, the genitive suffix, (or maybe
>the possessive suffix -me) has become -ne- (-me-?), the base for forming
>oblique stems.
Alex
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Grammatical complexity
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Sat May 25, 2013 3:17 pm ((PDT))
Sorry about that. I wanted to what this sort of morphology could do,
and I think I got a bit carried away. Not really the best way to
introduce a language I don't fully understand as yet.
Adam
On 5/25/13, Randy Frueh <cthefox...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The sentence reminds me of the statements given in a logic puzzle.
> Convoluted, with loads of information content presented.
> On May 24, 2013 9:00 AM, "Adam Walker" <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > --- On Thu, 5/23/13, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Okay here is an example of the sort of case marking -.m thinking of:
>> >
>> > Tom-ag bet John-da hat-or father-gen money-pa Flicka-the race-tem.
>> >
>> > Tom bet John, who wears the hat, father's money on Flicka during the
>> race.
>> > ======================================
>> >
>> > This isn't clear at all to me.......It seems to mean: Tom made a bet
>> > with
>> > John concerning Flicka in the race. The bet was made with (somebody's)
>> > father's money.
>> >
>> > Whose father's money-- Tom's or John's?
>> > How is "who wears the hat" relevant to anything? and where would it go
>> > in
>> > my interpretation?
>> > =======================================
>> >
>> >
>> Well, race is marked with temproal case so it's during the, or at the
>> time
>> of the race. The sentence is a bit of a jumble since I was trying to fit
>> as many grammatical relationships into one sentence as possible to supply
>> George with his requested examples. I don't know that it's terribly
>> relevant whose father it is, but it could just as well be the speaker's
>> father. Context would be required as it would be in English. The hat
>> bit
>> is in there to give an example of the ornative case in use, which was the
>> case that got this whole thread started in the first place, so while it's
>> probably the oddest bit in there, it was the most important to my
>> purposes.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: A reinterpretation of the Tatari Faran case system
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
Date: Sat May 25, 2013 4:02 pm ((PDT))
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:33:38PM -0400, Alex Fink wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:04:39 -0700, H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> >Tatari Faran's case system exhibits some peculiarities, as shown by the
> >following examples (in order to avoid interpretational bias, I will call
> >the 3 core cases CASE1, CASE2, CASE3, instead of the usual labels):
> >
> >1) Adjectival predicate:
> > huu sa himas tutu.
> > 1SG CASE2:MASC tall FIN
> > I am tall.
> >
> >2) Intransitive(?) verb:
> > huu sa duum imim.
> > 1SG CASE2:MASC sleep FIN
> > I sleep.
> >
> >3) A different kind of intransitive verb?
> > huu ka mimbai kakat
> > 1SG CASE1:MASC dream FIN
> > I dream.
> >
> >4) Transitive(?) verb:
> > huu ka juerat tara' nei itu.
> > 1SG CASE1:MASC look 3SG CASE3:FEM FIN
> > I look at her.
> >
> >5) Another kind of transitive verb?
> > huu na hamra tara' kei aram.
> > 1SG CASE3:MASC see 3SG CASE1:FEM FIN
> > I see her.
> >
> >6) Ditransitive verb:
> > huu ka kira karen so tara' nei esan.
> > 1SG CASE1:MASC give shoe CASE2:NEUT 3SG CASE3:FEM FIN
> > I give the shoe(s) to her.
> >
> >7) Verb of motion:
> > huu sa tapa buara ka buta' nei bata.
> > 1SG CASE2:MASC walk volcano CASE1:MASC hut CASE3:FEM FIN
> > I walk from the volcano to the hut.
> >
> [...]
> >I have no idea what category this system falls under (AFAICT, it
> >doesn't fit an ergative/absolutive or active-stative system, and
> >definitely doesn't fit an accusative system -- ideas, anyone?).
>
> No, I don't think it's any of the usual nat-systems. All of those
> have the property that the normal core case(s) in intransitives is /
> are among the normal core cases used in transitives, but at least
> numerically, your data here suggest that "normal" intransitives get
> case 2 while "normal" transitives get cases 1 and 3. If anything,
> this reminds of the monster raving loony system in having a special
> intransitive case!
Hmm. I'm not sure whether TF even distinguishes cases on the basis of
transitivity. Here's more data:
8a) huu na tsuni san pikas sa ira.
1SG CASE3:MASC find person five CASE2:MASC FIN
I found five men. (Five men were found by me?)
8b) san pikas sa tsuni ira.
person five CASE2:MASC find FIN
Five men were found. (Idiom for "there were five men".)
9a) huu na hamra nian kei aram.
1SG CASE3:MASC see ghost CASE1:FEM FIN
I see a ghost.
9b) huu na hamra nian kei samat sa aram.
1SG CASE3:MASC see ghost CASE1:FEM man CASE2:MASC FIN
I see a ghost [appearing] as a man.
9c) nian kei hamra samat sa aram.
ghost CASE1:FEM see man CASE2:MASC FIN
The ghost is seen as a man. (The ghost appears to be a man?)
On the basis of (9b) and (9c), I'm wondering if _hamra_ should be
glossed as "appear" rather than "see", and (9a) should be translated as
"To me appears a ghost" rather than "I see a ghost"!
> Trying to drive a line of inquiry like this further: it is not unknown
> for experiencer verbs like (5) to behave differently from agentive
> transitives. So taking (4) and (6) as a foundation, one might call TF
> underlyingly a dechticaetiative i.e. secundative language with case 1
> = agent, case 3 = primary object, case 2 = secondary object.
Makes sense, I guess. Here's an example to support this analysis:
10) kiran ka beta' huu na kutsi sa patsa
young_man CASE1:MASC hit 1SG CASE3:MASC leg CASE2:MASC FIN
The young man hits me with [his] leg. (I.e., kicked me).
> Experiencers appear not in case 1 but case 3, and the erstwhile
> stimulus gets promoted to case 1; this suggests that case 1 has
> something of the status of a subject, in that when the experiencer
> which "should have" been the subject is assigned a different case,
> something else steps up to take the subject position.
But how would this account for (6c)?
6c) tara' nei kira karen so esan.
3SG CASE3:FEM give shoe CASE2:NEUT FIN
To her were given shoe(s).
Or perhaps one may say that the subject here is simply elided?
> With this framing, (3) is an intransitive of the expected sort, in
> having a subject. (1) and (2), taking case 2 instead, perhaps should
> be seen as exceptional on account of being statives, and case 2 as a
> case one of whose primary functions is stativity i.e. undergoing no
> state change: I guess this is compatible with dechticaetiativity if
> recipients are seen as undergoing a patientlike change of state (now
> they have something they didn't before) whereas themes are seen as
> having nothing happen to them.
Interesting. How about this example then:
11) samat ka akatai bo' so buta' nei ite'.
man CASE1:MASC assemble log CASE2:NEUT hut CASE3:FEM FIN
The man assembles the logs into a hut.
> Important question of analysis to ask at this point: why do you say
> (1) contains an "adjective" while (2) and (3) contain "verbs"? Where
> in the morphology or syntax does _himas_ pattern one way and _duum_,
> _mimbai_ the other? (The glosses are not evidence; you could e.g.
> have glossed (2) "be asleep".)
Very good question! :) In fact, I've been wondering whether or not TF
adjectives are really stative verbs, because they behave almost exactly
like verbs. Like verbs, they are paired with a finalizer, and
attributive statements (<noun> is <adj>) have the same form as a typical
intransitive verbal clause (e.g. (2)), having the formula <NP>
<ADJ/VERB> <FIN>.
The one place where they show some distinction is that an adjective may
appear in modifier position in an NP as-is:
12) san himas sa tapa bata.
person tall CASE2:MASC walk FIN
The tall man is walking. (Note: I translated _san_ as "man"
because the case particle _sa_ indicates masculine gender.)
Whereas a verb would require some derivational morphology:
13) san iruum sa tapa bata.
san i-duum sa tapa bata.
person CASE2-sleep CASE2:MASC walk FIN
The sleeping man is walking. (Sleep-walking?)
I'm not 100% sure, though, that native speakers wouldn't simply
transplant the verb in the NP without the i- prefix, though, because
syntax-wise, it is unambiguous! After all, the verb _duum_ in _san duum
sa_ cannot be mistaken for a main verb, which would require the form
_san sa duum_.
The one case where derivational morphology is required is when we turn
(3) into a relative clause:
14) san mimbaikan sa tapa bata.
san mimbai-kan sa tapa bata.
person dream-CASE1 CASE2:MASC walk FIN
The dreaming man is walking.
Nevertheless, one could argue that in the case of the so-called
"adjectives", the CASE2 suffix is merely zero, so (12) could be
reanalysed thus:
12b) san himas sa tapa bata.
san himas-0 sa tapa bata.
person tall-CASE2 CASE2:MASC walk FIN
The tall man is walking.
> Are there intransitives that get only case 3? Honestly "dream" seems
> like the epitome of an intransitive experiencer verb, to me, and
> intransitive experiencer verbs would be prime candidates for case 3 on
> this analysis. So it could just be that the TF speakers think of
> dreaming as particularly active;
I think that is probably the most likely explanation. They think of
dreaming as projecting one's imagination into the dream-world.
I had some trouble finding an intransitive verb that takes case 3, but I
did finally find one:
15) huu na kibas ham.
1SG CASE3:MASC breathe FIN
I breathe in (inhale).
Though I'm not sure what to make of this one, as it also takes case 1,
with a slight change in meaning:
16) huu ka kibas ham.
1SG CASE1:MASC breathe FIN
I breathe out (exhale).
But perhaps _kibas_ is just an exceptional verb to begin with, since
it's also used with case 2 in an idiomatic sense for statements of
existence:
17) huu sa kibas ham.
1SG CASE2:MASC breathe FIN
I exist. (Lit. I am breathing.)
> or it could be a syntactic constraint against lacking a case-1 subject
> in non-stative verbs (where _himas_ and _duum_ are the stative verbs
> in your list, and all statives are intransitive); or ...
>
> (7) is difficult on this reading, at any rate; it should want to mean
> ~="the volcano sends the hut me"; it's as if for verbs of motion, all
> of a sudden, the goer loses their empathisability to the origin and
> destination, i.e. the fact that the hut is gaining me is more
> important than anything I might be feeling. Particularly strange in
> contrast with (6).
Yeah, (7) kinda defies explanation under your analysis.
The only way I can think of to adequately explain TF's case system is
that the primary component of a clause is really the verb, and not any
subject. In the traditional natlang model, you always have a subject (or
topic or whatever), some noun that you're talking about, or something
around which some action is happening, or something we're trying to
describe, etc.. It's as though we first ask "what are we talking
about?", and the answer is some noun X. Then we ask "what about X?", and
the answer is either some verbal clause "X is doing action Y" or some
description "X is red".
In TF, however, it seems that the clause is really about the verb
itself: instead of asking "what are we talking about?", we're asking
"what's happening here?". The answer perhaps may be "some walking is
happening". Then we ask "who are the participants, and how are they
participating in the action?" The answer then may be "X is the origin of
the walking, Y is the walker, Z is the destination of the walking".
Similarly, with a verb like give, we ask "what's happening here?" -- "A
giving is happening." "Who are the participants?" -- "X is the source of
the gift, Y is the gift, Z is the recipient of the gift".
By this analysis, we could say that adjectives are really stative verbs:
"what's happening?" -- "reddening is happening." "Who are the
participants of reddening?" -- "X is the thing being red."
> >Suppose proto-TF's demonstratives came in 3 varieties (each inflected
> >for gender, masc/fem/neut):
> >
> > ka/kei/ko: from that
> > sa/sei/so: that
> > na/nei/no: to that
> >
> >The sa/sei/so triplet is the bare demonstrative, whereas the other
> >two are demonstratives with a directional component encoded.
>
> On the whole, your explanation looks cogent (the conjunctive form
> especially), but I have a nitpick: it is strange to speak of a
> one-term demonstrative system. A system of demonstratives usually
> encodes a deictic contrast; if not, it'd be more normal to call them
> articles instead already.
True! Maybe I should just call them articles to begin with. :) I just
thought it was a bit odd for an article to encode directionality -- it
seems more typical for a demonstrative to do so. But hey, maybe there's
an anadewism somewhere in here...
> Of course, these words could certainly have been the old "that" member
> of a pair of demonstratives with a deictic contrast, whose "this"
> member died with (or was continued in?) the rise of whatever moder TF
> system _tara'_ and its kind are a part of.
I like this analysis. Let's take stock of modern TF's demonstratives:
tara' - animate singular, also doubles as 3SG animate pronoun
diin - animate plural, also doubles as 3PL animate pronoun
fei - inanimate distal demonstrative "that", also doubles as
3SG inanimate pronoun (no number distinction)
mei - inanimate proximal demonstrative "this". Can also be
used as a pronoun.
Given that _tara'_ and _diin_ have no deictic contrast, whereas _fei_
and _mei_ do, perhaps they are the remaining member of the original
pairs with what are today the case clitics? Though in retrospect,
perhaps they are better termed articles! Is it strange for pronouns to
double as articles (or vice versa)?
> In unrelated TFery, I know there's at least one thread I've yet to
> respond to you on, but one of the things I meant to ask for there was
> the distribution of /o/ in words, to see how well it could be
> explained as of secondary origin, as it seems to want to be. (I'm
> still keen on my idea that /ko so no/ were in fact /kau sau nau/ (vel
> sim) in pre-TF, with allomorphs /ko so no/ in the same positions that
> /kei sei nei/ had /ki si ni/, but then in the neuter the reduced
> allomorphs generalised. At any rate, reductions like that may explain
> some /o/, but they're not likely to yield the present situation
> without some more regular source of /o/.)
[...]
Alright, let's take a look at words containing /o/:
ako' n. chicken
aneho masc. n. common name
bo' neut. n. wood, log
bo'an fin. to be wooden
boha v. to bark
domatai neut. n. cart, carriage
ho' neut. n. vomit, refuse
ho'an masc. n. horror, nausea, gore
ho'as adj. horrific, nauseating
hora masc. n. cave, tunnel
iko' fem. n. egg
ito' fin. to become solid
jo' adj. blunt, dull / clumsy
karo'a v. to erupt copious amounts of lava
kero' adj. crooked, warped, twisted
ko neut. case1 marker
koko fin. to act foolishly
kora fin. overflowingly
koro fin. to croak
koronta neut. n. frog, toad
mopan adj. ugly, shabby
mopanai neut. n. ugliness
neho masc. n. short form of _aneho_
neko' n. knee.
no neut. case3 marker
oha fin. in amazement, in awe
oha' masc. n. head
oho' fin. to be horrified, nauseated
ona' v. to open
orafa v. to declare, to roar
oroka v. to croak, to gargle
po'at adj. bitter
po'itai v. to heal
pojei v. to promise, to persuade
poma'an neut. n. medicine, concoction
poriaba fem. n. ointment
poribai v. to anoint
poron neut. n. coin, money
so neut. case2 marker
sohaa fin. to be consumed
somata v. to give birth / to be born, to lay eggs
taneko' v. to kneel
toto fin. to be nosey, to poke around
tso' adj. wet, drenched.
Considering that the TF lexicon currently stands at 1187 entries (1074
proper words), this is a rather short list for /o/ (only 42 words out of
1074).
A number of the above words appear adjacent to the glottal stop /'/. I
wonder if some of these occurrences could be explained as a reduction of
/au'/ to /o'/? Currently, the only word that contains /au'/ is _au'au_,
where it can be argued that the /'/ is the onset of the second syllable,
whereas the reduction only applied to syllables with a glottal stop
coda. Syllables with glottal stop codas do tend to be perceived as being
short in length, after all.
Another possible explanation is that /o/ is a remnant of an ancient
pharyngeal consonant, or maybe an uvular stop /q/. Perhaps there was a
sound change /auq/ > /o/, and elsewhere /q/ disappeared without a trace
or merged with /'/. This change would be quite rare if /auq/ was a rare
sequence in proto-TF, thus explaining the low frequency of /o/ in modern
TF.
Maybe there's also an uvular fricative /X/, and /auX/ > /oh/, so we'd
have _oha'_ < *_auXa'_, but final *_auX_ simply became _o_ because of
the phonological constraint that /h/ cannot be final (but this is hard
to reconcile with /o/ being a short vowel). This may also account for
_neho_ < _neXau_, if we also admit the sound change /Xau/ > /ho/. But
at this point it may be stretching credulity to have both /q/ and /X/ in
proto-TF yet so few /o/'s in modern TF. Hmm.
T
--
Lawyer: (n.) An innocence-vending machine, the effectiveness of which
depends on how much money is inserted.
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. OT: Grant writing??
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Sat May 25, 2013 5:49 pm ((PDT))
Are any of you familiar with the ins and outs of putting together a grant
proposal? A recent acquaintance wants to apply to NIH for grant of some sort
and would appreciate any help.
Reply privately, please. It's a rather delicate topic.........
Roger Mills
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: OT: Grant writing??
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Sun May 26, 2013 4:40 am ((PDT))
NIH probably has a document somewhere spelling out their guidelines. That
would be a good place to start.
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Are any of you familiar with the ins and outs of putting together a grant
> proposal? A recent acquaintance wants to apply to NIH for grant of some
> sort and would appreciate any help.
>
> Reply privately, please. It's a rather delicate topic.........
>
> Roger Mills
>
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun May 26, 2013 6:06 am ((PDT))
--- On Wed, 5/22/13, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Where did he have different spellings?
His original list contained eight different renderings of the same word:
sanółtęvi; sanółt ë vi; sanółt ə vi; sanółt ɘ vi; sanółt ε vi; sanółt ɜ vi;
sanółt э vi; sanółt є vi
They all involve different possible spellings for the third vowel.
I just downloaded the demo of Jaws to hear what you're hearing. I got a
lot of "misspelled" errors in that list. When it spoke the pertinent
vowels at all, they all sounded equally murky to me. It doesn't just
read what it sees, but it tries to interpret what it sees in terms of
English.
That is a potential problem for anyone, such as yourself, trying to read
non-English words in a message like this.
> It read the message fine.
To be honest, if you were unable to even realise that there were
differences, and having just listened to the list read by Jaws I can
commiserate, I think it's handling the message in a way other than how the
writer intended!
I will say this: if I had to listen to that synthesised voice for more
than about twelve and a half minutes, I think it would drive me absolutely
bonkers and I'd probably end up throwing the whole computer right out
the window.
In the short time I interacted with the system, I think I spent more time
listening to irrelevant header information than I did to listening to the
message itself. Clearly, the highly visual online world does not translate
well for anyone using a screen reader of this sort!
Padraic
> They just updated the screen reader. Why do you ask?
>
> Mellissa Green
>
>
> @GreenNovelist
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu]
> On Behalf Of Adam Walker
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:23 PM
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> Subject: Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
>
> What does your screen reader do with Chralie's different
> spellings since
> they are just different letters to spell exactly the same
> word?
>
> Adam
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Nicole Valicia
> Thompson-Andrews <
> goldyemo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > What's 8? I like 1 through 4.
> >
> > Mellissa Green
> >
> >
> > @GreenNovelist
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu]
> On
> > Behalf Of C. Brickner
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:08 PM
> > To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> > Subject: Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
> >
> > Thanks. I apologize to all for the large
> gaps. It didn't look that way
> > when I typed it!
> > Charlie
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > I think I like 2, 5 and 8 best. Of course you are
> the one who has to live
> > with the choice you make (until you change your
> mind!!), but any of them
> > could work. I don't think any of them would be
> particularly difficult in
> > cursive. Cyrilic cursive gets by with a whole
> bunch of letters that face
> > the "wrong" way.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM, C. Brickner <tepeyach...@embarqmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > I don’t think I’ll ever be satisfied with the
> orthography for Senejcas!
> > > I’m trying to work with seven criteria:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. It can be written in cursive.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2. No diacritics.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3. No digraphs.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 4. Latin letters.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 5. Composed characters for ease in replacing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 6. Some semblance of correspondence between the
> grapheme and some phoneme
> > > somewhere.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 7. My own esthetic sense.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Obviously, there has to be some give and
> take. My current problem is
> > how
> > > to represent what are known in Senjecas as “weak
> vowels”: I/ɪ; ə/@; and
> > > ʊ/U.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My first plan was to use ï,
> ë, and ü. As I am using
> single and double
> > > acute accents to indicate tone, the diareses added
> more clutter above the
> > > letters, not to mention the occasional turned
> comma above to indicate
> > > palatalization and caron to indicate
> labialization.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Then I went to symbols without diacritics: ı, ə,
> and y. I really like
> > > <ı>, but I don’t care
> for <y> for that sound.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Currently I am using the three vowels with an
> ogonek: į, ę ,ų. Not bad,
> > > but there are diacritics. At
> least they’re below the letters.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The other day I was reading her translation of the
> Babel story and I
> > > noticed that Ms. Sotomayor had used several IPA
> symbols in her
> > orthography.
> > > It didn’t look bad at
> all! If a conlanger of her caliber could
> do
> > it, I
> > > figured I could use non-Latin letters also.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Therefore, I can return to the use of the
> <ı>.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have thought of two possibilities for
> ʊ/U. I like the idea of the
> > > turned m <ɯ>. In cursive,
> the <i> would have one point, the <u> two
> > > points, and the <ɯ> three
> points. Another possibility is v with hook
> > <ʋ>.
> > > However, how is it written in
> cursive? Maybe with some mark above it
> > as
> > > is done in cursive Fraktur to distinguish
> <u> from <n>.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am having the most difficulty with the schwa.
> Here are some
> > > possibilities using the adverb ‘sanółtęvi’,
> tonight.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. sanółtęvi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2. sanółt ë vi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3. sanółt ə vi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 4. sanółt ɘ vi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 5. sanółt ε vi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 6. sanółt ɜ vi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 7. sanółt э vi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 8. sanółt є vi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #s 1 and 2 are eliminated because of the
> diacritics. #3 is a
> > > possibility; it is used in some natlangs
> . #4 is not pleasing
> > > esthetically. I see #5 as being
> easy to write in cursive, #6 not so
> > much.
> > > I am leaning toward
> #8. It’s not unattractive and it can be
> written
> > in
> > > cursive like #5. Influenced by the numeral
> 3, I suppose, I see #7 as
> > > backward.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Opinions, suggestions, comments, etc., welcomed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Charlie
> > >
> >
>
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
Posted by: "C. Brickner" tepeyach...@embarqmail.com
Date: Sun May 26, 2013 6:31 am ((PDT))
For those who are interested, I've made a decision (I wonder how long it will
last!).
є = ə/@
ı = ɪ/I, and
ʋ = ʊ/U.
They are pleasing to my eye.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. Screen Reader Semantics, was: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" goldyemo...@gmail.com
Date: Sun May 26, 2013 10:26 am ((PDT))
Now they do have more human-sounding voices, and now I don't like that default
synthesizer. Yes, it pronounced the words all he same.
Too bad they don't have a way for screen readers like Jaws somehow tell what
writers mean in messages.
I guess it could also depend on the person's wordage. That could also mislead a
message listener.
Yes, Jaws can give too much information. I'm on a Jaws list, and someone just
recently posted some issue about Jaws and too much verbage in Microsoft word. I
don't have that rouble in word. If I had an issue where Jaws could have been
possibly given me too much information, it may have been a website. Sometimes I
wish I could have Jaws only read say the submission guidelines if that's the
page I've boomkmarked, as I don't need the othe things such as home.
Apparently, a new Jaws is coming out, as they've just posted some webinars,
which I've signed up for, the webinars will discuss new features.
Speaking of webinars, I think their should be conlang webinars.
Mellissa Green
@GreenNovelist
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf
Of Padraic Brown
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:06 AM
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Subject: Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
--- On Wed, 5/22/13, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Where did he have different spellings?
His original list contained eight different renderings of the same word:
sanółtęvi; sanółt ë vi; sanółt ə vi; sanółt ɘ vi; sanółt ε vi; sanółt ɜ vi;
sanółt э vi; sanółt є vi
They all involve different possible spellings for the third vowel.
I just downloaded the demo of Jaws to hear what you're hearing. I got a
lot of "misspelled" errors in that list. When it spoke the pertinent
vowels at all, they all sounded equally murky to me. It doesn't just
read what it sees, but it tries to interpret what it sees in terms of
English.
That is a potential problem for anyone, such as yourself, trying to read
non-English words in a message like this.
> It read the message fine.
To be honest, if you were unable to even realise that there were
differences, and having just listened to the list read by Jaws I can
commiserate, I think it's handling the message in a way other than how the
writer intended!
I will say this: if I had to listen to that synthesised voice for more
than about twelve and a half minutes, I think it would drive me absolutely
bonkers and I'd probably end up throwing the whole computer right out
the window.
In the short time I interacted with the system, I think I spent more time
listening to irrelevant header information than I did to listening to the
message itself. Clearly, the highly visual online world does not translate
well for anyone using a screen reader of this sort!
Padraic
> They just updated the screen reader. Why do you ask?
>
> Mellissa Green
>
>
> @GreenNovelist
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu]
> On Behalf Of Adam Walker
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:23 PM
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> Subject: Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
>
> What does your screen reader do with Chralie's different
> spellings since
> they are just different letters to spell exactly the same
> word?
>
> Adam
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Nicole Valicia
> Thompson-Andrews <
> goldyemo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > What's 8? I like 1 through 4.
> >
> > Mellissa Green
> >
> >
> > @GreenNovelist
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu]
> On
> > Behalf Of C. Brickner
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:08 PM
> > To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> > Subject: Re: Senjecan orthography: weak vowels.
> >
> > Thanks. I apologize to all for the large
> gaps. It didn't look that way
> > when I typed it!
> > Charlie
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > I think I like 2, 5 and 8 best. Of course you are
> the one who has to live
> > with the choice you make (until you change your
> mind!!), but any of them
> > could work. I don't think any of them would be
> particularly difficult in
> > cursive. Cyrilic cursive gets by with a whole
> bunch of letters that face
> > the "wrong" way.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM, C. Brickner <tepeyach...@embarqmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > I don’t think I’ll ever be satisfied with the
> orthography for Senejcas!
> > > I’m trying to work with seven criteria:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. It can be written in cursive.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2. No diacritics.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3. No digraphs.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 4. Latin letters.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 5. Composed characters for ease in replacing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 6. Some semblance of correspondence between the
> grapheme and some phoneme
> > > somewhere.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 7. My own esthetic sense.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Obviously, there has to be some give and
> take. My current problem is
> > how
> > > to represent what are known in Senjecas as “weak
> vowels”: I/ɪ; ə/@; and
> > > ʊ/U.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My first plan was to use ï,
> ë, and ü. As I am using
> single and double
> > > acute accents to indicate tone, the diareses added
> more clutter above the
> > > letters, not to mention the occasional turned
> comma above to indicate
> > > palatalization and caron to indicate
> labialization.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Then I went to symbols without diacritics: ı, ə,
> and y. I really like
> > > <ı>, but I don’t care
> for <y> for that sound.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Currently I am using the three vowels with an
> ogonek: į, ę ,ų. Not bad,
> > > but there are diacritics. At
> least they’re below the letters.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The other day I was reading her translation of the
> Babel story and I
> > > noticed that Ms. Sotomayor had used several IPA
> symbols in her
> > orthography.
> > > It didn’t look bad at
> all! If a conlanger of her caliber could
> do
> > it, I
> > > figured I could use non-Latin letters also.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Therefore, I can return to the use of the
> <ı>.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have thought of two possibilities for
> ʊ/U. I like the idea of the
> > > turned m <ɯ>. In cursive,
> the <i> would have one point, the <u> two
> > > points, and the <ɯ> three
> points. Another possibility is v with hook
> > <ʋ>.
> > > However, how is it written in
> cursive? Maybe with some mark above it
> > as
> > > is done in cursive Fraktur to distinguish
> <u> from <n>.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am having the most difficulty with the schwa.
> Here are some
> > > possibilities using the adverb ‘sanółtęvi’,
> tonight.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. sanółtęvi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2. sanółt ë vi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3. sanółt ə vi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 4. sanółt ɘ vi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 5. sanółt ε vi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 6. sanółt ɜ vi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 7. sanółt э vi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 8. sanółt є vi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #s 1 and 2 are eliminated because of the
> diacritics. #3 is a
> > > possibility; it is used in some natlangs
> . #4 is not pleasing
> > > esthetically. I see #5 as being
> easy to write in cursive, #6 not so
> > much.
> > > I am leaning toward
> #8. It’s not unattractive and it can be
> written
> > in
> > > cursive like #5. Influenced by the numeral
> 3, I suppose, I see #7 as
> > > backward.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Opinions, suggestions, comments, etc., welcomed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Charlie
> > >
> >
>
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: Suggestions of Linguistically realistic movies
Posted by: "John H. Chalmers" jhchalm...@ucsd.edu
Date: Sun May 26, 2013 10:07 am ((PDT))
Re: The Passion of Christ. IIRC, the population of Palestine at that
time would have spoken Aramaic and Greek, not Latin as in the movie.
High Roman officials such as Pilate would have been bilingual in Greek
and Latin.
--John
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
6b. Re: Suggestions of Linguistically realistic movies
Posted by: "Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones" jeff.rol...@gmail.com
Date: Sun May 26, 2013 10:16 am ((PDT))
It was my understanding (not having seen the film) that the language spoken by
the Jews in the movie *was* Aramaic, or at least a badly-reconstructed version
thereof; arguably, of course, modern Hebrew is a badly-reconstructed version of
the original too - some even go so far as to call it an Indo-European language
with Hebrew lexemes.
Jeff
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 May 2013, at 18:08, "John H. Chalmers" <jhchalm...@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> Re: The Passion of Christ. IIRC, the population of Palestine at that time
> would have spoken Aramaic and Greek, not Latin as in the movie. High Roman
> officials such as Pilate would have been bilingual in Greek and Latin.
>
> --John
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. Re: Suggestions of linguistically realistic movies.
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" leolucas1...@gmail.com
Date: Sun May 26, 2013 11:55 am ((PDT))
Thanks to everyone for the suggestions!
2013/5/24 Dustfinger Batailleur <dustfinge...@gmail.com>:
> The Passion had ecclesiastical Latin instead of Vulgar Latin spoken by the
> Romans, so it's not exactly accurate.
Yes, I had already heard about it and that it was a conscious choice
of Mel Gibson.
>
>
> On 24 May 2013 20:41, Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you have any suggestions of good linguistically realistic movies,
>> that is, movies that portray the languages or dialects as close as
>> possible to the ones used in the time and location of the story?
>>
>> Maybe "The Passion of the Christ" is a good example of what I'm
>> describing, and "Agora" is a good counter-example (with people in
>> Roman Egypt speaking English).
>>
>> Até mais!
>>
>> Leonardo
>>
Messages in this topic (12)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com
conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
