There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Sold here / for sale / on sale / on sale here
From: C. Brickner
2a. Re: THEORY: Likelihood of special interaction of VC[+glottal]V
From: Roger Mills
2b. Re: THEORY: Likelihood of special interaction of VC[+glottal]V
From: Alex Fink
2c. Re: THEORY: Likelihood of special interaction of VC[+glottal]V
From: Eric Christopherson
3a. Re: the origin of /N/ (was: the symmetry of sound change)
From: Roger Mills
3b. Re: the origin of /N/ (was: the symmetry of sound change)
From: Alex Fink
4a. Re: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates
From: Eric Christopherson
4b. Re: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates
From: Roger Mills
4c. To be (was: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates)
From: R A Brown
4d. Re: To be (was: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates)
From: Eric Christopherson
4e. Re: To be (was: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates)
From: Njenfalgar
5a. Re: Construct state markers without overt possessor marking
From: Eric Christopherson
6a. Re: Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
From: Arnt Richard Johansen
6b. Re: Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
From: Galen Buttitta
6c. Re: Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
From: Roger Mills
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Sold here / for sale / on sale / on sale here
Posted by: "C. Brickner" tepeyach...@embarqmail.com
Date: Sun Jun 23, 2013 7:58 am ((PDT))
----- Original Message -----
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 Senjecas what I call a "passive" adjective is formed by palatalizing the
final consonant of the verb root. "Faara" means 'sell'; "faaryis" means 'able
to be sold', i.e., for sale.
I stress "passive" because sometimes there could be some confusion. E.g.,
"aca" means 'move', so "acyis" means 'movable', but 'movable' as in 'able to BE
moved', not as in 'able to move'.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (36)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: THEORY: Likelihood of special interaction of VC[+glottal]V
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:09 am ((PDT))
From: Galen Buttitta <satorarepotenetoperarot...@gmail.com>
With regards to 1), while I cannot say for sure if it's common
cross-linguistically, but the grammar of Nuichahnulth that was linked in an
episode of "Conlangery" tells of how apparently in this language, at least,
there is a partial assimilation where /a/ > [e] / _?i.
===================================
RM not sure what the context is here, but that change (and related a > o
/___Cu) is quite common
(though not entirely regular) in the history of many Oceanic (Polynesian,
Melanesian) languages. Similar assimilations can take place in cases of ...iCa
> iCe or eCa, and ...uCa > uCo or oCa.
Some forms show an assimilation in all languages (hence a very early change),
but most are language-specific, thus later developments.
--------------------------------------------------------
On Jun 22, 2013, at 13:16, Eric Christopherson <ra...@charter.net> wrote:
> I remember reading in descriptions of at least two languages that, in those
> particular languages, vowels separated by glottal sounds (i.e. [?] or [h])
> often undergo total assimilation or, in at least one of those languages,
> metathesis.
>
> 1. Is this fairly common cross-linguistically?
> 2. Is there any reason to suppose transglottal interactions of these sorts
> would be more likely (either in specific languages or crosslinguistically)
> than in pure sequences of two vowels?
> 2a. Or two vowels separated by some other kind of consonant?
===============================================
RM You can certainly find examples of all three in the Austronesian family :-)))
>
> I know that the "consonants" [?] and [h] are actually not quite consonantal
> according to some analyses (and I think depending on the specific language);
> and they actually affect surrounding vowels where e.g. [t] would not; so
> perhaps this makes a difference.
======================================
RM In the system I've used, "True Consonants" (stops, frics., affrics.) are
[+Cons -Syllabic +Obstruent + positional features]
Resonants (Nasals, r, l etc) are [+Cons -Syl -Obst ...+etc.]
Vowels [-Cons +Syl -Obs....etc.]
Glides w,y,?,h etc. (or "semivowels") are [-Cons -Syl -Obst]. W,Y, etc are
marked for positions, but ? and h are [-all features] except [continuant] where
? is -, h is +. So in that sense, ?,h do form a natural class of sorts. But
how they affect surrounding vowels is, I think, another matter-- that has to do
with their acoustic formants IIRC
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: THEORY: Likelihood of special interaction of VC[+glottal]V
Posted by: "Alex Fink" 000...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:07 pm ((PDT))
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 12:16:05 -0500, Eric Christopherson <ra...@charter.net>
wrote:
>I remember reading in descriptions of at least two languages that, in those
>particular languages, vowels separated by glottal sounds (i.e. [?] or [h])
>often undergo total assimilation or, in at least one of those languages,
>metathesis.
Not much of concrete value here, but:
>1. Is this fairly common cross-linguistically?
I've noticed the pattern, too. Though your case of metathesis (assuming you
mean of the vowels) surprises me; I can't think of even an irregular example of
V-V metathesis right now.
>2. Is there any reason to suppose transglottal interactions of these sorts
>would be more likely (either in specific languages or crosslinguistically)
>than in pure sequences of two vowels?
Like what you and Roger have said, it is often sensible to view [? h] as pure
phonation (and thus "not quite consonantal" if consonants require an oral
obstruction) -- this is so in many feature systems, but also just
articulatorily, as the supra-glottal part of the vocal tract doesn't have
anything to do in making [? h]. As such, if [? h] occur adjacent to a vowel,
the tongue body (and rounding, etc.) can just retain their vocalic position
during the [? h]; and if they occur adjacent to twò vowels, one each side, then
the vocalic gestures can reach through the [? h] and influence each other.
None of that, however, makes these interactions *more* likely than interactions
of two directly adjacent vowels. I don't know, and would be really surprised
to learn, of any language with V+glottal+V assimilations that lets (phonemic)
vowel sequences surface unharmed.
>2a. Or two vowels separated by some other kind of consonant?
Well, that's your everyday umlaut / vowel harmony / etc. I don't know of any
case of umlaut that is blocked by glottals. I would imagine that the reason we
don't see tòtal assimilation across arbitrary consonants (as we do across
glottals) very often is because that would be too harsh a loss of
contrastiveness.
Alex
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: THEORY: Likelihood of special interaction of VC[+glottal]V
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" ra...@charter.net
Date: Sun Jun 23, 2013 3:41 pm ((PDT))
On Jun 23, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 12:16:05 -0500, Eric Christopherson <ra...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I remember reading in descriptions of at least two languages that, in those
>> particular languages, vowels separated by glottal sounds (i.e. [?] or [h])
>> often undergo total assimilation or, in at least one of those languages,
>> metathesis.
>
> Not much of concrete value here, but:
>
>> 1. Is this fairly common cross-linguistically?
>
> I've noticed the pattern, too. Though your case of metathesis (assuming you
> mean of the vowels) surprises me; I can't think of even an irregular example
> of V-V metathesis right now.
That was in Saanich (Timothy Montler's grammar). As I recall, stress accent
comes into play there too -- the V-glottal-V metathesis always involves a schwa
which would be stressed and a less neutral vowel, and there seems to be some
statistical disfavoring of stressed schwas there, although they are still
pretty common. There is also ablaut causing alternation of schwas and fuller
vowels, so it's really complex.
>
>> 2. Is there any reason to suppose transglottal interactions of these sorts
>> would be more likely (either in specific languages or crosslinguistically)
>> than in pure sequences of two vowels?
>
> Like what you and Roger have said, it is often sensible to view [? h] as pure
> phonation (and thus "not quite consonantal" if consonants require an oral
> obstruction) -- this is so in many feature systems, but also just
> articulatorily, as the supra-glottal part of the vocal tract doesn't have
> anything to do in making [? h]. As such, if [? h] occur adjacent to a vowel,
> the tongue body (and rounding, etc.) can just retain their vocalic position
> during the [? h]; and if they occur adjacent to twò vowels, one each side,
> then the vocalic gestures can reach through the [? h] and influence each
> other.
>
> None of that, however, makes these interactions *more* likely than
> interactions of two directly adjacent vowels. I don't know, and would be
> really surprised to learn, of any language with V+glottal+V assimilations
> that lets (phonemic) vowel sequences surface unharmed.
OK. I was doubtful, but it would be really helpful for this one diachronic
conlang of mine. I was thinking maybe something of the glottal stricture could
influence the vowel qualities (but I understand that's really rare compared to
the influence of uvular or pharyngeal or epiglottal stricture).
Could I plausibly fudge and say that VV sequences would end up with one of the
Vs as a glide, and say vowel/glide sequences *don't* assimilate?
>
>> 2a. Or two vowels separated by some other kind of consonant?
>
> Well, that's your everyday umlaut / vowel harmony / etc. I don't know of any
> case of umlaut that is blocked by glottals. I would imagine that the reason
> we don't see tòtal assimilation across arbitrary consonants (as we do across
> glottals) very often is because that would be too harsh a loss of
> contrastiveness.
Ah -- actually I was asking if there would be any reason that V-glottal-V
assimilation would be more likely than general VCV assimilation. My guess is
yes, because in reality the two vowels really are adjacent.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: the origin of /N/ (was: the symmetry of sound change)
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:16 am ((PDT))
From: Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlar...@gmail.com>
another one i thought of is the Hindi word for 'lion' which (i don't know
Hindi) sounds to me like [sIN] but the wikipedia-supplied phonology
suggests it could also be [sINg] = /sIng/, since /N/ is not listed among
the Hindi consonant phonemes. either way, Sanskrit *siṃha* with the usual
place-assimilation of the anusvara 'm' thing, since Sanskrit /h/ somehow
counts as a velar according to the traditional grammarian(s). if anyone can
explain that to me, that'd be great.
=======================================
My memory could be failing, but I _think_ Skt. /h/ descends from IE *gh (though
it's not classed with
the velars in the Devanagari script.)
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: the origin of /N/ (was: the symmetry of sound change)
Posted by: "Alex Fink" 000...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:43 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 09:16:26 -0700, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>From: Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlar...@gmail.com>
>
>another one i thought of is the Hindi word for 'lion' which (i don't know
>Hindi) sounds to me like [sIN] but the wikipedia-supplied phonology
>suggests it could also be [sINg] = /sIng/, since /N/ is not listed among
>the Hindi consonant phonemes. either way, Sanskrit *siá¹ha* with the usual
>place-assimilation of the anusvara 'm' thing, since Sanskrit /h/ somehow
>counts as a velar according to the traditional grammarian(s). if anyone can
>explain that to me, that'd be great.
>=======================================
>
>My memory could be failing, but I _think_ Skt. /h/ descends from IE *gh
>(though it's not classed with
>the velars in the Devanagari script.)
I have no idea about what outcomes clusters might have, but ttbomk the only
regular unclustery sources of Skt. /h/ are IE *g(w)h before front vowels, and
palatal *ǵh. Otherwise *gh stands, remaining Skt. /gh/.
In my mind, //s i [nasal archiphoneme] h\ a// = [siNh\@] is filed in the "coda
nasals default to dorsal" drawer -- ordinarily anusvÄra takes the place of the
following C, but when the following C is placeless some default surfaces.
(It's filed there alongside like the Spanish examples I mentioned last message,
and the Japanese moraic nasal being [N\] absolute-finally, etc.) Perhaps this
oversimplifies.
Alex
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" ra...@charter.net
Date: Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:56 am ((PDT))
On Jun 16, 2013, at 1:31 AM, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
> On 16/06/2013 00:07, James Kane wrote:
>> Hi all
> [snip]
>>>
>>> For both of these constructions, it's simply
>>> verb-subject-direct.object
>>
>> Is there some inherent reason that this is a weird way
>> to do it?
>
> Well, yes, there is. This has been debated before on this
> list. The complement of the copula (if a language uses a
> verb as copula) is not the same as the direct object. In IE
> languages the direct object can _always_ become the subject
> of a passive verb, e.g.
> The cat chased the mouse --> The mouse was chased [by the cat].
>
> (A few, like English, can also promote the indirect object
> to become the subject of a passive; but that is unusual.)
>
> You cannot promote the predicate of the copula in the same, e.g.
> John is a teacher --> *A teacher is been [by John].
>
> The latter is simply not possible.
True; good point. But I wonder if anyone could fill me in on how the copula, at
least in English and Romance, ever developed a passive participle in the first
place, if the copula can't be made passive (as a finite verb)?
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:52 am ((PDT))
From: Eric Christopherson <ra...@charter.net>
True; good point. But I wonder if anyone could fill me in on how the copula, at
least in English and Romance, ever developed a passive participle in the first
place, if the copula can't be made passive (as a finite verb)?
----------------------------------------------------
RM mainly by analogy I suspect. In fact, I'm not sure you can call been, Sp.
sido, estado etc. "passive" participles; they are simply _past_ participles.
And of course Span. and Ital. took Lat. sta:re 'to stand' to fill in certain
usages of 'to be', in addition to Sp. ser and Ital. essere (also analogical
formations, not based on Lat. esse (I don't know what VL might have had for 'to
be'.) Nor do I know the origin of French etre. And Ital. essere has no past
part., they use the PP of stare > stato
Note that Sp and Ital. (and IIRC Port.) use estar/stare to form the
progressive-- Sp está comiendo, It. sta mangiando 'he is eating', but use forms
of ser/essere to form passives-- Sp. ha sido comido, It. e stato mangiato 'it
has been eaten'
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. To be (was: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates)
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:28 pm ((PDT))
On 23/06/2013 19:52, Roger Mills wrote:
> From: Eric Christopherson <ra...@charter.net>
>
>
>
> True; good point. But I wonder if anyone could fill me in
> on how the copula, at least in English and Romance, ever
> developed a passive participle in the first place, if the
> copula can't be made passive (as a finite verb)?
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> RM mainly by analogy I suspect. In fact, I'm not sure you
> can call been, Sp. sido, estado etc. "passive"
> participles;
You can't - or rather you shouldn't, because they aren't.
> they are simply _past_ participles.
Or more strictly _perfect_ participles, as they denote
perfect aspect. If the verb is intransitive such
participles are always _active_.
Some people do distinguish between perfect and passive
participles in that with a very few verbs some people do
make a distinction; e.g.
"to prove"
I haven't proved it (perfect part.)
It hasn't been proven (passive part.)
"to show"
He has never showed a taste for oysters (perfect part.)
This result has never been shown before (passive part.)
(Oh dear - will this trigger YAEDT?)
>
> And of course Span. and Ital. took Lat. sta:re 'to stand'
> to fill in certain usages of 'to be',
Yep - as did French also. e.g. été <-- statum(m)
> in addition to Sp. ser and Ital. essere (also analogical
> formations, not based on Lat. esse (I don't know what VL
> might have had for 'to be'.)
They are based on 'esse', which in VL was extended by
gaining a normal Latin infinitive ending, i.e. *essere.
Span. 'ser' is derived from it; in Italy the form had stayed
the same for some 2000 years :)
> Nor do I know the origin of French etre.
être <-- estre <-- *essre <-- *essere
> And Ital. essere has no past part., they use the PP of
> stare > stato
>
> Note that Sp and Ital. (and IIRC Port.) use estar/stare
> to form the progressive-- Sp está comiendo, It. sta
> mangiando 'he is eating', but use forms of ser/essere to
> form passives-- Sp. ha sido comido, It. e stato mangiato
> 'it has been eaten'
Yep.
--
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 (23)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: To be (was: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates)
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" ra...@charter.net
Date: Sun Jun 23, 2013 3:30 pm ((PDT))
On Jun 23, 2013, at 2:28 PM, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
> On 23/06/2013 19:52, Roger Mills wrote:
>> From: Eric Christopherson <ra...@charter.net>
>>
>>
>>
>> True; good point. But I wonder if anyone could fill me in
>> on how the copula, at least in English and Romance, ever
>> developed a passive participle in the first place, if the
>> copula can't be made passive (as a finite verb)?
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> RM mainly by analogy I suspect. In fact, I'm not sure you
>> can call been, Sp. sido, estado etc. "passive"
>> participles;
>
> You can't - or rather you shouldn't, because they aren't.
>
>> they are simply _past_ participles.
>
> Or more strictly _perfect_ participles, as they denote
> perfect aspect. If the verb is intransitive such
> participles are always _active_.
You know, I did some thinking after asking my question, and came up with some
hypotheses about the appearance of a "passive" perfect participle for ESSE.
Digression time:
The reasoning for my question was that a passive perfect participle formed from
ESSE in CL or early VL wouldn't make sense, since it would mean something like
*"a been thing". While I was thinking about this, I initially reasoned that
"have" + PPP in the periphrastic perfect function would have prompted creation
of an analogical PPP for ESSE; but I then discarded that idea when I remembered
that "have" + PPP resulted from this sort of reanalysis:
*HABEO VISUM PASSARUM "I have a seen bird," i.e. "I have a bird which has been
seen"; the experiencer of the seeing being 1sg by implication, > "I have seen a
bird"
*HABEO COMEDITUM "I have an eaten thing", i.e. "I have a thing which has been
eaten" > I have eaten
But I reasoned that a PPP for ESSE still wouldn't make sense; e.g.
*ESSITUS/A/UM "a 'been' person/thing"
*HABEO ESSITUM HOMINEM "I have a 'been' man" - what would it mean for a man to
be "been"?
*HABEO ESSITUM "I have a 'been' thing"
To bring this digression to a close: At this point I was thinking that in order
to use HABEO + PPP, the PPP would have to have some existence of its own
*independently* of that construction. But now I don't think that's necessarily
a true premise; it's quite possible (and there might be documentary evidence to
confirm or deny this) that the HABEO + PPP construction was already in
existence when people realized they needed a way to use ESSE with it. (And if
not HABEO + PPP, there was also the construction ESSE + PPP of intransitive
verb, which was later supplanted in Spanish at least by the transitive HABEO
construction.)
>
> Some people do distinguish between perfect and passive
> participles in that with a very few verbs some people do
> make a distinction; e.g.
> "to prove"
> I haven't proved it (perfect part.)
> It hasn't been proven (passive part.)
>
> "to show"
> He has never showed a taste for oysters (perfect part.)
> This result has never been shown before (passive part.)
Interesting! But this terminological distinction doesn't apply to any Romance
languages?
>
> (Oh dear - will this trigger YAEDT?)
I was about to say something; but I'm biting my tongue :)
>>
>> And of course Span. and Ital. took Lat. sta:re 'to stand'
>> to fill in certain usages of 'to be',
>
> Yep - as did French also. e.g. été <-- statum(m)
Can STARE function transitively? If so, it probably had a PPP, which might have
been a good impetus for the creation of one for ESSE (in those languages where
the two didn't both adopt the same PPP).
>
>> in addition to Sp. ser and Ital. essere (also analogical
>> formations, not based on Lat. esse (I don't know what VL
>> might have had for 'to be'.)
>
> They are based on 'esse', which in VL was extended by
> gaining a normal Latin infinitive ending, i.e. *essere. Span. 'ser' is
> derived from it; in Italy the form had stayed the same for some 2000 years
> :)
I think I've seen a hypothesis that Span. _ser_ comes from SEDERE. There were
at least formerly some other forms of the paradigm that came from SEDERE, but
they don't spring to mind right now (possibly the present subjunctive).
>
>> Nor do I know the origin of French etre.
>
> être <-- estre <-- *essre <-- *essere
I've read that the /t/ in this one was due to contamination by STARE; but I
suppose it's reasonable that it was epenthetic.
>
>> And Ital. essere has no past part., they use the PP of
>> stare > stato
>>
>> Note that Sp and Ital. (and IIRC Port.) use estar/stare
>> to form the progressive-- Sp está comiendo, It. sta
>> mangiando 'he is eating', but use forms of ser/essere to
>> form passives-- Sp. ha sido comido, It. e stato mangiato
>> 'it has been eaten'
>
> Yep.
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
4e. Re: To be (was: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates)
Posted by: "Njenfalgar" njenfal...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Jun 23, 2013 3:49 pm ((PDT))
2013/6/23 Eric Christopherson <ra...@charter.net>
> > Some people do distinguish between perfect and passive
> > participles in that with a very few verbs some people do
> > make a distinction; e.g.
> > "to prove"
> > I haven't proved it (perfect part.)
> > It hasn't been proven (passive part.)
> >
> > "to show"
> > He has never showed a taste for oysters (perfect part.)
> > This result has never been shown before (passive part.)
>
> Interesting! But this terminological distinction doesn't apply to any
> Romance languages?
Apparently it does in modern Portuguese. There's a list of verbs that
distinguish the two participles here:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Portuguese/Contents/Variation_of_the_Portuguese_Verbs#More_on_Participles
Greets,
David
--
Yésináne gika asahukúka ha'u Kusikéla-Kísu yesahuwese witi nale lálu wíke
uhu tu tinitíhi lise tesahuwese. Lise yésináne, lina, ikéwiyéwa etinizáwa
búwubúwu niyi tutelíhi uhu yegeka.
http://njenfalgar.conlang.org/
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Construct state markers without overt possessor marking
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" ra...@charter.net
Date: Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:23 am ((PDT))
On Jun 22, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 12:28:42 -0500, Eric Christopherson <ra...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello, all. I'm wondering:
>> 1. If it's attested for languages with construct state (e.g. Semitic
>> languages) to allow a noun phrase to appear *in* the construct state but
>> *without* an overt possessor (either an NP or possessive affix); and
>
> I was all about to say that I've never heard the application of the name
> "construct state" outside of Afro-Asiatic. But then I went to look up the
> language which I was remembering regarding an answer to (2), and whaddya
> know, the grammar uses "construct state".
>
>> 2. What the semantics of that sort of construction might be.
>>
>> For #2, I would hypothesize the existence of 3rd-person interpretations, as
>> in Ainu, but I have wondered too if a noun in construct state without overt
>> possessor marking might be construed in some languages some other way, e.g.
>> as being simply definite, or possessed by the 1st or 2nd person. In one of
>> my conlangs in progress, it's occurred to me to have the usual
>> non-overtly-possessed construct NP be interpreted as 3rd-person-possessed,
>> e.g. father-CONS "his/her/their father", but in the vocative have it be
>> 1st-person, e.g. father-CONS-VOC "O my father".
>
> The Ulwa language of Nicaragua and Honduras has a "construct state", to wit,
> a paradigm of head-marked possessed forms, in which the 3sg is not clearly
> formally simpler than all the others. Third-person construct state nouns,
> however, can appear without overt possessors, giving most transparently the
> sense 'his/her N, their N' (5.4 of the grammar below), but it can also be
> used as a marker of definiteness (6.1.3.4), and cause hypernymic broadening
> of the sense of its base (6.2): e.g. the bare noun _was_ is specifically
> 'water' while the 3sg construct _was-ka_ can refer to any liquid; 'liquid'
> per se is expressed _dî waska_ 'something's water'.
> http://www.slaxicon.org/files/papers/thesis.pdf
Excellent! It's a little different from what I had in mind, in that there is a
whole set of affixes, not just one; so in a way it feels like a regular old
possessive-affixed-noun system. But the semantics of possessive marking are
really intriguing, as are the irregular forms (including forms with no affix
but a vowel change in the stem).
This paper makes reference to a similar system in Miskitu; I'll need to dig
into that as well.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
Posted by: "Arnt Richard Johansen" a...@nvg.org
Date: Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:05 pm ((PDT))
Thanks to everyone for your insightful comments!
Padraic Brown:
> Sure. One well known hereabouts is "From Latin to Romance in Sound Charts" by
> Peter Boyd-Bowman.
Thanks for the suggestion. I've ordered this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Mills:
> I wrote up a series of generative rules for Proto-Bau Da Gwr > Modern B.D.
> Gwr, that, to the best of my ability and knowlege, is ordered, and AFAICT,
> works :-))) If you're interested, it's here:
> http://cinduworld.tripod.com/gwr_rules.pdf. I'm not competent with the
> computer to know whether it would work in that way.,.....
There is a sound change applier called IPA Zounds that is based on binary
features and would probably be able to apply those rules, with appropriate
modifications. I haven't tried that myself though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David McCann:
> A very good example is Ringe's "From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic".
> The sound changes are listed with many examples, and he also works out the
> order in which they occurred, with a nice flowchart. It's also a good source
> for the latest thinking on PIE phonology and grammar.
Looks interesting. I've ordered this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R A Brown:
>> If so, what do they call their equivalent of the sound change applier, and
>> what do they call their Grand Master Plans?
> Diachronic phonology, presumably. What linguists are doing is trying to
> unravel the often complicated development of the language. Languages do not
> develop according to some preordained GMP.
I wasn't meaning to imply any goal-directedness on the part of language change.
Rather, I was trying to find a searchable term for the rule sequences
themselves. âSound change rulesâ, âsound lawsâ or âsound change
sequencesâ doesn't seem to be used, at least in the sense we are discussing
here.
But presumably linguists don't consider those all that important, except as
elements of a more complete historical description of a language family.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henrik Theiling:
> Wrt. the original question: for Þrjótrunn, it took me a very long time to get
> the right order of the rules that I had taken from the linguistic works on
> phonology of Icelandic (many from ~1900s, densely packed with rules that were
> usually quite imprecisely described) . The rules were all there, but what was
> missing was (a) an order and (b) classification by likelyhood/possibly
> dialect.
I've seen your rules.sch for Þrjótrunn before, and it is likely one of the
things that has suggested to me that using a sound change applier for this kind
of project is a sensible thing to do.
But I can't remember that it was this long! This must no doubt have taken many
hours to complete. I'm afraid that by suggesting that diachronic conlanging
could be reduced to âinstant daughter language, just add existing sound
change rulesâ I may have inadvertently trivialized the efforts of those of
you who do it properly. For that I apologize.
--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
Evan, a Quiz Bowl reject, nevertheless knows more than what's good for
him. The son of deposed royalty from some obscure nation whose name is
probably only known to himself, Evan is the life of the party when the
party's over. -- Leon Lin: Kissing the Buddha's Feet
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
6b. Re: Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
Posted by: "Galen Buttitta" satorarepotenetoperarot...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:39 pm ((PDT))
On Jun 23, 2013, at 15:05, Arnt Richard Johansen <a...@nvg.org> wrote:
> Roger Mills:
>> I wrote up a series of generative rules for Proto-Bau Da Gwr > Modern B.D.
>> Gwr, that, to the best of my ability and knowlege, is ordered, and AFAICT,
>> works :-))) If you're interested, it's here:
>> http://cinduworld.tripod.com/gwr_rules.pdf. I'm not competent with the
>> computer to know whether it would work in that way.,.....
>
> There is a sound change applier called IPA Zounds that is based on binary
> features and would probably be able to apply those rules, with appropriate
> modifications. I haven't tried that myself though.
If you can deal with command-line stuff, you might want to try phonix. I only
took a brief gander at that PDF, but I think the program can handle a lot of
what's in there, even sporadic changes.
SATOR
AREPO
TENET
OPERA
ROTAS
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
6c. Re: Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:48 pm ((PDT))
Thanks to you and to Arnt for the suggestions. I've looked at Zounds in the
past, and decided I wasn't competent to use it. I'll take a look at phonix.
At this remove, I don't remember some of my own rules :-(((((
________________________________
From: Galen Buttitta <satorarepotenetoperarot...@gmail.com>
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
On Jun 23, 2013, at 15:05, Arnt Richard Johansen <a...@nvg.org> wrote:
> Roger Mills:
>> I wrote up a series of generative rules for Proto-Bau Da Gwr > Modern B.D.
>> Gwr, that, to the best of my ability and knowlege, is ordered, and AFAICT,
>> works :-))) If you're interested, it's here:
>> http://cinduworld.tripod.com/gwr_rules.pdf. I'm not competent with the
>> computer to know whether it would work in that way.,.....
>
> There is a sound change applier called IPA Zounds that is based on binary
> features and would probably be able to apply those rules, with appropriate
> modifications. I haven't tried that myself though.
If you can deal with command-line stuff, you might want to try phonix. I only
took a brief gander at that PDF, but I think the program can handle a lot of
what's in there, even sporadic changes.
SATOR
AREPO
TENET
OPERA
ROTAS
Messages in this topic (18)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
