There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Terminology question
From: Adam Walker
1.2. Re: Terminology question
From: Garth Wallace
1.3. Re: Terminology question
From: Matthew Boutilier
1.4. Re: Terminology question
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
1.5. Re: Terminology question
From: Adam Walker
1.6. Re: Terminology question
From: Garth Wallace
1.7. Re: Terminology question
From: Roger Mills
1.8. Re: Terminology question
From: Matthew Boutilier
1.9. Re: Terminology question
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
2.1. Re: Sold here / for sale / on sale / on sale here
From: Jim Henry
2.2. Re: Sold here / for sale / on sale / on sale here
From: BPJ
3a. Re: 5 Awesome Languages (Somebody Made Up)
From: George Marques de Jesus
4.1. Vocalic alternation (was: Is Esperanto Indo-European?)
From: R A Brown
4.2. Re: Vocalic alternation (was: Is Esperanto Indo-European?)
From: Padraic Brown
5a. Re: [THEORY] Language preservation and people agglomeration.
From: Padraic Brown
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Terminology question
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 1:50 pm ((PDT))
Someone on another forum suggested calling the slot anaphora, which I
usually think of in terms of pronouns. but then this affix is doing
something that English handles with pronouns, so that may be the only
reason why I think that. Comitative, hmmm, that's used to name a noun case
in several languages, and while I don't *think* Gravgaln is going to have
that case, it hasn't been ruled out as yet, so I'm not sure whether it
would work language-internally or not, but it's pretty sure to cause at
least some confusion cross-linguistically. But then confusion seems to be
as much a point of grammatical terminology (case names, etc.) as does the
impartation of information. So I guess I could follow tradition and do
whatever I please. :)
Adam
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Matthew Boutilier
<bvticvlar...@gmail.com>wrote:
> all i can think of is *comitative*, which suggests 'going (or, maybe even
> enduring/doing something) together.'
>
> matt
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have an affix slot on my verbs in Gravgaln which can be filled with one
> > of three affixes, -qgaś (reciprocal), -khezh (reflexive), and -zem
> > (together).
> >
> > dd'ugqgaś = to hit each other
> >
> > dd'ugkhezh = to hit oneself
> >
> > dd'ugzem = to both (or all) hit (something) (simultaneously?)
> >
> > I can't think what to label this slot so as to conveniently talk about it
> > in the grammar. *Is* there a term that lumps these three ideas?
> >
> > Adam who is slowly building this language...
> >
>
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: Terminology question
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" gwa...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:04 pm ((PDT))
Not connative, comitative.
But "comitative" usually refers to a noun case that expresses
accompaniment, corresponding to the English word "with" in e.g. "I
went running with my dog" (but not in "I hit the nail with a hammer",
which would be the instrumental case). This seems to be about a subset
of verb voice though, so that isn't really applicable; reflexives and
reciprocals don't have much to do with accompaniment.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
<goldyemo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's what I'm figured. Connative sonds good to me.
>
> Mellissa Green
>
>
> @GreenNovelist
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On
> Behalf Of Matthew Boutilier
> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 12:33 PM
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> Subject: Re: Terminology question
>
> all i can think of is *comitative*, which suggests 'going (or, maybe even
> enduring/doing something) together.'
>
> matt
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have an affix slot on my verbs in Gravgaln which can be filled with one
>> of three affixes, -qgaś (reciprocal), -khezh (reflexive), and -zem
>> (together).
>>
>> dd'ugqgaś = to hit each other
>>
>> dd'ugkhezh = to hit oneself
>>
>> dd'ugzem = to both (or all) hit (something) (simultaneously?)
>>
>> I can't think what to label this slot so as to conveniently talk about it
>> in the grammar. *Is* there a term that lumps these three ideas?
>>
>> Adam who is slowly building this language...
>>
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: Terminology question
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" bvticvlar...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:17 pm ((PDT))
yeah, i was thinking the same thing. but i could not come up with another
nice greco-latinate grammar word.
what about *cohortative*?
because the subjects are acting as a single entity on something else.
now, i know that's generally a *mood* (i only know it from Hebrew grammars
as "Imma do X / let's do X") but, to hell with convention.
matt
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Garth Wallace <gwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not connative, comitative.
>
> But "comitative" usually refers to a noun case that expresses
> accompaniment, corresponding to the English word "with" in e.g. "I
> went running with my dog" (but not in "I hit the nail with a hammer",
> which would be the instrumental case). This seems to be about a subset
> of verb voice though, so that isn't really applicable; reflexives and
> reciprocals don't have much to do with accompaniment.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
> <goldyemo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's what I'm figured. Connative sonds good to me.
> >
> > Mellissa Green
> >
> >
> > @GreenNovelist
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On
> Behalf Of Matthew Boutilier
> > Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 12:33 PM
> > To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> > Subject: Re: Terminology question
> >
> > all i can think of is *comitative*, which suggests 'going (or, maybe even
> > enduring/doing something) together.'
> >
> > matt
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I have an affix slot on my verbs in Gravgaln which can be filled with
> one
> >> of three affixes, -qgaś (reciprocal), -khezh (reflexive), and -zem
> >> (together).
> >>
> >> dd'ugqgaś = to hit each other
> >>
> >> dd'ugkhezh = to hit oneself
> >>
> >> dd'ugzem = to both (or all) hit (something) (simultaneously?)
> >>
> >> I can't think what to label this slot so as to conveniently talk about
> it
> >> in the grammar. *Is* there a term that lumps these three ideas?
> >>
> >> Adam who is slowly building this language...
> >>
>
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
1.4. Re: Terminology question
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" goldyemo...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:18 pm ((PDT))
Sorry, I misheard. I do wear hearing aids too.
Mellissa Green
@GreenNovelist
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf
Of Garth Wallace
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 6:05 PM
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Subject: Re: Terminology question
Not connative, comitative.
But "comitative" usually refers to a noun case that expresses
accompaniment, corresponding to the English word "with" in e.g. "I
went running with my dog" (but not in "I hit the nail with a hammer",
which would be the instrumental case). This seems to be about a subset
of verb voice though, so that isn't really applicable; reflexives and
reciprocals don't have much to do with accompaniment.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
<goldyemo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's what I'm figured. Connative sonds good to me.
>
> Mellissa Green
>
>
> @GreenNovelist
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On
> Behalf Of Matthew Boutilier
> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 12:33 PM
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> Subject: Re: Terminology question
>
> all i can think of is *comitative*, which suggests 'going (or, maybe even
> enduring/doing something) together.'
>
> matt
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have an affix slot on my verbs in Gravgaln which can be filled with one
>> of three affixes, -qgaś (reciprocal), -khezh (reflexive), and -zem
>> (together).
>>
>> dd'ugqgaś = to hit each other
>>
>> dd'ugkhezh = to hit oneself
>>
>> dd'ugzem = to both (or all) hit (something) (simultaneously?)
>>
>> I can't think what to label this slot so as to conveniently talk about it
>> in the grammar. *Is* there a term that lumps these three ideas?
>>
>> Adam who is slowly building this language...
>>
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
1.5. Re: Terminology question
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:35 pm ((PDT))
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Garth Wallace <gwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Matthew Boutilier
> <bvticvlar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > yeah, i was thinking the same thing. but i could not come up with another
> > nice greco-latinate grammar word.
> >
> > what about *cohortative*?
> >
> > because the subjects are acting as a single entity on something else.
>
> I think Adam was talking about a name for the slot that can be filled
> by a reflexive, reciprocal, or "together" affix, not a name for the
> "together" affix specifically. At least, that's how I read his
> message.
>
That's correct, Garth. that's exactly what I'm looking for. I don't know
if I'll find anything or not. I'm just asking.
Adam
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
1.6. Re: Terminology question
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" gwa...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:35 pm ((PDT))
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Matthew Boutilier
<bvticvlar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yeah, i was thinking the same thing. but i could not come up with another
> nice greco-latinate grammar word.
>
> what about *cohortative*?
>
> because the subjects are acting as a single entity on something else.
I think Adam was talking about a name for the slot that can be filled
by a reflexive, reciprocal, or "together" affix, not a name for the
"together" affix specifically. At least, that's how I read his
message.
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
1.7. Re: Terminology question
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:36 pm ((PDT))
How about "participatory"? (But I can't make an '-ative' form out of it...)
--- On Fri, 6/7/13, Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlar...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlar...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Terminology question
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Date: Friday, June 7, 2013, 6:17 PM
yeah, i was thinking the same thing. but i could not come up with another
nice greco-latinate grammar word.
what about *cohortative*?
because the subjects are acting as a single entity on something else.
now, i know that's generally a *mood* (i only know it from Hebrew grammars
as "Imma do X / let's do X") but, to hell with convention.
matt
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Garth Wallace <gwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not connative, comitative.
>
> But "comitative" usually refers to a noun case that expresses
> accompaniment, corresponding to the English word "with" in e.g. "I
> went running with my dog" (but not in "I hit the nail with a hammer",
> which would be the instrumental case). This seems to be about a subset
> of verb voice though, so that isn't really applicable; reflexives and
> reciprocals don't have much to do with accompaniment.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
> <goldyemo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's what I'm figured. Connative sonds good to me.
> >
> > Mellissa Green
> >
> >
> > @GreenNovelist
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On
> Behalf Of Matthew Boutilier
> > Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 12:33 PM
> > To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> > Subject: Re: Terminology question
> >
> > all i can think of is *comitative*, which suggests 'going (or, maybe even
> > enduring/doing something) together.'
> >
> > matt
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I have an affix slot on my verbs in Gravgaln which can be filled with
> one
> >> of three affixes, -qgaś (reciprocal), -khezh (reflexive), and -zem
> >> (together).
> >>
> >> dd'ugqgaś = to hit each other
> >>
> >> dd'ugkhezh = to hit oneself
> >>
> >> dd'ugzem = to both (or all) hit (something) (simultaneously?)
> >>
> >> I can't think what to label this slot so as to conveniently talk about
> it
> >> in the grammar. *Is* there a term that lumps these three ideas?
> >>
> >> Adam who is slowly building this language...
> >>
>
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
1.8. Re: Terminology question
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" bvticvlar...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:37 pm ((PDT))
OOOOH. that makes a lot more sense!! i blame my natural inclination for
terminologico-etymological symmetry in wanting to replace 'together.'
'reference'? 'direction'? 'directionality'?
matt
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Garth Wallace <gwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Matthew Boutilier
> <bvticvlar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > yeah, i was thinking the same thing. but i could not come up with another
> > nice greco-latinate grammar word.
> >
> > what about *cohortative*?
> >
> > because the subjects are acting as a single entity on something else.
>
> I think Adam was talking about a name for the slot that can be filled
> by a reflexive, reciprocal, or "together" affix, not a name for the
> "together" affix specifically. At least, that's how I read his
> message.
>
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
1.9. Re: Terminology question
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" goldyemo...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:46 pm ((PDT))
Ir maybe participative?
It sounds like you're looking for a adjective that describes what these three
are.
Mellissa Green
@GreenNovelist
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf
Of Roger Mills
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 6:37 PM
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Subject: Re: Terminology question
How about "participatory"? (But I can't make an '-ative' form out of it...)
--- On Fri, 6/7/13, Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlar...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlar...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Terminology question
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Date: Friday, June 7, 2013, 6:17 PM
yeah, i was thinking the same thing. but i could not come up with another
nice greco-latinate grammar word.
what about *cohortative*?
because the subjects are acting as a single entity on something else.
now, i know that's generally a *mood* (i only know it from Hebrew grammars
as "Imma do X / let's do X") but, to hell with convention.
matt
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Garth Wallace <gwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not connative, comitative.
>
> But "comitative" usually refers to a noun case that expresses
> accompaniment, corresponding to the English word "with" in e.g. "I
> went running with my dog" (but not in "I hit the nail with a hammer",
> which would be the instrumental case). This seems to be about a subset
> of verb voice though, so that isn't really applicable; reflexives and
> reciprocals don't have much to do with accompaniment.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
> <goldyemo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's what I'm figured. Connative sonds good to me.
> >
> > Mellissa Green
> >
> >
> > @GreenNovelist
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On
> Behalf Of Matthew Boutilier
> > Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 12:33 PM
> > To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> > Subject: Re: Terminology question
> >
> > all i can think of is *comitative*, which suggests 'going (or, maybe even
> > enduring/doing something) together.'
> >
> > matt
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I have an affix slot on my verbs in Gravgaln which can be filled with
> one
> >> of three affixes, -qgaś (reciprocal), -khezh (reflexive), and -zem
> >> (together).
> >>
> >> dd'ugqgaś = to hit each other
> >>
> >> dd'ugkhezh = to hit oneself
> >>
> >> dd'ugzem = to both (or all) hit (something) (simultaneously?)
> >>
> >> I can't think what to label this slot so as to conveniently talk about
> it
> >> in the grammar. *Is* there a term that lumps these three ideas?
> >>
> >> Adam who is slowly building this language...
> >>
>
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Sold here / for sale / on sale / on sale here
Posted by: "Jim Henry" jimhenry1...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 2:08 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Scott Hlad <scotth...@telus.net> wrote:
> So how does this work in other natlangs and conlangs?
In gjâ-zym-byn, one would probably say something like
(tyn kŏ i) kâj-faj-van <gâ>
place this at exchange-able-V.STATE <thing>
<thing> Sold Here
To say that a specific unique item is available for sale, e.g. a house
or used car, one might say:
kâj-faj-van rî'mâ kŏ
exchange-able-V.STATE house this
(this house is) For Sale
I'm not sure how one would say a thing is available at a lower price
than usual. gzb can talk about prices/costs but it's not very concise
about it, and in this context one would want a brief way of expressing
the idea of a lower-than-expected price. Maybe:
kâj-ha cŏ jĭrn-i kâj-faj-van <gâ>
exchange-stuff few/little quantity-at exchange-able-V.STATE <thing>
<thing> is buy/sellable for little money
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
Messages in this topic (27)
________________________________________________________________________
2.2. Re: Sold here / for sale / on sale / on sale here
Posted by: "BPJ" b...@melroch.se
Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 2:11 pm ((PDT))
2013-06-07 12:36, taliesin the storyteller skrev:
> On 2013-06-07 07:15, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:00:52PM -0500, George Corley wrote:
>>> In an attempt to salvage this somewhat, I can't really comment too
>>> much on the "for sale"/"on sale" distinction in other
>>> languages, /../
>
> ... but I can at least comment for my natlang. (AFMNL?)
>
> Norwegian:
>
> Something discounted is "på salg".
>
> Something that is posible to buy is "til salgs". I think the final
> 's' is a frozen genitive. Ads in the newspapers for selling stuff
> often start with "til salgs".
The preposition _til(l)_ used to govern the genitive. Still does
in Icelandic and Faroese. In Swedish we have _till sjöss_
'at sea' and _till fots_ 'on foot' as well.
Something discounted is _på rea_ (short for _realisation_) and
something possible to buy is _till salu_ (with a frozen Old
Scandinavian weak feminine genitive ending!) With real estate
it can be _till försäljning_ too. 'For rent' is for some reason
_att hyra_ or _till uthyrning_.
/bpj
Messages in this topic (27)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: 5 Awesome Languages (Somebody Made Up)
Posted by: "George Marques de Jesus" georgemje...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:16 pm ((PDT))
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Garth Wallace <gwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> http://geeksmash.com/entertainment-news/5-awesome-languages-somebody-made-up763?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_65137
> >
> > Yes, it's one of those inescapable Internet list articles, and it's
> > really just a list of conlangs attached to major sci-fi/fantasy
> > properties, but hey, it's some positive notice for conlangs. It also
> > links to a TVTropes page:
> > http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConLang
> >
>
I'm addicted to TVTropes since last week, but I didn't know it had its own
conlang: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustForFun/TVTropesConLang
George Marques
http://georgemarques.com.br
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4.1. Vocalic alternation (was: Is Esperanto Indo-European?)
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 12:22 am ((PDT))
On 07/06/2013 11:58, Padraic Brown wrote:
> --- On Wed, 6/5/13, Olivier Simon wrote:
>
>> IE languages have two features which can be found among
>> them, or at least traced back to PIE, though the
>> presently spoken language only displays a few remnants
>> of them. - Some kind of vocal alteration; the best
>> known is the "ablaut" as in English "speak/spoke" or
>> "foot/feet", but it
>
> Foot/feet, I am fairly certain, is umlaut, not ablaut.
Quite right - it is umlaut or, more strictly, i-umlaut and
has nothing whatever to do with IE ablaut.
Umlaut may also be caused by vanishing final -a and, more
rarely, -u. it is a form of vocalic assimilation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umlaut_(linguistics)
> Classic ablaut is sing/sang/sung (and maybe song as
> well).
sing/sang/song certainly.
The Germanic languages preserve this features; it is also
commonly found in ancient Greek where for example, the verb
"to leave" has the following stems:
lip- (zero grade)
leip- (e grade)
loip- (o grade)
> Fotiz > fe:t > feet is pretty clear i-umlaut.
It most certainly is.
>> can be found elsewhere as in French "mourir/meurt".
>> This
>
> I'm pretty sure this is not ablaut either.
It most certainly is _not_ ablaut; nor is it umlaut either.
> Both come from the Latin root mort-, which I don't think
> showed any kind of ablaut variation.
Well, the stem mor- of the Latin _morī (Vulgar Lat.
*morīre /mɔ'rirɛ/) "to die". But you are quite right, the
Latin verb
shows no sign of any kind of ablaut variation whatsoever.
> The above looks terribly suspicious of some other
> process.
It is.
> Perhaps borrowing from some other Gallic language
> (Provencal, e.g.) or some weird French sound change.
'Tis the latter - the _ou_ is a regular development from
unstressed VL /ɔ/ in an unblocked syllable, and the _eu_ is
the regular development of VL /ɔ/ when stressed.
> That said, Latin itself does show some ablaut remnants
It did, but ....
> as I recall: cado ~ cecidi;
... ain't one. The /ɪ/ of -cid- is a regular weakening of
post-tonic unstressed /a/ in unblocked syllables that
occurred in early Latin, i.e. cecidī /'kɛkɪdi:/ <-- *cecadī
/'kɛkadi:/
> pendo ~ pondus and the like.
That is one. But it is not a common feature of the language.
> It could be that Romance carries some of those over into
> the modern languages.
But by that time they were regarded as independent words.
The various vowel alternations that are found in the Romance
languages, e.g. Spanish verbs with -ie- ~ -e- ~ i
alternation, and _-ue- ~ -o- ~ -u- alternation, are the
result of _regular_ development of Vulgar Latin vowels in
different phonetic environments. They are nothing
whatsoever to do with IE ablaut, nor with umlaut of any kind.
Vowel alternation can be triggered by a variety of different
things and is not confined to IE languages.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (48)
________________________________________________________________________
4.2. Re: Vocalic alternation (was: Is Esperanto Indo-European?)
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 4:35 am ((PDT))
--- On Sat, 6/8/13, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
> > It could be that Romance carries some of those over into
> > the modern languages.
>
> But by that time they were regarded as independent words.
> The various vowel alternations that are found in the
> Romance languages, e.g. Spanish verbs with -ie- ~ -e- ~ i
> alternation, and _-ue- ~ -o- ~ -u- alternation, are the
> result of _regular_ development of Vulgar Latin vowels in
> different phonetic environments. They are nothing
> whatsoever to do with IE ablaut, nor with umlaut of any
> kind.
Right. As with the French example, these have to do with the treatment
of stressed vowels. As I recall, stressed long o becomes ue and stressed
long e becomes ie. Thus pó:to > puedo while in the infinitive and 1&2
plural, the stress shifts to the ending: potére > poder. In school, we
learned these as "boot" verbs. Because the usual arrangement of the
conjugation looks something like a boot, especially when the altered
vowel forms are outlined.
This isn't confined to verbs of course: Puerto Rico (a nice agglomeration
of Latin and Visigothic that!) shows the same variation.
> Ray
Welcome back, by the way!
Padraic
Messages in this topic (48)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: [THEORY] Language preservation and people agglomeration.
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 4:20 am ((PDT))
--- On Wed, 6/5/13, Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm gradually accepting the idea that
> a language can only be preserved
> if there are a large agglomeration of people that speak it.
> And also that there's no way to help endangered languages but
> economically developping these agglomerations, including by increasing
> their population.
>
> Any noticeable problems with this idea?
Not so much problems as perhaps observations: Israel, Cornwall and the
Wampanoag Nation have active language preservation movements; Israel has
almost 8 millions while Cornwall has around 500 thousand and there are
around 2000 Wampanoags. Clearly, they don't share "large agglomerations
of people" in common! But they do share a strong drive and desire to
bring their communal languages back from extinction.
I think numbers of people can be very helpful when it comes to pushing
the local government into some kind action (funding for programs, etc.).
Numbers are also certainly helpful to sustain the project -- inevitably,
some number of speakers will move away from the community or marry outside
the community or otherwise become separated from the speakers of the
language. If you've only got a small handful of speakers, this could be a
devastating problem! If you've got hundreds of thousands or millions of
speakers, this is not so big a problem.
But large numbers of people don't make a movement successful! For any kind
of social movement to be successful, it has to have drive and staying
power. People must want to keep doing it, regardless of the odds against
success and regardless of how meddlesome the government is. Learning a
language to native proficiency is a big commitment in time; passing it on
to the next generation is a big commitment in the future.
It might be that commitment and energy as opposed to a large population
are the keys to language preservation.
Padraic
>
> Até mais!
>
> Leonardo
>
Messages in this topic (6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
