There are 7 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Something for we to discuss!
From: Leonardo Castro
1b. Something for you and I to discuss! (was: Something for we to discus
From: R A Brown
1c. Re: Something for we to discuss!
From: Jim T
1d. Re: Something for you and I to discuss!
From: Ph. D.
1e. Re: Something for you and I to discuss!
From: R A Brown
1f. Re: Something for you and I to discuss!
From: Padraic Brown
1g. Re: Something for you and I to discuss!
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Something for we to discuss!
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" leolucas1...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Jul 6, 2013 9:52 pm ((PDT))
2013/7/5 H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx>:
> On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 09:28:59PM +0200, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
BTW, have you already presented how to express dates in your conlangs?
>
> But as I understand it, your question isn't so much about how to express
> obligation or imperatives, but about the use of the nominative vs. the
> accusative in this context. This is interesting, since in English, we
> tend to say "it is me" even though the grammatical prescription is to
And that's how 1st person appears in isolation, isn't it? Wouldn't
kids say things like this:
- Who wants to sing a song?
- Me!
In pt, one uses nominative 1st person when in isolation or
topicalized, while people tend to use other cases in other languages,
I don't know why.
2013/7/5 Jyri Lehtinen <lehtinen.j...@gmail.com>:
> Besides the various possible ways to build phrases like this, if you are
> indicating the addressee here with an adpositional phrase, you need to take
> also the used adposition into consideration. In the case of English you
> aren't really interested here in "me" but in "for me". Any case forms taken
> by the nouns or pronouns in the phrase depend then on the possible case
> governing rules the language has for its adpositions and you may certainly
> have strange things happening there. How general is the shift you described
> for the pronoun case used with prepositions in pt-BR?
I have the impression that everybody would say "para mim fazer" if
they didn't know that the correct form is "para eu fazer".
> It's naturally also possible to use a case inflected noun phrase in the
> place of an adpositional phrase but this is not really different from
> expressing the grammatical relation with an independent adposition. In
> building a corresponding construction in Finnish you would use the allative
> case for the addressee NP/pronoun
>
> (Minu-lla on) sinu-lle teh-tävä-ä.
> (1SG-ADESSIVE is.SG3) SG2-ALLATIVE do-PRES.PASS.PARTICIPLE-PARTITIVE
> "(I have) something for you to do."
>
> The Finnic exterior local cases (adessive, allative, ablative) are used
> widely for some very grammatical functions (such as in indicating
> possession) and the allative has here a dative function similar to the
> English "for" above. The verb is nominalised with the present passive
> participle and behaves just as a regular noun, as can be seen from the
> example below with an actual noun
>
> (Minu-lla on) sinu-lle kirja.
> (1SG-ADESSIVE is.SG3) SG2-ALLATIVE book
> "(I have) a book for you."
1SG-ADESSIVE is great!
2013/7/5 Tony Harris <t...@alurhsa.org>:
> Weird, maybe. But it "feels" correct In Alurhsa, and after all that's all
> that matters (at least to me).
>
> Yes, I know it's not correct French, or Spanish either. It was just an
> example, as it's easier to see as an example in a Romance language than in
> English.
Romance imperative and present subjunctive are often similar
(morphologically) and used in kind of complementary environments, so
it's easy to feel that they can be "unified".
2013/7/5 George Marques de Jesus <georgemje...@gmail.com>:
> 2013/7/5 Eric Christopherson <ra...@charter.net>
>
> Is that _fazer_ the 1sg-inflected one, or a bare infinitive? I.e. Would
> you say _para nos fazermos_?
>
> It's the inflected. "Para nós fazer" is a mistake, one should say "para nós
> fazermos".
Indeed, "para nós fazer" really sounds terribly wrong, but available
rules apparently disagree on when it's obligatory, optional of
forbidden.
http://www.migalhas.com.br/Gramatigalhas/10,MI15277,71043-Uso+do+infinitivo
http://educacao.uol.com.br/dicas-portugues/infinitivo-nao-se-flexiona-se-referido-a-sujeito-de-verbo-anterior.jhtm
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/circulo/manual_texto_i.htm
2013/7/6 R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com>:
>>> but people on the streets apparently prefer "for me to
>>> do" ("para mim fazer"), what is considered a grave
>>> mistake by grammaticians.
>
> Presumably on the street _para_ is felt to govern the
> pronoun as well as the infinitive.
That's what I think as well. If it's right to say "você tem algo para
mim" ("you have something for me"), it should be right to say "você
tem algo para mim fazer". I think that most people really have to
syntactically reinterpret the sentence in order to understand why "eu"
must be used instead of "mim". Some people use a ridiculous stereotype
to correct others: they say that only in Amerindian speech "mim" can
be used as a subject. But I have never seen a real-world Indian using
"mim" as a subject...
2013/7/5 Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com>:
> Well, like many other conlangs here, Kash would use a prep. phrase:
>
> 'Something for me to do' iyuni mamepu
>
> iyu/ni re ma/mepu
> st/ni REL I/ do
What's "ni"? Is the "re" a generic relation particle?
2013/7/5 C. Brickner <tepeyach...@embarqmail.com>:
> Senjecas requires an adjectival clause in this sentence, rather than a
> dependent infinitive.
>
> I have something for you to do.
> (mus)—nu tus nom kı̋a—sémom űda:
> (I)—that you it do—something have
Pt "para eu fazer" is usually syntactically analyzed as a "reduced
infinitive clause ("oração reduzida de infinitivo") that substitutes a
subordinate clause, possibly "para que eu faça", which fits Harris'
suggestion "tem alguma coisa [para] que eu faça" very well.
Although pt "para eu fazer" and en "for me to do" may have different
syntactic structures, I guess they are used in exactly the same sense.
BTW, I have once asked a native anglophone linguist what's the
syntactic classification of "to do" in such sentences and he answered
that he simply didn't know.
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Something for you and I to discuss! (was: Something for we to discus
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Sun Jul 7, 2013 4:50 am ((PDT))
On 07/07/2013 05:52, Leonardo Castro wrote:
> 2013/7/5 H. S. Teoh:
[snip]
>> But as I understand it, your question isn't so much
>> about how to express obligation or imperatives, but
>> about the use of the nominative vs. the accusative in
>> this context.
Umm - we were being told more some 60 years back that
English does not have an accusative case ;)
We knew the form "me" as the 'objective case' because it
could express either the direct object (accusative) or the
indirect object (dative).
>> This is interesting, since in English,
>> we tend to say "it is me" even though the grammatical
>> prescription is to
Is it? IME there's disagreement about whether we 'should'
use "I", in imitation of Latin _sum ego_, or "me" in
imitation of French _c'est moi_.
The English "It is I" nor "It is me" strictly follow those
foreign counterparts, though "It's me" is more similar to
French which, however, does not use the object form _me_,
but the *disjunctive* _moi_.
> And that's how 1st person appears in isolation, isn't it?
> Wouldn't kids say things like this:
>
> - Who wants to sing a song?
>- Me!
Not merely kids - grown-ups as well. It would sound very
odd to answer just "I', tho "I do" would sound OK and might
BTW be given even by kids.
> In pt, one uses nominative 1st person when in isolation
> or topicalized, while people tend to use other cases in
> other languages, I don't know why.
I don't think this is so. IIRC я /ja/ is used in isolation
in Russian.
If one gives a one word answer in other western European
languages, is it always an oblique form? Would Germans,
e.g., never answer "ich", but always "mich" (or "mir")?
[snip]
> used in exactly the same sense. BTW, I have once asked a
> native anglophone linguist what's the syntactic
> classification of "to do" in such sentences and he
> answered that he simply didn't know.
>
Because little or no grammar seems to be taught nowadays. I
recall a few decades back when the earlier 'grammarless"
version of the Cambridge Latin Course was introduced,
teachers of English language started complaining that
grammar wasn't being taught. Apparently they thought the
one value of Latin was that it taught grammar!
I'm glad our staff were more enlightened way back in the
1950s. The English staff did teach _English_ grammar and
would point out where it differed from Latin (or French).
Also contemporary English provides examples examples of the
use of "I" where prescriptivists say "me" ought to be used.
Pre-school children frequently say things like "Me and Jim
went there yesterday." At school they get 'corrected' and
told they should say "Jim and I went there ..." - from then
on, alas, the majority of the population (at least this side
of the Pond) have the formula _x and I_ or _x or I_ firmly
fixed. Well educated people, alas, commonly say things
like "Please tell my sister or I", "If you find it, please
return it to Jim and I" etc., etc.
Indeed, if you say "Jim and me" after a preposition you may
find yourself being 'corrected'!!
This formula is so fixed that I have even heard from an
educated person "please return it to Miss West or to I" (I
kid you not).
You will commonly hear "for ...I to do" if someone else is
involved - "I'm bored. There's nothing for Lisa and I to do."
The use of "I" and "me" in modern contemporary English bears
little resemblance to that in Latin or,I suspect, in other
languages where a case system still exists among nouns. IMO
talking about "I" and "me" in terms of Latin cases is at
best misleading.
--
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 (26)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Something for we to discuss!
Posted by: "Jim T" clanrubyl...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Jul 7, 2013 4:56 am ((PDT))
--- On Sat, 7/6/13, Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Something for we to discuss!
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> Received: Saturday, July 6, 2013, 9:52 PM
> 2013/7/5 H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx>:
> > On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 09:28:59PM +0200, Christophe
> Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
> BTW, have you already presented how to express dates in your
> conlangs?
> >
> > But as I understand it, your question isn't so much
> about how to express
> > obligation or imperatives, but about the use of the
> nominative vs. the
> > accusative in this context. This is interesting, since
> in English, we
> > tend to say "it is me" even though the grammatical
> prescription is to
>
> And that's how 1st person appears in isolation, isn't it?
> Wouldn't
> kids say things like this:
>
> - Who wants to sing a song?
> - Me!
To me this brings up an interesting thought.
We use "me" here and "I' doesn't seem right somehow
But
if we say "I do" it's fine
However,
"me do" just seems very wrong.
Anyone know why this is?
>
> In pt, one uses nominative 1st person when in isolation or
> topicalized, while people tend to use other cases in other
> languages,
> I don't know why.
>
> 2013/7/5 Jyri Lehtinen <lehtinen.j...@gmail.com>:
> > Besides the various possible ways to build phrases like
> this, if you are
> > indicating the addressee here with an adpositional
> phrase, you need to take
> > also the used adposition into consideration. In the
> case of English you
> > aren't really interested here in "me" but in "for me".
> Any case forms taken
> > by the nouns or pronouns in the phrase depend then on
> the possible case
> > governing rules the language has for its adpositions
> and you may certainly
> > have strange things happening there. How general is the
> shift you described
> > for the pronoun case used with prepositions in pt-BR?
>
> I have the impression that everybody would say "para mim
> fazer" if
> they didn't know that the correct form is "para eu fazer".
>
> > It's naturally also possible to use a case inflected
> noun phrase in the
> > place of an adpositional phrase but this is not really
> different from
> > expressing the grammatical relation with an independent
> adposition. In
> > building a corresponding construction in Finnish you
> would use the allative
> > case for the addressee NP/pronoun
> >
> > (Minu-lla on) sinu-lle teh-tävä-ä.
> > (1SG-ADESSIVE is.SG3) SG2-ALLATIVE
> do-PRES.PASS.PARTICIPLE-PARTITIVE
> > "(I have) something for you to do."
> >
> > The Finnic exterior local cases (adessive, allative,
> ablative) are used
> > widely for some very grammatical functions (such as in
> indicating
> > possession) and the allative has here a dative function
> similar to the
> > English "for" above. The verb is nominalised with the
> present passive
> > participle and behaves just as a regular noun, as can
> be seen from the
> > example below with an actual noun
> >
> > (Minu-lla on) sinu-lle kirja.
> > (1SG-ADESSIVE is.SG3) SG2-ALLATIVE book
> > "(I have) a book for you."
>
> 1SG-ADESSIVE is great!
>
>
> 2013/7/5 Tony Harris <t...@alurhsa.org>:
> > Weird, maybe. But it "feels" correct In Alurhsa,
> and after all that's all that matters (at least to me).
> >
> > Yes, I know it's not correct French, or Spanish either.
> It was just an example, as it's easier to see as an example
> in a Romance language than in English.
>
> Romance imperative and present subjunctive are often
> similar
> (morphologically) and used in kind of complementary
> environments, so
> it's easy to feel that they can be "unified".
>
> 2013/7/5 George Marques de Jesus <georgemje...@gmail.com>:
> > 2013/7/5 Eric Christopherson <ra...@charter.net>
> >
> > Is that _fazer_ the 1sg-inflected one, or a bare
> infinitive? I.e. Would
> > you say _para nos fazermos_?
> >
> > It's the inflected. "Para nós fazer" is a mistake, one
> should say "para nós
> > fazermos".
>
> Indeed, "para nós fazer" really sounds terribly wrong, but
> available
> rules apparently disagree on when it's obligatory, optional
> of
> forbidden.
>
> http://www.migalhas.com.br/Gramatigalhas/10,MI15277,71043-Uso+do+infinitivo
> http://educacao.uol.com.br/dicas-portugues/infinitivo-nao-se-flexiona-se-referido-a-sujeito-de-verbo-anterior.jhtm
> http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/circulo/manual_texto_i.htm
>
> 2013/7/6 R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com>:
> >>> but people on the streets apparently prefer
> "for me to
> >>> do" ("para mim fazer"), what is
> considered a grave
> >>> mistake by grammaticians.
> >
> > Presumably on the street _para_ is felt to govern the
> > pronoun as well as the infinitive.
>
> That's what I think as well. If it's right to say "você tem
> algo para
> mim" ("you have something for me"), it should be right to
> say "você
> tem algo para mim fazer". I think that most people really
> have to
> syntactically reinterpret the sentence in order to
> understand why "eu"
> must be used instead of "mim". Some people use a ridiculous
> stereotype
> to correct others: they say that only in Amerindian speech
> "mim" can
> be used as a subject. But I have never seen a real-world
> Indian using
> "mim" as a subject...
>
> 2013/7/5 Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com>:
> > Well, like many other conlangs here, Kash would use a
> prep. phrase:
> >
> > 'Something for me to do' iyuni mamepu
> >
> > iyu/ni re ma/mepu
> > st/ni REL I/ do
>
> What's "ni"? Is the "re" a generic relation particle?
>
> 2013/7/5 C. Brickner <tepeyach...@embarqmail.com>:
> > Senjecas requires an adjectival clause in this
> sentence, rather than a dependent infinitive.
> >
> > I have something for you to do.
> > (mus)—nu tus nom kı̋a—sémom űda:
> > (I)—that you it do—something have
>
> Pt "para eu fazer" is usually syntactically analyzed as a
> "reduced
> infinitive clause ("oração reduzida de infinitivo") that
> substitutes a
> subordinate clause, possibly "para que eu faça", which fits
> Harris'
> suggestion "tem alguma coisa [para] que eu faça" very
> well.
>
> Although pt "para eu fazer" and en "for me to do" may have
> different
> syntactic structures, I guess they are used in exactly the
> same sense.
> BTW, I have once asked a native anglophone linguist what's
> the
> syntactic classification of "to do" in such sentences and he
> answered
> that he simply didn't know.
>
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Something for you and I to discuss!
Posted by: "Ph. D." p...@phillipdriscoll.com
Date: Sun Jul 7, 2013 5:43 am ((PDT))
On 7/7/2013 7:50 AM, R A Brown wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Pre-school children frequently say things like "Me and Jim went there
> yesterday." At school they get 'corrected' and told they should say
> "Jim and I went there ..." - from then on, alas, the majority of the
> population (at least this side of the Pond) have the formula _x and I_
> or _x or I_ firmly fixed. Well educated people, alas, commonly say
> things like "Please tell my sister or I", "If you find it, please
> return it to Jim and I" etc., etc.
>
"Between you and I", "with Jim and I", "for my brother and I": These
constructions are nearly universal in North America. It's rare to hear
someone use "me" in these phrases.
--Ph. D.
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Something for you and I to discuss!
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Sun Jul 7, 2013 6:19 am ((PDT))
On 07/07/2013 13:43, Ph. D. wrote:
> On 7/7/2013 7:50 AM, R A Brown wrote:
>> [snip]
[snip]
>> then on, alas, the majority of the population (at least
>> this side of the Pond) have the formula _x and I_ or _x
>> or I_ firmly fixed. Well educated people, alas,
>> commonly say things like "Please tell my sister or I",
>> "If you find it, please return it to Jim and I" etc.,
>> etc.
>>
> "Between you and I", "with Jim and I", "for my brother
> and I": These constructions are nearly universal in North
> America. It's rare to hear someone use "me" in these
> phrases.
Nearly universal throughout the anglophone world in the
northern hemisphere then :(
Has it penetrated south of the equator also? What happens
in South Africa, Australia & new Zealand? Surely the
English of the Indian Sub-continent hasn't been infected
with this virus, or has it?
Thinks: Is this going to YAEDT?
I'd like to bring it back to:
LEONARDO:
"In pt, one uses nominative 1st person when in isolation
or topicalized, while people tend to use other cases in
other languages, I don't know why."
ME:
"I don't think this is so. IIRC я /ja/ is used in isolation
in Russian.
If one gives a one word answer in other western European
languages, is it always an oblique form? Would Germans,
e.g., never answer 'ich', but always 'mich' (or 'mir')?"
To which, of course, one should add: What about your conlangs?
I regret with mine the pronouns no not inflect for case. In
TAKE they are absolutely invariable; in Outidic they inflect
only to show plural number.
The Britannic Romlang will, of course, have inflecting
personal pronouns but it is likely it will distinguish
between inflecting conjunctive forms and flexionless
disjunctive forms ;)
--
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 (26)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Something for you and I to discuss!
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Jul 7, 2013 6:43 am ((PDT))
> From: Ph. D. <p...@phillipdriscoll.com>
>
> On 7/7/2013 7:50 AM, R A Brown wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> Pre-school children frequently say things like "Me and Jim went there
>> yesterday." At school they get 'corrected' and told they
>> should say "Jim and I went there ..." - from then on, alas, the majority of
>> the population (at least this side of the Pond) have the formula _x and I_
>> or _x or I_ firmly fixed. Well educated people, alas, commonly say
>> things like "Please tell my sister or I", "If you find it, please
>> return it to Jim and I" etc., etc.
>
> "Between you and I", "with Jim and I", "for my brother and I": These
> constructions are nearly universal in North America. It's rare to hear
> someone use "me" in these phrases.
At the risk of engaging in unprotected YAEGTery, I rather think this is not
quite "universal". In my experience, "me" is far more common in these
contexts.
> From Jim T.
>
>> - Who wants to sing a song?
>> - Me!
>
> To me this brings up an interesting thought. We use "me" here and "I' doesn't
> seem right somehow
> But if we say "I do" it's fine However, "me do" just seems very wrong. Anyone
> know why this is?
Me, I think that the accusative / oblique pronoun is simply doing the same work
that the disjoint
pronouns of French are doing:
"Me, I say that...."
"Moi, je dit que...."
As for the wherefores of it all, I wouldn't be surprised if it were simply a
symptom of the general
collapse of case in IE languages in general and English in specific. We can see
in old Latin texts
all kinds of weird case errors that occurred as the system was collapsing. De
and cum with the
accusative sort of thing. But in "i" and "me", as well as "we" and "us", we
have very strong roots
that are radically different, not just gradually weakening case endings that
all start to look alike
anyway. Perhaps these two words are simply like cap rocks in geology: highly
resistant to erosion
to the point where everything around them has eroded away, leaving behind an
anachronistic bit
of ancient surface. All around us, English is losing or is elsehow doing away
with its inflexional system,
and here are relics of a very ancient inflexion indeed. We might just be
witnesses to a centuries long
struggle for supremacy between to particularly ornery roots, engaged in a
battle royale for that
long coveted title: Last Surviving First Person Pronoun!
Perhaps five hundred years from now, some young conlanger will join the forum
and ask: "yeknow,
mezbeen readin bout this /stremely late middle english/, where theyyad 2 word
for 'me'__1s 'me'
like wesay now & 1s 'i'__whatz with that eh? mecan put that in me conlang eh?"
Padraic
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: Something for you and I to discuss!
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" tsela...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Jul 7, 2013 6:44 am ((PDT))
On 7 July 2013 15:19, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
> LEONARDO:
> "In pt, one uses nominative 1st person when in isolation
> or topicalized, while people tend to use other cases in
> other languages, I don't know why."
>
> ME:
> "I don't think this is so. IIRC я /ja/ is used in isolation
> in Russian.
> If one gives a one word answer in other western European
> languages, is it always an oblique form? Would Germans,
> e.g., never answer 'ich', but always 'mich' (or 'mir')?"
>
>
Modern Greek also uses εγώ, the nominative form, in isolation. Or rather,
it uses the relevant case depending on the question. When the question
calls for an accusative answer, in isolation the stressed accusative forms
are used: εμένα, εσένα, etc., rather than the unstressed ones με, σε, etc.
This is logical of course, the unstressed ones are clitic and need another
word to hold onto. So they can't be used in isolation. In the same way, the
genitive forms are always unstressed (barring phonetic stress phenomena I
won't go into here), so when one needs to answer with a genitive pronoun
one needs to add it to the adjective δικός: "own": ο δικός μου, η δική σου,
etc.
> To which, of course, one should add: What about your conlangs?
>
>
Moten uses the relevant form depending on the question. Nominative or
instrumental if the question is about the subject (depending on volition),
accusative for the object or the predicate, genitive for a possessor
(although since genitive phrases indicating possession are noun modifiers
and normally can't appear on their own, unless they have a spatial or
temporal meaning –in which case they are adverbial phrases rather than noun
modifiers--., they will typically be nominalised by surdéclinaison when
used in isolation), etc. in Moten pronouns are always stressed (and indeed
are only used for emphasis or when context isn't enough), so there's no
issue of stressed vs. unstressed forms.
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (26)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
