There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: A. da Mek
1b. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: Njenfalgar
1c. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: BPJ
1d. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: Leonardo Castro
1e. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: BPJ
1f. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: R A Brown
1g. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: A. da Mek
1h. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: J. 'Mach' Wust
2.1. Re: Something for we to discuss!
From: R A Brown
2.2. Re: Something for we to discuss!
From: Padraic Brown
2.3. Re: Something for we to discuss!
From: Padraic Brown
3a. Re: "Re: Colloquial French resources"
From: Leonardo Castro
4a. Re: THEORY: Native languages of the Americas in popular music
From: Krista D. Casada
4b. Re: THEORY: Native languages of the Americas in popular music
From: Leonardo Castro
5.1. Re: Melin's Swedish Shorthand -- for English! (was: Re: Gateway to c
From: J. 'Mach' Wust
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "A. da Mek" a.da_m...@ufoni.cz
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 6:54 am ((PDT))
> Indeed, indeed! I could not care less about spelling reforms.
But you cannot _re_form somemething which has not been formed yet.
If there is a spoken language or dialect without a written form
and somebody will create some written form,
it will be a-posteriory conlang.
> It may be an entertaining game to design a phonemic or a
phonetic spelling for a natlang, but nobody here should nurture
the illusion that any such orthography had a chance to catch on.
Of course. But I suppose that it is obvious and standard that here nobody
expects that his conlang will catch on in OTL, so there is no need to
mention it.
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "Njenfalgar" njenfal...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 7:38 am ((PDT))
2013/10/3 Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <tsela...@gmail.com>
> 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.
All people I have ever spoken of this distinction with, seemed to use the
same terms.
> 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 diňité é ã drwa. Il sõ dwé d rezõ é
> > d kõsiãs é dwav ažir lé-zũ ãver lé-zótr dã-zũ-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.
I don't pronounce any shwas in French if I can avoid it. To me,
pronouncing any shwa you could've left out sound distinctly second-language
speaker to me.
The liaison could be solved by writing stuff in one word, as "lézetrzymẽ".
To me, such things are one "word" (whatever that means) anyway, just as
verbal complexes are. (As an aside, I think I would pronounce this
particular word as /lEzEtrymE~/ when not reading from a page.)
Anyway, there are people writing in Spoken French nowadays, such as the
comic Titeuf. I remember stuff like "Ché pô" for (Written) "Je ne le sais
pas." (I would say "Ché pa moi". Maybe I'm just old... ;-) )
> > >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?
>
Doesn't sound the way I would say it. To, the possibilities are:
> Nicolas, il a donné un chien à ses enfants. (no verbal agreement with
objects)
> Nicolas il leur en a donné un un chien à ses enfants. (agreement with
indefinite object, but not with a simple pronoun)
> Nicolas il leur a donné un chien, à ses enfants. (partial object
agreement)
Maybe other combinations could crop up in conversation depending on topic
of context and the like.
> > 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.
Agree with all that.
> > 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.
Disagree with Christophe. Without the partitive it sounds like you're
topicalising your wife and maybe stressing "always". With the partitive it
sounds more like an admirative comment that could be pronounced out of
context. Which one to pronounce, to me, depends on context of conversation.
Greets,
David
--
Yésináne gika asahukúka ha'u Kusikéla-Kísu yesahuwese witi nale lálu wíke
uhu tu tinitíhi lise tesahuwese. Lise yésináne, lina, ikéwiyéwa etinizáwa
búwubúwu niyi tutelíhi uhu yegeka.
http://njenfalgar.conlang.org/
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "BPJ" b...@melroch.se
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 7:48 am ((PDT))
2013-10-02 23:06, J. 'Mach' Wust skrev:
> 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 diňité é ã drwa. Il sõ dwé d rezõ é
> d kõsiãs é dwav ažir lé-zũ ãver lé-zótr dã-zũ-nespri d fraternité.
My French/Latin/Esperanto[^1] teacher had something similar.
IIRC his system was:
--- ----- --- ----- --- ----- --- -----
i /i/ u /y/ ó /u/
é /e/ ú /ø/ e /ə/ o /o/
è /ɛ/ ù /œ/ ò /ɔ/
a /a/ á /ɑ/
ê /ɛ̃/ û /œ̃/ ô /ɔ̃/
â /ɑ̃/
--- ----- --- ----- --- ----- --- -----
I thought and still think his use of the circumflex to indicate
nasalization was clever. He also used ŷ for /ɲ/ which I found
ultra clever, and IIRC _ç_ for /ʃ/ and _c_ for /tʃ/ -- I seem to
remember we agreed that _tc_ was ugly and was best avoided, but
it might have been my suggestions only -- and naturally _j_ for
/ʒ/. I do remember we had some argument over assymmetry in the
use of accents on _u_ and _o_, but I don't remember who took
which position, but I assume that I was the more systematicist!
;-) I also remember I thought one should distinguish */ʎ/ from
/j/ and he said that one could use _ý_ vs. _y_, but he didn't
think it was worth it. He also thought _á_ vs. _a_ was probably
unnecessary IIRC. I would guess he knew about the use of _ó_ for
/u/ in modern Occitan, too -- at any rate he knew about _o_ /u/
in Swedish and Norwegian! However I think _ů_ would probably
stand a better chance of actually evoking the right association.
The consonants, to my current mind at least, would be
----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
m n ŷ (ĝ)
/m/ /n/ /ɲ/ /ŋ/
p t (c) k
/p/ /t/ /tʃ/ /k/
b d (dj) g
/b/ /d/ /dʒ/ /g/
f s ç (h)
/f/ /s/ /ʃ/ /x/
v z j (ŕ)
/v/ /z/ /ʒ/ [ʀ]
y ẃ w r
/j/ /ɥ/ /w/ /ʁ/
l (ý)
/l/ /ʎ/
----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
It's fine with me if you want to switch the values of _c_ and _ç_
but _tc_ is indeed dead ugly and should be avoided!
[^1]: We were a "Humanist" class, and he taught a subject
called "Allmän språkkunskap", best translated as 'Etymology
and international vocabulary' which he mostly turned into
'Esperanto and other auxlangs'! :-)
/bpj
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" leolucas1...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 8:06 am ((PDT))
Unless you want something completely phonemic (and then it's not a
matter of creating an orthography for Spoken French but of reforming
the spelling of French), I think that few modifications would be
desirable in French orthography. Right now, I can think of:
- replacing digraphs:
au/eau -> o/ô ;
ai -> è/é ;
- abolishing final consonants that are *never* pronounced:
et -> e ;
disent -> dise ;
- using "trait d’union" to turn pronouns into verb prefixes:
il-en-a ;
je-le-sais ;
etc.
Naturally, these are only shots of a non-native. I'm just "con-scripting"...
Até mais!
Leonardo
2013/10/3 BPJ <b...@melroch.se>:
> 2013-10-02 23:06, J. 'Mach' Wust skrev:
>
>> 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 diňité é ã drwa. Il sõ dwé d rezõ é
>> d kõsiãs é dwav ažir lé-zũ ãver lé-zótr dã-zũ-nespri d fraternité.
>
>
> My French/Latin/Esperanto[^1] teacher had something similar.
> IIRC his system was:
>
> --- ----- --- ----- --- ----- --- -----
> i /i/ u /y/ ó /u/
> é /e/ ú /ø/ e /ə/ o /o/
> è /ɛ/ ù /œ/ ò /ɔ/
> a /a/ á /ɑ/
> ê /ɛ̃/ û /œ̃/ ô /ɔ̃/
> â /ɑ̃/
> --- ----- --- ----- --- ----- --- -----
>
> I thought and still think his use of the circumflex to indicate
> nasalization was clever. He also used ŷ for /ɲ/ which I found
> ultra clever, and IIRC _ç_ for /ʃ/ and _c_ for /tʃ/ -- I seem to
> remember we agreed that _tc_ was ugly and was best avoided, but
> it might have been my suggestions only -- and naturally _j_ for
> /ʒ/. I do remember we had some argument over assymmetry in the
> use of accents on _u_ and _o_, but I don't remember who took
> which position, but I assume that I was the more systematicist!
> ;-) I also remember I thought one should distinguish */ʎ/ from
> /j/ and he said that one could use _ý_ vs. _y_, but he didn't
> think it was worth it. He also thought _á_ vs. _a_ was probably
> unnecessary IIRC. I would guess he knew about the use of _ó_ for
> /u/ in modern Occitan, too -- at any rate he knew about _o_ /u/
> in Swedish and Norwegian! However I think _ů_ would probably
> stand a better chance of actually evoking the right association.
>
> The consonants, to my current mind at least, would be
>
> ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
> m n ŷ (ĝ)
> /m/ /n/ /ɲ/ /ŋ/
> p t (c) k
> /p/ /t/ /tʃ/ /k/
> b d (dj) g
> /b/ /d/ /dʒ/ /g/
> f s ç (h)
> /f/ /s/ /ʃ/ /x/
> v z j (ŕ)
> /v/ /z/ /ʒ/ [ʀ]
> y ẃ w r
> /j/ /ɥ/ /w/ /ʁ/
> l (ý)
> /l/ /ʎ/
> ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
>
> It's fine with me if you want to switch the values of _c_ and _ç_
> but _tc_ is indeed dead ugly and should be avoided!
>
> [^1]: We were a "Humanist" class, and he taught a subject
> called "Allmän språkkunskap", best translated as 'Etymology
> and international vocabulary' which he mostly turned into
> 'Esperanto and other auxlangs'! :-)
>
> /bpj
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "BPJ" b...@melroch.se
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 8:48 am ((PDT))
2013-10-03 17:05, Leonardo Castro skrev:
> Unless you want something completely phonemic (and then it's not a
> matter of creating an orthography for Spoken French but of reforming
> the spelling of French),
Why? Spoken French has a phonology, surely?
NB 1: I'm not in the least (seriously) interested in reforming the
orthography of French or [insert natlang of choice].
Conscripts and conorthographies for various languages nat
and con are another matter, and AFAIK on topic here.
NB 2: I don't care a brass farthing if anybody uses what
I come up with -- I just like coming up with it!
NB 3: If anyone should succeed in reforming the orthography
of any language with an entrenched orthography I would
congratulate them, but I wouldn't lose any sleep either
way.
NB 4: I do indeed believe that an orthography for a
a non-standard variety or an L variety would have a slight
chance of getting any interest at all by non-conscripters,
but only an excedingly tiny one!
/bpj
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 9:36 am ((PDT))
I'll use up my fifth posting for the day responding to a
couple of remarks which I disagree with :)
On 03/10/2013 14:53, A. da Mek wrote:
>> Indeed, indeed! I could not care less about spelling
>> reforms.
>
> But you cannot _re_form somemething which has not been
> formed yet. If there is a spoken language or dialect
> without a written form and somebody will create some
> written form, it will be a-posteriory conlang.
No it will not. When missionaries and others in past
centuries gave a written form to a language without writing
they were not creating an a_posteriori conlang!
I think most of us here will agree that the *primary* form
of any natlang is the spoken form. The written form is
secondary and derived from the spoken; indeed, the same
language can have more than one written form.
Whether I write English in standard British, standard
American, some reformed system such Anglic, or in Pittman or
Gregg shorthand, or in Arabic script, Devanagari, Linear B
or whatever you chose, I am *not* creating different
conlangs! I'm writing the _same_ language in different scripts.
When Muslim scribes first put Swahili into Arabic script,
they were not creating a separate a_posteriori conlang; they
were giving a natlang a script. When later, Europeans gave
Swahili a Roman script, they were not creating yet another
a_posteriori conlang - and one could go on and on with
further examples.
========================================================
On 03/10/2013 16:48, BPJ wrote:
> 2013-10-03 17:05, Leonardo Castro skrev:
>> Unless you want something completely phonemic (and then
>> it's not a matter of creating an orthography for Spoken
>> French but of reforming the spelling of French),
>
> Why? Spoken French has a phonology, surely?
Of course it has. Leonardo's sentence does not make any
sense to me.
The current spelling of French is _Written French_.
Basically it reflects the language and pronunciation of the
13th century and has had only minor modifications since.
While certain reforms of the traditional spelling may, in
theory, be desirable, I simply do not understand how they
can possibly arrive at a phonemic representation of modern
_Spoken French_.
To arrive at a completely phonemic representation of Spoken
French surely means putting the existing Written French
orthography aside.
>
> NB 1: I'm not in the least (seriously) interested in
> reforming the orthography of French or [insert natlang of
> choice]. Conscripts and conorthographies for various
> languages nat and con are another matter, and AFAIK on
> topic here.
Adapting conscripts for conlangs as, e.g. Tolkien did when
he wrote English in Tengwar and Cirth I agree. But
conscripts developed only for a natlang is IMO nothing to do
with conlanging. It's like the codes we developed as
schoolkids (mine were phonemic, more or less; I hated
English spelling).
But it is my opinion that spelling reform is not conlanging.
However, this is fairly tolerant and allows all manner of
off-topic threads :)
Other NBs snipped, but agreed with.
--
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 (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "A. da Mek" a.da_m...@ufoni.cz
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 12:30 pm ((PDT))
>> If there is a spoken language or dialect without a written form and
>> somebody will create some written form, it will be a-posteriory conlang.
> No it will not. When missionaries and others in past centuries gave a
> written form to a language without writing they were not creating an
> a_posteriori conlang!
> I think most of us here will agree that the *primary* form of any natlang
> is the spoken form. The written form is secondary and derived from the
> spoken
In the same way as a language is derived from its mother language - at first
as a dialect with minor deviatons, but gradually it will become mutually
incomprehensible with its sister languages.
A spoken language and its phonemically written form are in the same relation
as a language and its *rephon (a term coined analogically to "relex"); and
an orthography which cannot be traslated to phonemic form only with a set of
rules, without a dictionary, is essentially relex.
So, it is a question of terminology. If we will not consider relexes and
*rephons to be separate languages, then also some written forms are not
languages different from their spoken forms.
> Whether I write English in standard British, standard
American, some reformed system such Anglic, or in Pittman or
Gregg shorthand, or in Arabic script, Devanagari, Linear B
or whatever you chose, I am *not* creating different
conlangs! I'm writing the _same_ language in different scripts.
But Written English and Spoken English are different languages. It is hidden
by the fact that who knows one of them knows usually also the other, but
remember Tarzan!
BTW, imagine a future world in which English will follow the fate of Latin:
dead but still used as an international language. There will be probably
several traditions how to pronounce it, likewise for example the German
scholars pronounced Greek "Zeus" as [tsojs].
So there may be an intention to mark the correct old pronunciation, of
course without changing the letters, only adding diacritic marks; for
example:
čħät
(here <h> has not its usuall function of changing a plosive to a fricative,
so it is struck, and the postalveolarization of <c> is marked by a carron.)
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@shared-files.de
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 2:34 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:37:55 -0300, Njenfalgar <...> wrote:
>2013/10/3 Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <...>
>> On 2 October 2013 23:06, J. 'Mach' Wust <...>
>> wrote:
>> > Tw lé-zetr-zymẽ nes libr é égó ã diňité é ã drwa. Il sõ dwé d rezõ é
>> > d kõsiãs é dwav ažir lé-zũ ãver lé-zótr dã-zũ-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.
>
>I don't pronounce any shwas in French if I can avoid it. To me,
>pronouncing any shwa you could've left out sound distinctly second-language
>speaker to me.
I know that most schwas are predictable. I have heard not all of them
are, thus justifying the analysis of the schwa as a phoneme (and not
a mere predictable phonetic process). I would love to see a good
example that shows an unpredictable schwa or an unpredictable absence
thereof.
>The liaison could be solved by writing stuff in one word, as "lézetrzymẽ".
>To me, such things are one "word" (whatever that means) anyway, just as
>verbal complexes are. (As an aside, I think I would pronounce this
>particular word as /lEzEtrymE~/ when not reading from a page.)
I am not very fond of using the dash for liaison. The main reason I
am using it is because I am using this particular conorthography of
French as a ways of transcribing a phonemic French tengwar mode where
writing the liaison consonants as a part of the following word makes
a lot of sense.
I used to be fond of dropping interword space, but I do this no
longer, considering the space to be an important part of Latin script
calligraphy.
-----
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 17:36:33 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
>I think most of us here will agree that the *primary* form
>of any natlang is the spoken form. The written form is
>secondary and derived from the spoken; indeed, the same
>language can have more than one written form.
I disagree. Affirming the primate of either the written or the spoken
forms seem like extremist positions to me. The primate of the written
form used to be affirmed for most of the 19th century; as a backlash
to that, the primate of the written form for most of the 20th
century. I believe the truth is not in the extremes, but somewhere in
the middle. Many language do not have a written form. Some do not
have a spoken form, or not any more. Indeed, the same written
language can have more than one spoken form.
In a language such as modern standard German, the written form
arguably existed before the spoken form. The written form of German
had consolidated by the 18th century, while the spoken form continued
to be the local dialects or a pronunciation of the written form with
the local dialects phonology. The modern standard spoken form only
became prominent in the 19th century, when Prussia became the most
prominent state in Germany. The Prussian pronunciation has really the
phonology of a low German dialect, whereas standard German is based
on Eastern mid to high German dialects. Therefore, the Prussian
pronunciation exhibits some features which are alien to most mid to
high German phonologies: Front rounded vowels and a robust opposition
between to series of homorganic stops that is based on aspiration.
>On 03/10/2013 16:48, BPJ wrote:
>> NB 1: I'm not in the least (seriously) interested in
>> reforming the orthography of French or [insert natlang of
>> choice]. Conscripts and conorthographies for various
>> languages nat and con are another matter, and AFAIK on
>> topic here.
I abhor reform orthographies (I mean the personal made-up ones – I
have no particular feelings about official spelling reforms); I love
conorthographies. The difference is exactly the same as between
auxlangs and conlangs. One of them is about pointless proselytizing,
the other is about the appreciation of personal taste.
>Adapting conscripts for conlangs as, e.g. Tolkien did when
>he wrote English in Tengwar and Cirth I agree. But
>conscripts developed only for a natlang is IMO nothing to do
>with conlanging. It's like the codes we developed as
>schoolkids (mine were phonemic, more or less; I hated
>English spelling).
By what we have learnt from the new publicactions in recent years, it
seems probable that Tolkien's scripts were developed primarily for
English, and not for the conlangs. Just like the codes we developed
as schoolkids.
--
grüess
mach
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Something for we to discuss!
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 7:10 am ((PDT))
On 03/10/2013 13:48, Eric Christopherson wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2013, at 6:48 AM, And Rosta wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Leonardo Castro wrote:
>>
>>> "It is necessary that I be there on time." Is this
>>> verb "be" in "bare infinitive"? It looks that it has
>>> a subject!
>>
>> It is an infinitive, yes. (That is, I know of no
>> reasons for not analysing it as an infinitive.)
So the traditional one of analyzing it as subjunctive holds
no weight?
>> All verbs have subjects, I think, so it's not
>> surprising that this one does.
All _finite_ verbs generally have a subject (there are
languages that have special impersonal forms for finite
verbs as well). It is, however, not the the norm for
infinitives to have subjects or, if they do, the subject is
often in some oblique form, e.g. Latin accusative and
infinitive construction.
>> I suspect that this construction involves a silent
>> auxiliary:
>>
>> "It is necessary that [do] I be there on time"
>
> What is your reason for putting [do] before the subject
> -- rather than "It is necessary that I [do] be there on
> time"?
Nor do I understand why. Indeed "It is necessary that do I
be there on time" sounds to me distinctly _ungrammatical_.
Nor IMO does "It is necessary that I do be there on time"
sound much better.
As it so happens I have just been writing an email about a
planning application in which I wrote "[they] urge that it
be called in." To me "[they] urge that it do be called in"
sounds weird.
[snip]
>> I don't have a worked-out story about the semantics at
>> present,
I see problems in labeling it as an infinitive since, among
other things, whether you like it or not, the past form of
'be" is "were", cf.
"If it be true that ....., then surely Chris would tell us."
"If it were true that ...., then surely Chris would have
told us."
If, as you argue, "If it be true .." is short for "If do it
be true ....", then are we to assume that 'were' is a past
infinitive and that "If it were true ..." is short for "If
did it were true ...."?
>> but merely labelling the verb or the construction
>> "subjunctive" will not suffice as a worked-out story.
Except, of course, that we know diachronically it was
evolved from earlier subjunctive forms. It is not exactly
uncommon for relics of earlier constructions to survive in
languages.
--
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 (47)
________________________________________________________________________
2.2. Re: Something for we to discuss!
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 8:55 am ((PDT))
It may not be, but it does work, and it does continue to adequately describe
what's going
on. Unless "be", or any other verb, in this situation is actually doing
something other than
advertised, then I see no good reason to give it a new name.
As a counter example, take the verb "I have drank that brand of tea and it was
horrible".
Here we have the very common instance of the preterite being used as a past
participle.
I would not hesitate to just call this a dialect form of the past participle,
because what
was once a preterite is now functioning in a new way. But with the examples
given, there
has been no change in function and no real change in anything else about them.
Just my
penny-hapenny, and I do remain open to convincement.
Padraic
>________________________________
> From: And Rosta <and.ro...@gmail.com>
>To: Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Thursday, 3 October 2013, 7:52
>Subject: Re: [CONLANG] Something for we to discuss!
>
>
>
>On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>On the other hand, would you propose calling the -s on "dogs" ZEE, simply
>>because the reality is that the sound is [z] even though it's shape belies
>>the name
>>ESS? Historically, it's an ESS, but...
>>
>>Just asking how far we might have to go in rearranging deck chairs...
>>
>
>We keep on rearranging until we find the simplest arrangement. The
>traditionalness of an analysis is not criterial for simplicity.
>
>--And.
>
>
Messages in this topic (47)
________________________________________________________________________
2.3. Re: Something for we to discuss!
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 9:12 am ((PDT))
R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com>
>>>> "It is necessary that I be there on time." Is this
>>>> verb "be" in "bare infinitive"? It looks that it has
>>>> a subject!
>>>
>>> It is an infinitive, yes. (That is, I know of no
>>> reasons for not analysing it as an infinitive.)
>
>So the traditional one of analyzing it as subjunctive holds
>no weight?
Possibly not to some. I would not have a problem with that
if it could be demonstrated that the construction is not an
actual subjunctive construction. If it were sufficiently
different, then I could see giving it a new name.
Like I mentioned earlier, if "drank" comes to be used as the
past participle or "dranken" the adjectival form, then I'd have
no problem with relabeling. To continue calling "dranken"
the preterite would be a bit absurd. Or like the English verb
"help". We now call it a weak verb because at some point in
time, it changed from being a strong verb and got appropriately
relabeled.
>>> I suspect that this construction involves a silent
>>> auxiliary:
>>>
>>> "It is necessary that [do] I be there on time"
>>
>> What is your reason for putting [do] before the subject
>> -- rather than "It is necessary that I [do] be there on
>> time"?
>
>Nor do I understand why. Indeed "It is necessary that do I
>be there on time" sounds to me distinctly _ungrammatical_.
>Nor IMO does "It is necessary that I do be there on time"
>sound much better.
>
>As it so happens I have just been writing an email about a
>planning application in which I wrote "[they] urge that it
>be called in." To me "[they] urge that it do be called in"
>sounds weird.
Yeah, definitely a little out of the ordinary, but I think not
ungrammatical. It's just the usual DO emphatic; and, I'm sure,
sing. pres. subjunctive!
>>> I don't have a worked-out story about the semantics at
>>> present,
>
>I see problems in labeling it as an infinitive since, among
>other things, whether you like it or not, the past form of
>'be" is "were", cf.
>"If it be true that ....., then surely Chris would tell us."
>
>"If it were true that ...., then surely Chris would have
>told us."
To were or not to were, that did were the question!
I guess historically, that ought to be "to was or not to was..."
>If, as you argue, "If it be true .." is short for "If do it
>be true ....", then are we to assume that 'were' is a past
>infinitive and that "If it were true ..." is short for "If
>did it were true ...."?
>
>>> but merely labelling the verb or the construction
>>> "subjunctive" will not suffice as a worked-out story.
>
>Except, of course, that we know diachronically it was
>evolved from earlier subjunctive forms. It is not exactly
>uncommon for relics of earlier constructions to survive in
>languages.
Quite so.
Padraic
>Ray
Messages in this topic (47)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: "Re: Colloquial French resources"
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" leolucas1...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 7:20 am ((PDT))
2013/10/3 Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com>:
[...]
> * not pronouncing the plural markers of possessives, adjectives and
> nouns
> (but even colloquial pt-BR requires it in the articles),
Let me correct it before someone else notes (or subjunctive "note") the mistake:
Colloquial pt-BR requires only the first word (not necessarily an
article) of a plural noun phrase to mark the plural.
So, it would be possible to say "as minha filha" ("the-PL my daughter"
= "the daughters of mine"), "minhas filha", "duas filha", "pessoas
velha" or "os três filho mais novo" in informal pt-BR, while formal
speech would require "as minhas filhas", "minhas filhas", "duas
filhas", "pessoas velhas" and "os três filhos mais novos".
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: THEORY: Native languages of the Americas in popular music
Posted by: "Krista D. Casada" kcas...@uark.edu
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 7:51 am ((PDT))
Does Te Vaka get much airtime in New Zealand?
Krista Casada
________________________________________
From: Constructed Languages List [conl...@listserv.brown.edu] on behalf of
James Kane [kane...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 3:16 AM
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Subject: Re: THEORY: Native languages of the Americas in popular music
The [ɨ] is very distinctive in song!
In New Zealand, Māori 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 Māori was quite common. Although there have been
hordes of very talented Māori musicians over the years with maybe a
song or two in Māori, 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 (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: THEORY: Native languages of the Americas in popular music
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" leolucas1...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 7:52 am ((PDT))
I just started watching all the video clips suggested in this topic in
line. Talking about Indigenous-based music, I remember that the
Amazonic song "Tic Tic Tac" became a hit in some European countries
some years ago, but it's completely sung in Portuguese.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLn--SqBWIk
" #1 in France and Portugal, #2 in Wallonia, #3 in Spain, #6 in
Flanders. One year later, a cover partly sung in English was even more
successful in central and northern Europe."
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/sikasikawa/pan_european_hits_in_languages_other_than_english/
Até mais!
Leonardo
2013/10/3 Jyri Lehtinen <lehtinen.j...@gmail.com>:
> I guess you should also consider the musical scene when assessing the
> vitality of a language. At least music is often used in language
> revitalisation projects.
>
> Around here you can find really varying music in Saami (mostly North
> Saami), e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiQ9pQGQKWE. There's also this
> guy who does rap in Inari Saami, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-56xy7NhAm4.
>
> I can't think now of any non folk groups that sing in Karelian but Myllärit
> has some not at all folky tunes, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfcJeTVdJT8
>
> A bit further away there's a group who sing in Livonian,
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry5aZnlYTOY. That's music in a language
> which is variously declared alive or dead depending on whom you ask. Again,
> that's trad. but doesn't shy off from taking new influences.
>
> -Jyri
>
>
>
> 2013/10/2 Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com>
>
>> 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
>>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5.1. Re: Melin's Swedish Shorthand -- for English! (was: Re: Gateway to c
Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@shared-files.de
Date: Thu Oct 3, 2013 2:34 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:40:13 +0200, BPJ wrote:
>2013-10-01 18:45, J. 'Mach' Wust skrev:
>> The vowels' representation is different from the
>> Faulmann system that is used in the more modern German systems (like
>> Stolze-Schrey or deutsche Einheitskurzschrift) which operate with the
>> script's baseline (which can be kept, raised or lowered). It yields a
>> very similar overall aspect, though. I wonder whether Melin came up
>> with his system independently form the Faulman system.
>
>He got the idea from Arends' system, but the implementation is his
>own.
>I've looked in vain for an illustration of Arends' system, including
>looking through my several binders and folders of photocopies,
>knowing that
>I used to have something, but the general principle is well
>_described_
>at <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Arends>
Thanks for the hint. Indeed, the similarity is obvious. Here is a
picture:
http://fotogalerie.herr-der-ringe-film.de/data/7977/arends.png
There is one big difference, though: In Arends' system, the lower end
of the consonant signs is not significative for the consonants
themselves, but is a part of the following vowel.
--
grüess
mach
Messages in this topic (28)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
