There are 9 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Stairs (was: Re: Time for Another Party! Oskana|not Tedve|l Dabolnea
From: C. Brickner
1b. Re: Stairs (was: Re: Time for Another Party! Oskana|not Tedve|l Dabo
From: Padraic Brown
2a. the Deep Structures of Language
From: Paul Schleitwiler, FCM
2b. Re: the Deep Structures of Language
From: Logan Kearsley
2c. Re: the Deep Structures of Language
From: Allison Swenson
2d. Re: the Deep Structures of Language
From: And Rosta
2e. Re: the Deep Structures of Language
From: Adam Walker
3a. Re: Time for Another Party! Oskana|not Tedve|l Dabolnea!
From: Padraic Brown
3b. Re: Time for Another Party! Oskana|not Tedve|l Dabolnea!
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Stairs (was: Re: Time for Another Party! Oskana|not Tedve|l Dabolnea
Posted by: "C. Brickner" tepeyach...@embarqmail.com
Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:13 am ((PDT))
When I use "stair" to mean the staircase or the flight of stairs, I use it in
the plural, as in upstairs, downstairs. He climbed the stairs to his bedroom.
Charlie
----- Original Message -----
On 17 September 2013 18:07, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Chapeau! Congratulations on reaching the big 5-0-0!
>
>
Thanks! I didn't think I'd get there so quickly!
> But, what is this Lexember you mention?
>
>
Read this:
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.nl/2013/01/lexember-month-of-moten-words.htmland
this:
http://fantasticaldevices.blogspot.nl/2012/11/lexember.html for more
information. Basically it was an idea of Mia Soderquist and Pete Bleackley:
for a month, create one word per day for your conlang(s), and post it on
Twitter with the hashtag #Lexember, and on Google+ (and maybe on Facebook,
but as I'm not there I can't tell if there's also a #Lexember thread
there). The first Lexember event was last year in December, and since the
1st of September we've been running the second Lexember month :). It's a
fun and playful way to increase one's conlang's vocabulary and close
semantic gaps. As everyone post their words as they create them, we can
inspire each other with new words we wouldn't have thought about otherwise
:).
> Funny: " basically all the senses of English "step",
> except that _uge_ cannot refer to the steps of a ladder "
> because, at least in my English, ladders don't have steps
> at all. They have rungs.
Funny, Wiktionary gives as first definition for "rung": "A crosspiece
forming a _step of a ladder_; a round" (emphasis mine). So at least some
people have ladders with steps :). I know that's the word I learned (I
don't think I've ever heard the word "rung" before, at least not in this
context). Maybe a British vs. American English thing, or something more
complicated again...
Then again, things tend to get complicated with those things. I mean,
"stair" seems to be able to mean either a single step in a staircase or an
entire staircase depending on the speaker!
> Stepladders do have steps, though,
> but only three or four. Much more than that and the thing
> morphs into a propper ladder with rungs. :))
>
>
Well, some people like their ladders simple and just populate them with
steps :P. I'll try to remember the word "rung". Since in Moten _uge_
doesn't refer to the steps of a ladder (or a stepladder), once I've defined
the word for that in Moten, I'll have to remember to gloss it as "rung" as
well ;).
> " "walk" is a complete collection of "steps" " That I like.
>
>
It does kinda make sense, doesn't it? :P
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Stairs (was: Re: Time for Another Party! Oskana|not Tedve|l Dabo
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:42 pm ((PDT))
> From: C. Brickner <tepeyach...@embarqmail.com>
>
> When I use "stair" to mean the staircase or the flight of stairs, I use it in
> the plural,
I have certainly done that. Although the singular "stair" can also apply to the
whole staircase.
"Go up the stairs and turn right" kind of thing.
> as in upstairs, downstairs.
Now here, these I take as adverbs (the old adverbial genitive), indicative of
motion
along (i.e. moving along the stair in an upward direction) or else place at
which (i.e.
being in an upper level of the building). Which depends on the verb used.
> He climbed the stairs to his bedroom.
Yes.
Sorry Christophe! Didn't realise stairs and ladders would be so complicated an
issue!
Padraic
> Charlie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> On 17 September 2013 18:07, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Chapeau! Congratulations on reaching the big 5-0-0!
>>
>>
> Thanks! I didn't think I'd get there so quickly!
>
>
>> But, what is this Lexember you mention?
>>
>>
> Read this:
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.nl/2013/01/lexember-month-of-moten-words.htmland
> this:
> http://fantasticaldevices.blogspot.nl/2012/11/lexember.html for more
> information. Basically it was an idea of Mia Soderquist and Pete Bleackley:
> for a month, create one word per day for your conlang(s), and post it on
> Twitter with the hashtag #Lexember, and on Google+ (and maybe on Facebook,
> but as I'm not there I can't tell if there's also a #Lexember thread
> there). The first Lexember event was last year in December, and since the
> 1st of September we've been running the second Lexember month :). It's a
> fun and playful way to increase one's conlang's vocabulary and close
> semantic gaps. As everyone post their words as they create them, we can
> inspire each other with new words we wouldn't have thought about otherwise
> :).
>
>
>> Funny: " basically all the senses of English "step",
>> except that _uge_ cannot refer to the steps of a ladder "
>> because, at least in my English, ladders don't have steps
>> at all. They have rungs.
>
>
> Funny, Wiktionary gives as first definition for "rung": "A
> crosspiece
> forming a _step of a ladder_; a round" (emphasis mine). So at least some
> people have ladders with steps :). I know that's the word I learned (I
> don't think I've ever heard the word "rung" before, at least
> not in this
> context). Maybe a British vs. American English thing, or something more
> complicated again...
>
> Then again, things tend to get complicated with those things. I mean,
> "stair" seems to be able to mean either a single step in a staircase
> or an
> entire staircase depending on the speaker!
>
>
>> Stepladders do have steps, though,
>> but only three or four. Much more than that and the thing
>> morphs into a propper ladder with rungs. :))
>>
>>
> Well, some people like their ladders simple and just populate them with
> steps :P. I'll try to remember the word "rung". Since in Moten
> _uge_
> doesn't refer to the steps of a ladder (or a stepladder), once I've
> defined
> the word for that in Moten, I'll have to remember to gloss it as
> "rung" as
> well ;).
>
>
>> " "walk" is a complete collection of "steps"
> " That I like.
>>
>>
> It does kinda make sense, doesn't it? :P
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. the Deep Structures of Language
Posted by: "Paul Schleitwiler, FCM" pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:54 am ((PDT))
Interesting article.
How to Understand the Deep Structures of Language
Scientific American
Joshua K. Hartshorne September 17, 2013 7:00 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/understand-deep-structures-language-110000347.html
God bless you always, all ways,
Paul
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: the Deep Structures of Language
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" chronosur...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:08 am ((PDT))
On 18 September 2013 11:54, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM
<pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting article.
> How to Understand the Deep Structures of Language
> Scientific American
> Joshua K. Hartshorne September 17, 2013 7:00 AM
> http://news.yahoo.com/understand-deep-structures-language-110000347.html
Quote: "The researchers also asked people to describe in gestures an
event in which a girl kicked a boy. Since both boys and girls are
capable of kicking, it's very possible to be confused about who kicked
who. And now participants were much more likely to describe (in
gesture) the girl, then the kicking event, and then the boy -- that
is, they switched to an SVO order. This was true (with a few
complications which you can read about in the paper) whether the
participant was a native speaker of English (an SVO language) or a
native speaker of Korean or Japanese (SOV languages)."
This raises the question: is there a language that switches between
SOV and SVO based on an animacy distinction? And if not, who's going
to make one?
-l.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: the Deep Structures of Language
Posted by: "Allison Swenson" jlon...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:38 am ((PDT))
Hmm, that's suprising to me. I think, personally, that I would use
SOV--show the girl, then show the boy in a different position (facing the
other way, say), then return to the "girl" position and make the kicking
action. It simply feels more logical to my mind to explain who's there
first and then describe what happened to them.
Which is surprising to me in a whole different way, considering I made
Tirina VSO because at the time, *that* seemed more logical!
--Allison
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Logan Kearsley <chronosur...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 18 September 2013 11:54, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM
> <pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Interesting article.
> > How to Understand the Deep Structures of Language
> > Scientific American
> > Joshua K. Hartshorne September 17, 2013 7:00 AM
> > http://news.yahoo.com/understand-deep-structures-language-110000347.html
>
> Quote: "The researchers also asked people to describe in gestures an
> event in which a girl kicked a boy. Since both boys and girls are
> capable of kicking, it's very possible to be confused about who kicked
> who. And now participants were much more likely to describe (in
> gesture) the girl, then the kicking event, and then the boy -- that
> is, they switched to an SVO order. This was true (with a few
> complications which you can read about in the paper) whether the
> participant was a native speaker of English (an SVO language) or a
> native speaker of Korean or Japanese (SOV languages)."
>
> This raises the question: is there a language that switches between
> SOV and SVO based on an animacy distinction? And if not, who's going
> to make one?
>
> -l.
>
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: the Deep Structures of Language
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:40 pm ((PDT))
BSL would normally use OSV, tho all orders are possible.
--And
On Sep 18, 2013 7:38 PM, "Allison Swenson" <jlon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm, that's suprising to me. I think, personally, that I would use
> SOV--show the girl, then show the boy in a different position (facing the
> other way, say), then return to the "girl" position and make the kicking
> action. It simply feels more logical to my mind to explain who's there
> first and then describe what happened to them.
>
> Which is surprising to me in a whole different way, considering I made
> Tirina VSO because at the time, *that* seemed more logical!
>
> --Allison
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Logan Kearsley <chronosur...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On 18 September 2013 11:54, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM
> > <pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Interesting article.
> > > How to Understand the Deep Structures of Language
> > > Scientific American
> > > Joshua K. Hartshorne September 17, 2013 7:00 AM
> > >
> http://news.yahoo.com/understand-deep-structures-language-110000347.html
> >
> > Quote: "The researchers also asked people to describe in gestures an
> > event in which a girl kicked a boy. Since both boys and girls are
> > capable of kicking, it's very possible to be confused about who kicked
> > who. And now participants were much more likely to describe (in
> > gesture) the girl, then the kicking event, and then the boy -- that
> > is, they switched to an SVO order. This was true (with a few
> > complications which you can read about in the paper) whether the
> > participant was a native speaker of English (an SVO language) or a
> > native speaker of Korean or Japanese (SOV languages)."
> >
> > This raises the question: is there a language that switches between
> > SOV and SVO based on an animacy distinction? And if not, who's going
> > to make one?
> >
> > -l.
> >
>
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: the Deep Structures of Language
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:40 pm ((PDT))
That's often true for ASL too. With noun subjects. But with the degree of
pronoun incorporation in ASL verbs, it's often difficult to tell with
pronominal subjects.
Adam
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:39 PM, And Rosta <and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BSL would normally use OSV, tho all orders are possible.
>
> --And
> On Sep 18, 2013 7:38 PM, "Allison Swenson" <jlon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hmm, that's suprising to me. I think, personally, that I would use
> > SOV--show the girl, then show the boy in a different position (facing the
> > other way, say), then return to the "girl" position and make the kicking
> > action. It simply feels more logical to my mind to explain who's there
> > first and then describe what happened to them.
> >
> > Which is surprising to me in a whole different way, considering I made
> > Tirina VSO because at the time, *that* seemed more logical!
> >
> > --Allison
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Logan Kearsley <chronosur...@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > On 18 September 2013 11:54, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM
> > > <pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Interesting article.
> > > > How to Understand the Deep Structures of Language
> > > > Scientific American
> > > > Joshua K. Hartshorne September 17, 2013 7:00 AM
> > > >
> > http://news.yahoo.com/understand-deep-structures-language-110000347.html
> > >
> > > Quote: "The researchers also asked people to describe in gestures an
> > > event in which a girl kicked a boy. Since both boys and girls are
> > > capable of kicking, it's very possible to be confused about who kicked
> > > who. And now participants were much more likely to describe (in
> > > gesture) the girl, then the kicking event, and then the boy -- that
> > > is, they switched to an SVO order. This was true (with a few
> > > complications which you can read about in the paper) whether the
> > > participant was a native speaker of English (an SVO language) or a
> > > native speaker of Korean or Japanese (SOV languages)."
> > >
> > > This raises the question: is there a language that switches between
> > > SOV and SVO based on an animacy distinction? And if not, who's going
> > > to make one?
> > >
> > > -l.
> > >
> >
>
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Time for Another Party! Oskana|not Tedve|l Dabolnea!
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:12 pm ((PDT))
>> But, what is this Lexember you mention?
>
> Basically it was an idea of Mia Soderquist and Pete Bleackley:
> for a month, create one word per day for your conlang(s), and post it on
> Twitter with the hashtag #Lexember, and on Google+ (and maybe on Facebook,
> but as I'm not there I can't tell if there's also a #Lexember thread
> there).
Ah, thank you for the explanation!
>> Funny: " basically all the senses of English "step",
>> except that _uge_ cannot refer to the steps of a ladder "
>> because, at least in my English, ladders don't have steps
>> at all. They have rungs.
>
>
> Funny, Wiktionary gives as first definition for "rung": "A
> crosspiece
> forming a _step of a ladder_; a round" (emphasis mine). So at least some
> people have ladders with steps :).
Huh. Sòme people will say any old thing! ;) Seriously, I'd understand what they
mean,
but it sounds funny all the same.
> I know that's the word I learned (I
> don't think I've ever heard the word "rung" before, at least
> not in this
> context). Maybe a British vs. American English thing, or something more
> complicated again...
>
> Then again, things tend to get complicated with those things. I mean,
> "stair" seems to be able to mean either a single step in a staircase
> or an entire staircase depending on the speaker!
Indeed! Then again, not all things with steps are stairs or staircases as such.
We've
also got stoops, stepstones, doorsteps, back steps (and front steps), all of
which may
have an indeterminate number of steps (perhaps one to four or five). I wouldn't
call
any of those things "stairs". But any more than that and I'd say they become
stairs proper.
>> " "walk" is a complete collection of "steps"
> " That I like.
>
> It does kinda make sense, doesn't it? :P
Indeed! After all, a "walk" is the entire set or collection of individual steps
taken during the
official duration of the walk, as opposed to all the steps (and missteps) one
may take in a
day and perhaps also excluding any steps one may take on a side adventure into
for example
a book shop or diner that are not, strictly speaking, part of the "walk" itself!
Padraic
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Time for Another Party! Oskana|not Tedve|l Dabolnea!
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" tsela...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:48 pm ((PDT))
On 17 September 2013 21:05, C. Brickner <tepeyach...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Senjecan word that I had for âstrollââ was a compound of two verbs
> which I found very cumbersome. So, being inspired by Christopheâs message,
> I decided to form it in another way. Senjecas has two prefixes for
> diminutives, â-k-â and â-l-â. All Senjecan verb roots are
> monosyllabic, of
> the form (C)(V)VC-. If I add a diminutive suffix to the verb root, I can
> convey the idea of gently, easily, leisurely, partially, etc. Thus,
> ânéðaâ, walk, can be changed to ânéðlaâ, stroll. The speakers of
> Senjecas
> prefer â-l-â to â-k-â, but â-k-â would be used to avoid a geminate
> consonant: âdilaâ, disclose, reveal, manifest > âdilkaâ, hint, imply,
> insinuate. Lenition may be necessary: âtéédaâ, burn [of the sun] >
> âtééðlaâ, tan.
> BTW, âhikeâ is translated by a compound verb that I donât find so
> cumbersome: âÈútaâ, wander, and néðaâ, walk, > Èuþnéðaâ.
> Charlie
>
Actually, I like this idea a lot, especially since, like Senjecas, Moten
allows diminutive suffixes on verbs too (the diminutive suffix _-sin_ can
be used on both nouns and verbs, unlike _-mas_ and _-zes_ which can only be
used on nouns âor rather can only *result* in nounsâ), as in for instance
_jeksi|n_: "to brush past" from _jeksaj_: "to touch, to hit". So I decided
to shamelessly copy you and created the verb _jugzi|n_: "to stroll, to talk
a walk", diminutive of _jugejugej_: "to walk". They are also used
nominally: while _ugejuge_ can mean "stroll", it's usually more generic and
means "walk", while _ugzin_ is more specifically "stroll, leisurely walk".
You get inspired by me, and I get inspired back by you, the circle is
complete! :)
I love this list :P.
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
