There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: "Re: Colloquial French resources"
From: Leonardo Castro
1b. Re: "Re: Colloquial French resources"
From: Padraic Brown
1c. Re: "Re: Colloquial French resources"
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
1d. Re: "Re: Colloquial French resources"
From: R A Brown
1e. Re: "Re: Colloquial French resources"
From: James Kane
2.1. Re: Something for we to discuss!
From: Leonardo Castro
2.2. Re: Something for we to discuss!
From: R A Brown
2.3. Re: Something for we to discuss!
From: Padraic Brown
2.4. Re: Something for we to discuss!
From: Andrew Jarrette
2.5. Re: Something for we to discuss!
From: James Kane
3a. Re: THEORY: Native languages of the Americas in popular music
From: Padraic Brown
3b. Re: THEORY: Native languages of the Americas in popular music
From: James Kane
4a. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: J. 'Mach' Wust
4b. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
4c. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: R A Brown
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: "Re: Colloquial French resources"
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" leolucas1...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2013 10:48 am ((PDT))
BTW, what do you advocate for the teaching of French in schools?
Should the teacher enter the class and say
"Today, we're going to study the prefixes je, tu, il..."
or
"Today, we're going to study the pronouns je, tu, il..." ?
Or should s/he just teach Spoken and Written French as separate subjects?
It appears to me that the "colloquial redundancy" approach has the
advantage of considering the French of books, movies, letters,
streets, etc., as the same language with a single grammar.
In other words, is it necessary that the polypersonal approach go*
outside the Linguists' circle.
Até mais!
Leonardo
*: this reminds me the issue of personal infinitives.
2013/10/1 Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <tsela...@gmail.com>:
> On 1 October 2013 21:53, BPJ <b...@melroch.se> wrote:
>
>> Now that's cool! I have to remember to steal that for some conlang! ;-)
>>
>>
> Yeah, it's rather cool, and it's actually quite common in natlangs to mark
> a definite object differently from an indefinite object (different cases,
> as in Finnish's accusative vs. partitive, different verb marking, or even
> weirder things, like a language I read about a week or two ago that only
> allows serial verb constructions to have definite objects :P. So a single
> verb can have an object, but it will always be indefinite. The only way to
> give it a definite object is to turn it into a serial verb construction!).
>
>
>> As for optional inflexion I daresay there is no such thing in any
>> langvuage, it just so happens that the grammar demands different
>> forms in different contexts which poor furriners have trouble
>> teasing out the rules for. If it's truly optional it's dying out
>> and people are code switching! An example is the possessive _-s_
>> in Swedish which went from a nominal inflexion to a phrase clitic
>> somewhen during the last 5 centuries. I daresay that in any
>> speakers natural grammar at any point it was either an inflexion
>> or a clitic. It only just so happened that both sets of speakers
>> coexisted for a longer or shorter time, and the written language
>> was conservative, so people were code switching.
>>
>>
> I agree with this assessment. French also features some code switching, but
> Spoken French is slowly winning (hopefully :P).
>
>
>> And hey, you shouldn't be citing Spoken French in Written French
>> orthography!
>>
>>
> The problem is: what else could I use? I could use plain IPA, but that
> would just confuse people even more, and I don't want to get into the hairy
> details of Spoken French pronunciation. And Spoken French has no accepted
> orthography, given that its very existence is denied by many French people,
> including most grammarians themselves... Even attempts to render Spoken
> French in writing as seen in books of all sorts fall always very short.
>
> I am willing to use IPA, but be prepared to get very confused :P.
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: "Re: Colloquial French resources"
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2013 12:56 pm ((PDT))
From: R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com>
>> Clearly, something is going in French and Spanish (and
>> indeed English: you see, my wife, she always has good
>> ideas) that is being glossed over.
>
> Yes, but beware: the English and French examples are _not_
> similar. In English "My wife always has good idea" is not
> marked, whereas "My wife - she always has good ideas" is
> marked. But if I've understood Christophe correctly or,
> indeed, observed _colloquial_ French correctly, "Ma femme
> elle en a toujours des bonnes idées" is not marked - it's
> normal.
Quite so. I wasn't implying that English, Spanish and French are all
saying the same thing, only that each of these is an example of
"customary redundancy". (Mind you, that doesn't explain anything
in any of these languages!)
>
>> Dunnow about F&S, but for me, I'd take Christophe's
>> original English example as plain, while the "customary
>> redundancy" is actually some kind of marker of focus.
>> He's sort of distancing himself from his wife, as if to
>> say "my wife always has good ideas, while I can never
>> keep two thoughts in a row in my own head".
>
> In the English version, I agree. But in the French I
> disagree, for the reason explained above.
Indeed! The English redundant is marked, while the French
redundant is plain.
> We have to
> remember, as Christophe has often reminded us, not to be
> misled by the way French is written. "elle en a" is a
> single phonological word and "elle" and "en" are more in the
> nature of prefixes rather than proclitics. If I've
> understood Christophe "elle en a" is a single polypersonal
> verb form showing _agreement_ with the subject "ma femme"
> and object "des bonnes idées."
Ah, got to love the French! One language isn't good enough for them! No,
as if 19,433 different words and conjugational forms all sound like
[ÉÌ], they have to go on and do two different languages at the same
time! :P
> To describe this as polypersonal explains what is going on;
> to simply call it "customary redundancy" IMO does not and is
> at best merely a cop-out.
Yes indeed!
Padraic
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: "Re: Colloquial French resources"
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" tsela...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2013 11:01 pm ((PDT))
On 2 October 2013 19:47, Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW, what do you advocate for the teaching of French in schools?
>
>
Actual French, as opposed to the fiction they are teaching right now.
> Should the teacher enter the class and say
>
> "Today, we're going to study the prefixes je, tu, il..."
>
> or
>
> "Today, we're going to study the pronouns je, tu, il..." ?
>
> Or should s/he just teach Spoken and Written French as separate subjects?
>
> It appears to me that the "colloquial redundancy" approach has the
> advantage of considering the French of books, movies, letters,
> streets, etc., as the same language with a single grammar.
>
>
But they are not! What you're saying is that we should carry on teaching a
lie because it's easier than teaching the truth. The problem is that that
lie is utterly *confusing* people, who after learning French for 6 to 7
years think they have a good knowledge of the language, go and spend a week
in France, and are completely baffled that they can't understand a single
word of what the natives are saying! And then they blame the French for
being unhelpful (they are, but in other ways!) while they should blame
their education for not teaching them French right!
> In other words, is it necessary that the polypersonal approach go*
> outside the Linguists' circle.
>
> Definitely yes. Clearly the current approach is not working, and I don't
believe "colloquial redundancy" will work, especially since it's *not*
colloquial! Formal registers of Spoken French are polypersonal as well!
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: "Re: Colloquial French resources"
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 1:09 am ((PDT))
On 03/10/2013 07:01, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
[snip]
>>
> But they are not! What you're saying is that we should
> carry on teaching a lie because it's easier than teaching
> the truth. The problem is that that lie is utterly
> *confusing* people, who after learning French for 6 to 7
> years think they have a good knowledge of the language,
> go and spend a week in France, and are completely baffled
> that they can't understand a single word of what the
> natives are saying!
Exactly. I still recall that experience now some 60 years
later ;)
I did well at French at school. I could, and still can, read
literary texts without much bother. But i was dismayed then
to find the native French didn't properly understand me and
I didn't understand them!
But it did get a bit better during my stay. I was able to
convey that the key to my room in hostel was faulty "La clé
elle marche pas" - but that's not the way I had been taught
to say it at school.
Now I am wiser :)
. And then they blame the French for
> being unhelpful (they are, but in other ways!) while they
> should blame their education for not teaching them French
> right!
Quite - if the purpose of teaching people French is to be
able to converse with francophones then it is a good idea to
teach the language that will be heard and spoken.
--
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 (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: "Re: Colloquial French resources"
Posted by: "James Kane" kane...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 1:09 am ((PDT))
Christophe will be glad to hear that my linguistics professor mentioned Spoken
French today. While talking about broad word order, he mentioned how normal
word orders can move around giving a VOS word order in this particular example:
'il aime bien ses enfants, le vieux mec' - he really loves his kids, the old
guy [does]. He noted that the 'il' at the beginning was technically a pronoun
but functioned more like an affix and so doesn't count as a subject.
I suppose it would be even better if there were a 'les' after the 'il'? He
didn't mention poly personal marking or anything but at least the idea of
verb-bound pronouns is widespread.
James
> On 3/10/2013, at 7:01 pm, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <tsela...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2 October 2013 19:47, Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> BTW, what do you advocate for the teaching of French in schools?
> Actual French, as opposed to the fiction they are teaching right now.
>
>
>> Should the teacher enter the class and say
>>
>> "Today, we're going to study the prefixes je, tu, il..."
>>
>> or
>>
>> "Today, we're going to study the pronouns je, tu, il..." ?
>>
>> Or should s/he just teach Spoken and Written French as separate subjects?
>>
>> It appears to me that the "colloquial redundancy" approach has the
>> advantage of considering the French of books, movies, letters,
>> streets, etc., as the same language with a single grammar.
> But they are not! What you're saying is that we should carry on teaching a
> lie because it's easier than teaching the truth. The problem is that that
> lie is utterly *confusing* people, who after learning French for 6 to 7
> years think they have a good knowledge of the language, go and spend a week
> in France, and are completely baffled that they can't understand a single
> word of what the natives are saying! And then they blame the French for
> being unhelpful (they are, but in other ways!) while they should blame
> their education for not teaching them French right!
>
>
>> In other words, is it necessary that the polypersonal approach go*
>> outside the Linguists' circle.
>>
>> Definitely yes. Clearly the current approach is not working, and I don't
> believe "colloquial redundancy" will work, especially since it's *not*
> colloquial! Formal registers of Spoken French are polypersonal as well!
>
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Something for we to discuss!
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" leolucas1...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2013 10:51 am ((PDT))
"It is necessary that I be there on time."
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1220421
Is this sentence correct?
Is this verb "be" in "bare infinitive"?
It looks that it has a subject!
Até mais!
Leonardo
2013/7/23 Herman Miller <hmil...@prismnet.com>:
> On 7/23/2013 9:35 AM, Leonardo Castro wrote:
>
>> I just read a sentence in English with what seems to be an infinitive
>> with a subject:
>>
>> "Normal research, which is cumulative, owes its success to the ability
>> of scientists regularly to select problems that can be solved with
>> instrumental techniques close to those already in existence."
>> (Thomas Kuhn, In "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions")
>>
>> OTOH, I see that "the ability of scientists regularly to select
>> problems" can be analysed in another way:
>>
>> "the ability to select problems" -> "{the ability to select problems}
>> of scientists" -> "{the ability to select problems}-regularly of
>> scientists" -> "the ability of scientists regularly to select
>> problems"
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> "{the ability} of {scientists to select problems}"
>>
>> Well, you native anglophone who knows how do you decompose the sentence...
>
>
> I'd say it's "the ability (of scientists) (to select problems)", which can
> be rephrased as "scientists' ability to select problems".
>
> Maybe something along the lines of "scientists to select problems", as a
> newspaper headline, could be an example of an infinitive with a subject.
Messages in this topic (40)
________________________________________________________________________
2.2. Re: Something for we to discuss!
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2013 11:15 am ((PDT))
On 02/10/2013 18:50, Leonardo Castro wrote:
> "It is necessary that I be there on time."
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1220421
>
> Is this sentence correct?
Yes.
> Is this verb "be" in "bare infinitive"?
No - it's the present subjunctive. With most other verbs it
is now indistinguishable from the indicative, except in the
3rd person singular, e.g.
He tells no one what he has seen.
It is necessary that he tell no one what he has seen.
In British English this is now unusual, and the subjunctive
is normally replaced with forms with modal verbs, e.g. "I is
necessary that he should tell no one what he has seen."
The Americans, I believe, are more likely to retain the
plain subjunctive form.
However, on both sides of the Atlantic "be" is still used
the subjunctive, with "were" as the past form, e.g. "If i
were you ...."
> It looks that it has a subject!
Yes, "I" is the subject of the present subjunctive of "to
be" :)
--
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 (40)
________________________________________________________________________
2.3. Re: Something for we to discuss!
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2013 12:04 pm ((PDT))
>"It is necessary that I be there on time."
>http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1220421
>
>Is this sentence correct?
Yes. It is not the only way to express the idea, but it is correct.
>Is this verb "be" in "bare infinitive"?
>It looks that it has a subject!
It is present subjunctive. I think. :) No, seriously, it's not an infinitive,
and not a dialectical 1s indicative. That only leaves 1s pres. subj.
You don't often see the subj. in English because it conjugates almost
exactly like the indic. You're probably used to seeing past subjunctive:
"If I were a rich man ... yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum"
which of course sets us up for a paseo down Irrealis Boulevard. The
present subj. in English tends to be jussive or mandative in nature. The
above is a good example: my being there on time is a duty which I must
accomplish.
It can also act as a conditional: "if she be found guilty"; "if this be
treason";
etc. We usually use the simple indicative or else "should": "if she should be
found guilty"...
Notice that all these striking examples involve the verb "be". You wouldn't
really notice: "It is necessary that I eat an orange every morning" or
"if I ate an orange every morning"... The only place I'd notice is
in strong verbs the past of which have different ablaut grades in sing. v. pl.:
I drank a glass of tea. vs. If I drunk a glass of tea every morning... And
that's only if I'm being very careful.
Padraic
>
>
>Até mais!
>
>Leonardo
>
>
>2013/7/23 Herman Miller <hmil...@prismnet.com>:
>> On 7/23/2013 9:35 AM, Leonardo Castro wrote:
>>
>>> I just read a sentence in English with what seems to be an infinitive
>>> with a subject:
>>>
>>> "Normal research, which is cumulative, owes its success to the ability
>>> of scientists regularly to select problems that can be solved with
>>> instrumental techniques close to those already in existence."
>>> (Thomas Kuhn, In "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions")
>>>
>>> OTOH, I see that "the ability of scientists regularly to select
>>> problems" can be analysed in another way:
>>>
>>> "the ability to select problems" -> "{the ability to select problems}
>>> of scientists" -> "{the ability to select problems}-regularly of
>>> scientists" -> "the ability of scientists regularly to select
>>> problems"
>>>
>>> instead of
>>>
>>> "{the ability} of {scientists to select problems}"
>>>
>>> Well, you native anglophone who knows how do you decompose the sentence...
>>
>>
>> I'd say it's "the ability (of scientists) (to select problems)", which can
>> be rephrased as "scientists' ability to select problems".
>>
>> Maybe something along the lines of "scientists to select problems", as a
>> newspaper headline, could be an example of an infinitive with a subject.
>
>
Messages in this topic (40)
________________________________________________________________________
2.4. Re: Something for we to discuss!
Posted by: "Andrew Jarrette" anjarre...@yahoo.ca
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2013 3:10 pm ((PDT))
I think this is the subjunctive of "to be". The subjunctive is used in correct
English, but it is only distinctive in the 3rd person singular and in the verb
"to be", AFAIK.
AJ
________________________________
From: Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com>
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 1:50:50 PM
Subject: Re: Something for we to discuss!
"It is necessary that I be there on time."
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1220421
Is this sentence correct?
Is this verb "be" in "bare infinitive"?
It looks that it has a subject!
Até mais!
Leonardo
2013/7/23 Herman Miller <hmil...@prismnet.com>:
> On 7/23/2013 9:35 AM, Leonardo Castro wrote:
>
>> I just read a sentence in English with what seems to be an infinitive
>> with a subject:
>>
>> "Normal research, which is cumulative, owes its success to the ability
>> of scientists regularly to select problems that can be solved with
>> instrumental techniques close to those already in existence."
>> (Thomas Kuhn, In "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions")
>>
>> OTOH, I see that "the ability of scientists regularly to select
>> problems" can be analysed in another way:
>>
>> "the ability to select problems" -> "{the ability to select problems}
>> of scientists" -> "{the ability to select problems}-regularly of
>> scientists" -> "the ability of scientists regularly to select
>> problems"
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> "{the ability} of {scientists to select problems}"
>>
>> Well, you native anglophone who knows how do you decompose the sentence...
>
>
> I'd say it's "the ability (of scientists) (to select problems)", which can
> be rephrased as "scientists' ability to select problems".
>
> Maybe something along the lines of "scientists to select problems", as a
> newspaper headline, could be an example of an infinitive with a subject.
Messages in this topic (40)
________________________________________________________________________
2.5. Re: Something for we to discuss!
Posted by: "James Kane" kane...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2013 5:55 pm ((PDT))
> I drank a glass of tea. vs. If I drunk a glass of tea every morning... And
> that's only if I'm being very careful.
I hadn't heard that one before, are you sure about that?
The only other forms I know besides the ones already mentioned are the
negation: 'I'd rather he not be so loud', rather than 'don't be'. Also a sort
of future subjunctive like 'if I were to go there'.
And there's also the cool inversion which sounds formal but must be one of the
very few instances of inversion outside of questions: 'were he to explode',
'were I you'.
>
> Padraic
>
>
>>
>>
>> At¨¦ mais!
>>
>> Leonardo
>>
>>
>> 2013/7/23 Herman Miller <hmil...@prismnet.com>:
>>>> On 7/23/2013 9:35 AM, Leonardo Castro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I just read a sentence in English with what seems to be an infinitive
>>>> with a subject:
>>>>
>>>> "Normal research, which is cumulative, owes its success to the ability
>>>> of scientists regularly to select problems that can be solved with
>>>> instrumental techniques close to those already in existence."
>>>> (Thomas Kuhn, In "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions")
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, I see that "the ability of scientists regularly to select
>>>> problems" can be analysed in another way:
>>>>
>>>> "the ability to select problems" -> "{the ability to select problems}
>>>> of scientists" -> "{the ability to select problems}-regularly of
>>>> scientists" -> "the ability of scientists regularly to select
>>>> problems"
>>>>
>>>> instead of
>>>>
>>>> "{the ability} of {scientists to select problems}"
>>>>
>>>> Well, you native anglophone who knows how do you decompose the sentence...
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd say it's "the ability (of scientists) (to select problems)", which can
>>> be rephrased as "scientists' ability to select problems".
>>>
>>> Maybe something along the lines of "scientists to select problems", as a
>>> newspaper headline, could be an example of an infinitive with a subject.
>>
>>
Messages in this topic (40)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: THEORY: Native languages of the Americas in popular music
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2013 12:24 pm ((PDT))
> I think that songs in Guarani are not only "folk music" in Paraguay,
> but "popular music", because they are in the music industry of that
> country, with professional production, video clips, etc. There's even
> a music genre called "guarania".
>
> E.g.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_So2t21pms0
Sounds a bit Philippines!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa8cNQwonh4&list=PLBFA09A0AE36611AD
The instrumental and general músical influence in both is clearly Iberian; the
melodic
particulars are clearly native.
> Are there other similar examples? Or is it part of the unique history
Of course. Almost every folk music in the world has been, to some extent or
other, industrialised. Consider the above examples from the Philippines.
Consider Celtic rock: an admixture of bagpipes, electric basses and girls
wearing kilts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MueQEeLOy8o
At least here, there's no girls wearing kilts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvAgQjAF5yM
How about some Mongolian rock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdkqVK0AzEk&list=PL8D7F196488FD0242
> of Guarani among all native languages of the Americas?
Natives up north have fusional music too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RxtaDzJOhY&list=PL376D032F8FA0AB8D
and here we fuse North American, South American (note the toyo at 0:45) and
rock: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-BLWUhSKL8
> (Isn't really there a gentilic for "the Americas" in English? Can I use
> "American"?)
Which Americans? We use that word so indiscriminately. You can certainly use
"American" for
whatever purpose you like. I do think "most people" will understand you first
as meaning
"people from the US", and only secondarily as anyone else from continental
America (except
for the Miquelonnaises, who are, of course, Europeans, on account of being
French). "North
American" and "South American" tend to alleviate that confusion, though.
Padraic
> Até mais!
>
> Leonardo
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: THEORY: Native languages of the Americas in popular music
Posted by: "James Kane" kane...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 1:16 am ((PDT))
The [ɨ] is very distinctive in song!
In New Zealand, MÄori is unfortunately poorly represented in pop
music, with the last big hit that I can think of in 1984:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQLUygS0IAQ. Before the 60s, when
people became more interested in music that would be received well
overseas, music in MÄori was quite common. Although there have been
hordes of very talented MÄori musicians over the years with maybe a
song or two in MÄori, most music is solely in English.
James
On 10/3/13, Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that songs in Guarani are not only "folk music" in Paraguay,
> but "popular music", because they are in the music industry of that
> country, with professional production, video clips, etc. There's even
> a music genre called "guarania".
>
> E.g.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_So2t21pms0
>
> Are there other similar examples? Or is it part of the unique history
> of Guarani among all native languages of the Americas? (Isn't really
> there a gentilic for "the Americas" in English? Can I use "American"?)
>
> BTW, I remember having heard an explanation for the difference in the
> fates of American and African languages: the Americas were "new
> Europes" while Africa environment was much more hostile to Europeans ;
> European diseases killed native Americans while African diseases
> killed Europeans. I don't if it's the preferred explanation nowadays.
>
> Até mais!
>
> Leonardo
>
--
(This is my signature.)
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@shared-files.de
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2013 2:06 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 21:00:31 -0300, Leonardo Castro wrote:
>2013/10/1 Matthew A. Gurevitch <...>:
>> Dear Conlangers,
>>
>> If there is no real orthography dedicated to spoken French,
>
>If we are creating an orthography to Spoken French, wouldn't it be
>better to find another dichotomy other than written vs. spoken, to
>call these dialects? Colloquial vs. traditional, informal vs. formal,
>modern vs. classical...
>
>> would people on this list consider making one? I have very little
>> knowledge of either Spoken or Written French, so I cannot do so,
>> but I do have a few suggestions for this. First, I would suggest
>> having it be reminiscent of the orthography for Written French,
>> such as keeping [ou] for /u/ and /w/. Also, it would need to
>> reflect the differences in grammar, maybe even leaving roots
>> unchanged if that would improve comprehensibility (I am not a
>> formally trained linguist nor a a Francophone, so I cannot say if
>> I am making bad suggestions, but I feel that this seems like it
>> would be understandable with minimal description). I can't wait to
>> see what people come up with.
The French con-orthography that I sometimes use for toying around is
completely phonemic. It uses the following vowel system (inspired by
Welsh):
i y w
é ú ó
e u o
a á
Of course, it is utterly unreadable (please forgive me for using a
sentence from the written register of French as an example):
Tw lé-zetr-zymẽ nes libr é égó ã diÅité é ã drwa. Il sõ dwé d rezõ é
d kõsiãs é dwav ažir lé-zÅ© ãver lé-zótr dã-zÅ©-nespri d fraternité.
>BTW, what happens when the sentence has both a direct an indirect object?
>
>"Nicolas a donné un chien à ses enfants."
>
>would be something like
>
>"Nicolas il-le-leur-a donné un chien à ses enfants."
>
>with all these prefixes mandatory?
To the best of my knowledge, no. And neither are the prefixes
mandatory in basic transitive sentences (without indirect object). I
do not know whether requiredness of object prefixes might depend on
animacy or on definiteness:
Je la connais ta mère. 'I know your mother.' (+animacy)
?Je la connais ta proposition. 'I know your proposition.' (-animacy)
Je le mange mon sandwich. 'I eat my sandwich.' (+definiteness)
*Je le mange un sandwich. 'I eat a sandwich.' (-definiteness)
Neither do I know about the acceptability of dropping the partitive
prefix:
Ma femme ella a toujours des bonnes idées.
In any case, I think that French, while developping complex verbal
agreement, has not quite grammticalized it yet. It is just a few
steps ahead of the other romances, which show similar developments.
When comparing French agreement to, Spanish agreement, for instance,
one must not forget that Spanish is pro-drop. This means that the
Spanish sentence "mi mujer canta" is rather comparable to the French
sentence "ma femme elle chante" than to the English sentence "my wife
sings". This is because both in the Spanish and in the English
sentence, the noun phrase can be deleted without the sentence
becoming ungrammatical: Both "canta" and "elle chante" are complete
sentences, whereas in English, the complete sentence requires a
pronoun "she sings":
Mi mujer canta. â Canta.
Ma femme elle chante. â Elle chante.
My wife sings. â She sings.
--
grüess
mach
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" tsela...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Oct 2, 2013 11:24 pm ((PDT))
On 2 October 2013 02:00, Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/10/1 Matthew A. Gurevitch <mag122...@aol.com>:
> > Dear Conlangers,
> >
> > If there is no real orthography dedicated to spoken French,
>
> If we are creating an orthography to Spoken French, wouldn't it be
> better to find another dichotomy other than written vs. spoken, to
> call these dialects? Colloquial vs. traditional, informal vs. formal,
> modern vs. classical...
>
>
The problem is that spoken vs. written is the *only* dichotomy that is
neutral enough and fits the facts. "Colloquial" and "informal" imply that
Spoken French only exists in informal, familiar registers, but that's not
true. Spoken French has formal registers as well, which are still distinct
from Written French. "Modern" doesn't work because Written French is just
as modern as Spoken French (it's not simply a time-stopped version of
French, and evolves too, albeit slowly, and differently from Spoken
French). The best comparison one can make is between Vulgar and Classical
Latin. However, the term "vulgar" has taken on shades of meaning that make
it unfit for purpose here.
I decided on the terms "Spoken French" vs. "Written French" (note the
capitals) after thinking about this for a long time. They are, I think, the
best terms to describe those two languages: Spoken French is only spoken,
hardly ever written, while Written French is not truly ever spoken, just
read or recited. And those are the only neutral terms that do not imply
some kind of hierarchy between the two languages.
>
> BTW, what happens when the sentence has both a direct an indirect object?
>
> "Nicolas a donné un chien à ses enfants."
>
> would be something like
>
> "Nicolas il-le-leur-a donné un chien à ses enfants."
>
> with all these prefixes mandatory?
>
>
Nope, because a singular *indefinite* object is not indicated on the verb
complex. "Le" is only present with definite objects. As I wrote before,
it's something I've seen in other languages with polypersonal agreement as
well.
On 2 October 2013 23:06, J. 'Mach' Wust <j_mach_w...@shared-files.de> wrote:
> The French con-orthography that I sometimes use for toying around is
> completely phonemic. It uses the following vowel system (inspired by
> Welsh):
>
> i y w
> é ú ó
> e u o
> a á
>
> Of course, it is utterly unreadable (please forgive me for using a
> sentence from the written register of French as an example):
>
> Tw lé-zetr-zymẽ nes libr é égó ã diÅité é ã drwa. Il sõ dwé d rezõ é
> d kõsiãs é dwav ažir lé-zÅ© ãver lé-zótr dã-zÅ©-nespri d fraternité.
>
>
>
Ouch! Where are the schwas? Also, putting the liaisons at the start of the
following word, while phonetically correct, is phonemically a bit dodgy,
methinks.
> >BTW, what happens when the sentence has both a direct an indirect object?
> >
> >"Nicolas a donné un chien à ses enfants."
> >
> >would be something like
> >
> >"Nicolas il-le-leur-a donné un chien à ses enfants."
> >
> >with all these prefixes mandatory?
>
> To the best of my knowledge, no.
Actually, yes. Examples where they seem not to appear are usually
code-switching.
> And neither are the prefixes
> mandatory in basic transitive sentences (without indirect object).
Yes they are.
> I
> do not know whether requiredness of object prefixes might depend on
> animacy or on definiteness:
>
> Je la connais ta mère. 'I know your mother.' (+animacy)
> ?Je la connais ta proposition. 'I know your proposition.' (-animacy)
>
>
To me, both are equally acceptable.
> Je le mange mon sandwich. 'I eat my sandwich.' (+definiteness)
> *Je le mange un sandwich. 'I eat a sandwich.' (-definiteness)
>
>
To me, the second one is unacceptable. Object prefixes need a definite
object. Which is logical when you think about their origin.
>
> Neither do I know about the acceptability of dropping the partitive
> prefix:
>
> Ma femme ella a toujours des bonnes idées.
>
>
That one's dodgy to me. I'd put a ? in front of it :). The version with the
partitive prefix feels just more grammatical to me.
>
> In any case, I think that French, while developping complex verbal
> agreement, has not quite grammticalized it yet.
I disagree. I think grammaticalisation is complete, but that people do not
normally speak pure Spoken French, but code-switch with Written French
quite often, thanks to an education that teaches everyone that the way they
speak is incorrect and needs to be eradicated. It's quite a common feature
of diglossiae.
> It is just a few
> steps ahead of the other romances, which show similar developments.
> When comparing French agreement to, Spanish agreement, for instance,
> one must not forget that Spanish is pro-drop. This means that the
> Spanish sentence "mi mujer canta" is rather comparable to the French
> sentence "ma femme elle chante" than to the English sentence "my wife
> sings". This is because both in the Spanish and in the English
> sentence, the noun phrase can be deleted without the sentence
> becoming ungrammatical: Both "canta" and "elle chante" are complete
> sentences, whereas in English, the complete sentence requires a
> pronoun "she sings":
>
> Mi mujer canta. â Canta.
> Ma femme elle chante. â Elle chante.
> My wife sings. â She sings.
>
>
I wonder why you'd consider grammaticalisation not to be complete, when the
version "ma femme chante" is *not* grammatical in Spoken French. It is in
Written French, but in Spoken French it feels stilted and over-formal, an
intrusion of a separate language in Spoken French.
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 1:25 am ((PDT))
On 03/10/2013 07:24, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
> On 2 October 2013 23:06, J. 'Mach' Wust
> <j_mach_w...@shared-files.de> wrote:
>
>> The French con-orthography that I sometimes use for
>> toying around is completely phonemic. It uses the
>> following vowel system (inspired by Welsh):
>>
>> i y w
>> é ú ó
>> e u o
>> a á
>>
>> Of course, it is utterly unreadable (please forgive me
>> for using a sentence from the written register of
>> French as an example):
>>
>> Tw lé-zetr-zymẽ nes libr é égó ã diÅité é ã drwa. Il sõ
>> dwé d rezõ é d kõsiãs é dwav ažir lé-zÅ© ãver lé-zótr
>> dã-zÅ©-nespri d fraternité.
>>
>>
> Ouch! Where are the schwas?
Where indeed?
> Also, putting the liaisons at the start of the following
> word, while phonetically correct, is phonemically a bit
> dodgy, methinks.
Yep - when I've seen French written in IPA the liaisons have
invariably been shown in the phonetically correct way. I
see no advantage of Mach's scheme over IPA, and two
disadvantages:
- one has to learn a different set of conventions (see vowel
table above);
- it ignores schwas ;)
Personally, I think any attempt on the conlang list to come
up with an orthography for spoken French will encounter the
same problems as the numerous attempts on this list over the
years to come up with a better Romanization for Chinese than
Pinyin and/or to reform English spelling, i.e.
- the French (Chinese, English) will take no notice of it;
- _different_ conlang versions will be produced, not just
one on which all agree - because we are a bunch of
eccentric individuals :)
Also surely one of the requirements of any proposed
orthography must surely be that the author(s) have an
intimate knowledge of _spoken_ French. How many of us can
claim this?
--
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 (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://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
