There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Matthew George
1b. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: George Corley
1c. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: R A Brown
1d. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Tony Harris
1e. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Krista D. Casada
1f. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Adam Walker
1g. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Garth Wallace
1h. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: H. S. Teoh
1i. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Krista D. Casada
1j. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
1k. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Adam Walker
1l. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: Tony Harris
1m. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
From: R A Brown
2a. Re: Oblique Passives
From: neo gu
2b. Re: Oblique Passives
From: Roger Mills
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Matthew George" matt....@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 9:13 am ((PDT))
See this
website<http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/06/21/science-prairie-dog-language-decoded.html>.
Ingest with a grain of salt.
It's been known for a long time that some animals have warning calls to
notify others about specific types of predators, but these claims go way
beyond that.
Assuming these asserted findings really hold up - this is extraordinary.
It suggests that many animals might have genuine languages that we've never
noticed because we're not equipped to receive and process the signals
properly.
Matt G.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 9:24 am ((PDT))
I am highly, highly skeptical of this. I'd have to see the methodology --
he may be mistaking meaningless variation in calls with meaningful signals.
It's also not clear from that article whether he's positing any kind of
productive grammar. Even the quotes in that article are suspicious -- they
sound like the kinds of quotes journalists would cherry-pick from an
interview (or even fabricate) in order to support their own narrative.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Matthew George <matt....@gmail.com> wrote:
> See this website<
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/06/21/science-prairie-dog-language-decoded.html
> >.
> Ingest with a grain of salt.
>
> It's been known for a long time that some animals have warning calls to
> notify others about specific types of predators, but these claims go way
> beyond that.
>
> Assuming these asserted findings really hold up - this is extraordinary.
> It suggests that many animals might have genuine languages that we've never
> noticed because we're not equipped to receive and process the signals
> properly.
>
> Matt G.
>
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 10:55 am ((PDT))
On 08/07/2013 17:24, George Corley wrote:
> I am highly, highly skeptical of this.
So am I.
I recall way back in the 1950s someone gave a talk on what
was then called the "Third Programme" on the radio; it was
about the language of cats. I remember almost nothing about
it now, except that it was claimed verbs existed with
indicative and imperative mood.
But strange to say, in all the intervening decades, I've not
heard of any serious communication between humans and our
feline friends ;)
> Even the quotes in that article are suspicious -- they
> sound like the kinds of quotes journalists would
> cherry-pick from an interview (or even fabricate) in
> order to support their own narrative.
They do, don't they.
Must go now - the two dogs next door want to discuss this
evenings news with me. They, of course, speak Dog Latin ;)
--
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 (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Tony Harris" t...@alurhsa.org
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 11:14 am ((PDT))
Well, I don't doubt that animals do communicate, and more information
than just vague grunts to signify danger. How much actual semantic
information is communicated probably varies with species, and whether
you call that a language probably somewhat depends on your definition of
the term "language".
I can, because I pay close attention and we've pretty well bonded, pick
up on a fair amount of communication that my Siamese cat produces
(although admittedly I'm not sure how much of the audible parts vs. body
language is something she does only with humans because that works
better when getting her message across the interspecies boundary). But
while it's definitely communication, to say I actually speak or
understand "Cat", or that the communication we're sharing, or even that
she shares with the neighbor's cat whom she adores, is a full blown
language may be stretching the definition a bit.
On 07/08/2013 12:24 PM, George Corley wrote:
> I am highly, highly skeptical of this. I'd have to see the methodology --
> he may be mistaking meaningless variation in calls with meaningful signals.
> It's also not clear from that article whether he's positing any kind of
> productive grammar. Even the quotes in that article are suspicious -- they
> sound like the kinds of quotes journalists would cherry-pick from an
> interview (or even fabricate) in order to support their own narrative.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Matthew George <matt....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> See this website<
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/06/21/science-prairie-dog-language-decoded.html
>>> .
>> Ingest with a grain of salt.
>>
>> It's been known for a long time that some animals have warning calls to
>> notify others about specific types of predators, but these claims go way
>> beyond that.
>>
>> Assuming these asserted findings really hold up - this is extraordinary.
>> It suggests that many animals might have genuine languages that we've never
>> noticed because we're not equipped to receive and process the signals
>> properly.
>>
>> Matt G.
>>
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Krista D. Casada" kcas...@uark.edu
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 11:20 am ((PDT))
When a raccoon rears up on its hind legs and peers in your back screen door at
5 o'clock in the morning, with optional hissing and growling, that means, "You
lazy human beings are exceptionally slow at getting the cat food out today."
Krista C.
________________________________________
From: Constructed Languages List [conl...@listserv.brown.edu] on behalf of Tony
Harris [t...@alurhsa.org]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 12:20 PM
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Subject: Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Well, I don't doubt that animals do communicate, and more information
than just vague grunts to signify danger. How much actual semantic
information is communicated probably varies with species, and whether
you call that a language probably somewhat depends on your definition of
the term "language".
I can, because I pay close attention and we've pretty well bonded, pick
up on a fair amount of communication that my Siamese cat produces
(although admittedly I'm not sure how much of the audible parts vs. body
language is something she does only with humans because that works
better when getting her message across the interspecies boundary). But
while it's definitely communication, to say I actually speak or
understand "Cat", or that the communication we're sharing, or even that
she shares with the neighbor's cat whom she adores, is a full blown
language may be stretching the definition a bit.
On 07/08/2013 12:24 PM, George Corley wrote:
> I am highly, highly skeptical of this. I'd have to see the methodology --
> he may be mistaking meaningless variation in calls with meaningful signals.
> It's also not clear from that article whether he's positing any kind of
> productive grammar. Even the quotes in that article are suspicious -- they
> sound like the kinds of quotes journalists would cherry-pick from an
> interview (or even fabricate) in order to support their own narrative.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Matthew George <matt....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> See this website<
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/06/21/science-prairie-dog-language-decoded.html
>>> .
>> Ingest with a grain of salt.
>>
>> It's been known for a long time that some animals have warning calls to
>> notify others about specific types of predators, but these claims go way
>> beyond that.
>>
>> Assuming these asserted findings really hold up - this is extraordinary.
>> It suggests that many animals might have genuine languages that we've never
>> noticed because we're not equipped to receive and process the signals
>> properly.
>>
>> Matt G.
>>
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 11:39 am ((PDT))
My dog, Buddy, just uses his doggy telepathy to take over my vocal organs
and force me to say whatever he wants communicated. It's far more
efficient.
Adam
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Krista D. Casada <kcas...@uark.edu> wrote:
> When a raccoon rears up on its hind legs and peers in your back screen
> door at 5 o'clock in the morning, with optional hissing and growling, that
> means, "You lazy human beings are exceptionally slow at getting the cat
> food out today."
>
> Krista C.
> ________________________________________
> From: Constructed Languages List [conl...@listserv.brown.edu] on behalf
> of Tony Harris [t...@alurhsa.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 12:20 PM
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> Subject: Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
>
> Well, I don't doubt that animals do communicate, and more information
> than just vague grunts to signify danger. How much actual semantic
> information is communicated probably varies with species, and whether
> you call that a language probably somewhat depends on your definition of
> the term "language".
>
> I can, because I pay close attention and we've pretty well bonded, pick
> up on a fair amount of communication that my Siamese cat produces
> (although admittedly I'm not sure how much of the audible parts vs. body
> language is something she does only with humans because that works
> better when getting her message across the interspecies boundary). But
> while it's definitely communication, to say I actually speak or
> understand "Cat", or that the communication we're sharing, or even that
> she shares with the neighbor's cat whom she adores, is a full blown
> language may be stretching the definition a bit.
>
>
> On 07/08/2013 12:24 PM, George Corley wrote:
> > I am highly, highly skeptical of this. I'd have to see the methodology --
> > he may be mistaking meaningless variation in calls with meaningful
> signals.
> > It's also not clear from that article whether he's positing any kind of
> > productive grammar. Even the quotes in that article are suspicious --
> they
> > sound like the kinds of quotes journalists would cherry-pick from an
> > interview (or even fabricate) in order to support their own narrative.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Matthew George <matt....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> See this website<
> >>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/06/21/science-prairie-dog-language-decoded.html
> >>> .
> >> Ingest with a grain of salt.
> >>
> >> It's been known for a long time that some animals have warning calls to
> >> notify others about specific types of predators, but these claims go way
> >> beyond that.
> >>
> >> Assuming these asserted findings really hold up - this is extraordinary.
> >> It suggests that many animals might have genuine languages that we've
> never
> >> noticed because we're not equipped to receive and process the signals
> >> properly.
> >>
> >> Matt G.
> >>
>
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" gwa...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 11:40 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:55 AM, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 17:24, George Corley wrote:
>>
>> I am highly, highly skeptical of this.
>
>
> So am I.
>
> I recall way back in the 1950s someone gave a talk on what
> was then called the "Third Programme" on the radio; it was
> about the language of cats. I remember almost nothing about
> it now, except that it was claimed verbs existed with
> indicative and imperative mood.
Why would cats have an imperative mood? It's not like they'd follow
any commands.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 11:41 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 11:39:59AM -0700, Garth Wallace wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:55 AM, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
> > On 08/07/2013 17:24, George Corley wrote:
> >>
> >> I am highly, highly skeptical of this.
> >
> >
> > So am I.
> >
> > I recall way back in the 1950s someone gave a talk on what
> > was then called the "Third Programme" on the radio; it was
> > about the language of cats. I remember almost nothing about
> > it now, except that it was claimed verbs existed with
> > indicative and imperative mood.
>
> Why would cats have an imperative mood? It's not like they'd follow
> any commands.
They just like *giving* commands. :-)
T
--
Gone Chopin. Bach in a minuet.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1i. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Krista D. Casada" kcas...@uark.edu
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 11:48 am ((PDT))
Dogs have owners (or they let us think so); cats have staff.
________________________________________
From: Constructed Languages List [conl...@listserv.brown.edu] on behalf of H.
S. Teoh [hst...@quickfur.ath.cx]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:40 PM
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Subject: Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 11:39:59AM -0700, Garth Wallace wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:55 AM, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
> > On 08/07/2013 17:24, George Corley wrote:
> >>
> >> I am highly, highly skeptical of this.
> >
> >
> > So am I.
> >
> > I recall way back in the 1950s someone gave a talk on what
> > was then called the "Third Programme" on the radio; it was
> > about the language of cats. I remember almost nothing about
> > it now, except that it was claimed verbs existed with
> > indicative and imperative mood.
>
> Why would cats have an imperative mood? It's not like they'd follow
> any commands.
They just like *giving* commands. :-)
T
--
Gone Chopin. Bach in a minuet.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1j. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" tsela...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 11:48 am ((PDT))
On 8 July 2013 20:39, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My dog, Buddy, just uses his doggy telepathy to take over my vocal organs
> and force me to say whatever he wants communicated. It's far more
> efficient.
>
>
>
Funny, my dog's called Buddy too :P. I am his official translator,
translating his wise words for the world to behold :P. In his case, he
doesn't use telepathy. Rather, he uses the world's most effective language,
especially with female humans: cuteness :P. And he is *extremely*
proficient in it :P.
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1k. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 11:58 am ((PDT))
Yes, we discovered this mutual Buddy-ownedness previously. And yes, my
Dalmatian uses his cuteness to excuse whatever badness he may have
committed. Him will dishappy when him figureoutes dat I has tolded him's
seekwets. And no. I do *not* act goofy with/about my dog. Ever.
Adam who is just an old hum(b)ans, but he is a adaquate servants for a
doggy who is 12
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
tsela...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 July 2013 20:39, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My dog, Buddy, just uses his doggy telepathy to take over my vocal organs
> > and force me to say whatever he wants communicated. It's far more
> > efficient.
> >
> >
> >
> Funny, my dog's called Buddy too :P. I am his official translator,
> translating his wise words for the world to behold :P. In his case, he
> doesn't use telepathy. Rather, he uses the world's most effective language,
> especially with female humans: cuteness :P. And he is *extremely*
> proficient in it :P.
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1l. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "Tony Harris" t...@alurhsa.org
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 12:03 pm ((PDT))
On 07/08/2013 02:40 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 11:39:59AM -0700, Garth Wallace wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:55 AM, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
>>> I recall way back in the 1950s someone gave a talk on what
>>> was then called the "Third Programme" on the radio; it was
>>> about the language of cats. I remember almost nothing about
>>> it now, except that it was claimed verbs existed with
>>> indicative and imperative mood.
>> Why would cats have an imperative mood? It's not like they'd follow
>> any commands.
> They just like *giving* commands. :-)
>
I don't think they need verbs for that. I don't know about anyone
else's cat, but mine can just come into the room, sit next to me as I'm
using the computer, and stare, and within about 60 seconds she has me
getting up to go check her food dish or open the window for her to sit
in, all without any effort on her part other than staring.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1m. Re: Prairie Dog Language - no, really.
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 12:51 pm ((PDT))
On 08/07/2013 19:40, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 11:39:59AM -0700, Garth Wallace
> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Why would cats have an imperative mood? It's not like
>> they'd follow any commands.
>
> They just like *giving* commands. :-)
Exactly!
On 08/07/2013 19:47, Krista D. Casada wrote:
> Dogs have owners (or they let us think so); cats have
> staff.
... and usually IME staff in _at least_ two households.
;)
That's my fifth email today - so no more till tomorrow.
Ciao.
--
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 (13)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Oblique Passives
Posted by: "neo gu" qiihos...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 10:10 am ((PDT))
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 21:20:47 -0700, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>From: Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com>
>On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 23:27:36 -0400, neo gu <qiihos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The ablative case-marker can be moved from the noun to become a verb prefix.
>>The verb is now transitive and the original oblique object is the direct
>>object:
>>
>>(4) kes^ ku 'erefante godakto.
>> kes^ ku 'erefante-0-0 go-dak-0-0-to
>> 3ASNom Def elephant-S-Acc ???-run-Aor-Fin-DT
>> "She ran from the elephant."
>>
>>Note: I don't know what interlinear tag to use for the prefix!
>Sounds to me that this is an ordinary _applicative_, an ablative applicative
>to be precise.
I was thinking applicatives were just instrumentals and benefactives and was
originally trying to come up with the term for promotion of oblique directly to
subject (to preserve the direct object), so I didn't consider it.
>>Oblique passives are most useful as participles modifying nouns:
>>
>>(8) 'u godaxre 'erefantes^
>> 'u go-dax-r-0-e 'erefante-0-s^
>> Def ???-run-Pas-Aor-Att elephant-S-Nom
>> "the run-from elephant"
>I think I've seen a very similar suite of examples to this before in
>discussion of some natlang which had applicatives and passives but
>syntactically could only relativise on the subject.? (Sorry I can't remember
>more details.)
>
===============================================
>Possibly Indonesian/Malay?? you can have things like
>Ali duduk di kursi
>Ali sit??? loc chair
>Ali sat in the chair
>
>Ali (men)/duduk/i kursi
>Ali (ACT)/sit/APP:Loc? chair? the active pfx is optional, colloquial, very
>common.
>Ali sat.in the chair, Ali occupied the chair
>
>...kursi yang di/duduk/i (oleh Ali)
>chair REL? pass/sit/APP:Loc (by Ali),
>the chair that was.sat.in (~occupied) (by Ali)
So the abbreviation is APP:Case? That seems a little unwieldy compared to my
usual 3-letter tags.
>The suffix -i turns many an intrans. verb into a transitive with locative mng.
>(among other things, like simple object >focus :-)))))
>
>I can't come up with the equivalent of "the run-from elephant" because 'run'
>is _lari_ and verbs with final -i cant take >the -i suffix for some reason.
>Plus there's no App. for 'from'.? But this is close:
>
>Ia takut pada (elephant) She's aftaid of the elephant
>Ia takuti (~menakuti) (elephant)? 'she fears the elephant' even she's afraid
>of the elephant
>e. yang di/takuti/nya E. that is.feared./by her? or the eleph. that she fears/
>she's afraid of
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Oblique Passives
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Mon Jul 8, 2013 2:22 pm ((PDT))
From: neo gu <qiihos...@gmail.com>
(Roger Mills wrote--)
>Possibly Indonesian/Malay?? you can have things like
>Ali duduk di kursi
>Ali sit??? loc chair
>Ali sat in the chair
>
>Ali (men)/duduk/i kursi
>Ali (ACT)/sit/APP:Loc? chair? the active pfx is optional, colloquial, very
>common.
>Ali sat.in the chair, Ali occupied the chair
>
>...kursi yang di/duduk/i (oleh Ali)
>chair REL? pass/sit/APP:Loc (by Ali),
>the chair that was.sat.in (~occupied) (by Ali)
So the abbreviation is APP:Case? That seems a little unwieldy compared to my
usual 3-letter tags.
============================================
That was just my ad-hoc invention. I really don't understand applicatives, but
apparently Indo. -i is one...I guess Indo. -kan, which can form causatives but
also object and/or IO focus, is one too. They're not called applicatives in the
grammar books, just "locative/causative suffixes". It would be neat to have a
full set, including your "ablative applic."
Of course, Philippine languages can do all sorts of things,with verbal
prefixes/infixes/suffixes....much more than Indo.
And where did all those question marks in my re-transmitted post come from?
They weren't in the original I'm sure :-)))))
Messages in this topic (5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
