------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Subject / Object / ?
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: English word order and bumper stickers
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: A few phonetics-related q's
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: tongue twisters
From: Keith Gaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: A few phonetics-related q's
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: Subject / Object / ?
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: tongue twisters
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: tongue twisters
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: A few phonetics-related q's
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: A few phonetics-development-related q's
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: A few phonetics-related q's
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: A few phonetics-development-related q's
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: A few phonetics-related q's
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Generalizing about U.S. education (was: Subject / Object / ?)
From: "Isaac A. Penzev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Hebrew Dictionaries
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: A few phonetics-related q's
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: Thoughts on my Gwr Language
From: makeenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: A few phonetics-related q's
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: Text in Silindion PART I
From: J�rg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: tongue twisters
From: "I. K. Peylough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: Generalizing about U.S. education (was: Subject / Object / ?)
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: Dealing with an idea deficit...
From: "I. K. Peylough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: tongue twisters
From: David Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. New Language!
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: New Language!
From: Trebor Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:57:57 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Subject / Object / ?
> > So, next time, before jumping at my throat, you may think a bit before
(I'm
> > not talking to Elliot alone here). I don't have the habit of talking
about
> > what I know nothing about. And I was just genuinely surprised by the
> > question Rodlox asked, which should indicate that I had a higher opinion
of
> > the US education system*s* than you seem to think I have. But I must say
> > it's just one more piece of circumstancial evidence that I got that
proves
> > that *in average*, the US education level in primary and secondary
schools
> > is not good enough
actually, it just proves that I focused my education (&brainpower) on the
Sciences in school, only studying Language *in*depth* _after_ I graduated!
translation: it is, in this case, the individual, not the system, which is
responsible.
ps: if *you* don't know, you don't have to digress to a discussion of
schools -- just say you don't know. I won't tell anybody!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:51:22 -0400
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: English word order and bumper stickers
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 04:43:23PM +0100, Peter Bleackley wrote:
> Staving Elliot Lash:
>
> >I second this. In Hebrew:
> >
> > Baruch ata adonai
> > blessed you Lord
> >
> > "Blessed are you Lord."
> >
> >Jewish Prayers regularly begin with this Blessing from
> >the Worshipers to God.
>
> And in the Catholic Mass
>
> Blessed are You Lord, God of all creation,
I'll certainly conced that I was mistaken about the applicability of
"bless". However, I don't infer from either of the above specific
examples that the speakeris the one blessing God. Don't know who is -
maybe he's blessing himself - but I never heard it as us blessing him.
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:27:04 +0200
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A few phonetics-related q's
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:30:31 -0400, Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> y > (the rounded version of E~)
9~? Makes sense (e.g. brun vs brune).
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:03:09 -0600, Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:30:31 -0400, Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Trebor wrote:
> >
> >> [...] /anta/ [...]
> >
> > [...] I'd say [anda] is a more likely outcome.
>
> And [anda] is what happens in Modern Greek, IIRC.
You do RC. Intervocalic /nt/ = [nd] (in general - [d] and [nt] are
also possible, though the latter, I believe, only in loanwords such as
/ntantela/ [dantela] "lace" < Fr. "dentelle").
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Watch the Reply-To!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:26:15 +0100
From: Keith Gaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: tongue twisters
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:04:38AM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
>>I was speaking Spanish this morning and wished to express the meaning of
>>the English saying "The grass is always greener . . .". So I said
>>"La hierba es siempre mas verde . . .".
>
> BTW, that should be |m�s|.
>
>>I meant to say [la 'jE4.ba Es 'sjEm.pre mas 'bE4.de]
>
> Or something like that. For some reason, |r|s confuse me; is a voiced
> stop after them fricativized or not? That is, should it be
> ['jE4.ba]/['bE4.de] or ['jE4.Ba]/['bE4.De]?
Don't have my grammar with me at work, but I believe it's only between
vowels, so it'd be ['jE4.ba]/['bE4.de]. Or wait: isn't <v>/<b> always
[B], or am I raving?
--
Keith Gaughan -- talideon.com
The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:30:35 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A few phonetics-related q's
On Tuesday, September 14, 2004, at 05:03 , Muke Tever wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:30:31 -0400, Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Trebor wrote:
>>
>>> In a word like /anta/, would it be more likely that it's pronounced
>>> [anda]
>>> or [an_0ta]?
>>
>> It might depend on other tendencies in the language.
Yes, I think this is an important consideration. Phonological changes don'
t develop in isolation.
>> Does assimilation in
>> general tend to be progressive-- i.e are there clusters of the sort
>> /-bk-/ >
>> [-bg-]-- or regressive, i.e. the cluster /-bk-/ > [-pk-].
>>
>> Nasal clusters however tend not to behave like stop clusters; the voicing
>> predominates, so I'd say [anda] is a more likely outcome.
Yes, this has been my experience. I first came across this more than 50
years ago in Tamil and then discovered it also occurred in Modern Greek.
Since then I've discovered this type of assimilation occurs in languages
of both the 'old' and 'new' worlds.
> And [anda] is what happens in Modern Greek, IIRC.
Yes - tho I understand that in some dialects the nasal is lost entirely, i.
e. /anta/ is pronounced [anda] or [ada] according to dialect.
[snipped lines quoted below]]
> Or [a~ta], of course?
......or, of course, [a~da] ;)
===============================================
On Tuesday, September 14, 2004, at 05:30 , Elliott Lash wrote:
> --- > > But there are cases where nasals are lost or
> changed before voiceless
> sounds, so even your [an_0ta] is not impossible.
> It would more likely lead
> over time to something like [ahta] or [a?ta] or
> [at:a].
>
>
> In Nindic, I have /anta/ becoming [at:a] first and
> then, diachronically, /aTa/, but that takes a while.
Exactly as in Sindarin nasal mutation, e.g. tiw "letters/marks" ~ *in tiw
--> i thiw "the letters/the marks"
The change /nt/ --> /tt/ is attested in natlangs and the change /tt/ -->
/T/ happened in the Brittonic languages.
It also depends whether /t/ is [t] or, as in English & Welsh [t_h]; in the
latter language, nasal mutation has given [nh], e.g. tad [t_ha:d] "father"
~ fy nhad [EMAIL PROTECTED]'ha:d] "my father".
But no one so far has noted the way /nt/ is commonly pronounced in modern
British English, i.e. /n?/
I leave it to my American cousins to explain the various US pronunciations
of /nt/ in "twenty" (Colloquial Brit ['twEn?i])
No doubt this is all very confusing, but I am reminded of Yuen Ren Chao's
observation:
"If /ni/ can change into /a/, then practically anything can change into
anything."
What it boils down to is that it's not simply a question of /nt/ -->
either [n_0t] or [nd]; all sorts of other developments do occur. It
depends, to return to Muke's opening observation, it depends on other
tendencies in your language.
==========================================================================
=======
BTW for the curious, /ni/ was archaic Chinese for "two". In the modern
Yangzhou dialect it is /a/. The changes can be traced through other
dialects; it appears to be:
/ni/ --> /nz\i/ --> /z\i/ --> /z`1/ --> /r\=/ --> /@r\/ --> /ar\/ --> /a/
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:30:42 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Subject / Object / ?
On Monday, September 13, 2004, at 09:24 , Christian Thalmann wrote:
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Remember that you are talking to a francophone, for whom this
> procedure is
>> essentially impossible due to the wide separation of spoken French
> and written
>> French, which Christophe has himself characterized as "two separate
> languages"
>> on many occasions.
>
> But in spoken French, from what I've heard, the subject
> vs object distinction is even marked with a case suffix!
> Observe: /lOm/ "the man (ACC)", /lOmi/ "the man (NOM)",
> as in /lOmi vwa lotROm/ "the man sees the other man". ;-)
No, no - this is faulty analysis.
In the interrogative form we have /lOmvwatilotRom/. The -i- has attached
itself to the allomorph -vwat-. What we have here is the development in
colloquial French of a mandatory _verbal_ subject complement; such verbal
complements are, of course, compulsory in non-interrogative sentences if
there is no noun subject. In the Rheto-Romance branch, such verbal
complements are compulsory in all environments; colloquial French seems to
be going the same way.
{sigh} Why do people keep trying to pretend that French nouns have case
forms? I recall seeing once in a book:
NOM. le gar�on
GEN. du gar�on
DAT. au gar�on
ACC. le gar�on
(I kid you not!)
BTW - just to return to the subject line :)
If we had got subject & object confused at school, the headmaster had a
simple technique for bringing home the point. If, for example, the guy
sitting next to me was "Smith" (only surnames were used in those days), he
would simply say:
"Brown, hit Smith round the head!"
"Smith, hit Brown round the head!"
His theory was that even the most obtuse boy could spot the difference:
the hitter is the subject & the head being hit is the object ;)
Of course, such simple lessons have now long been banned in UK schools!
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:50:11 -0400
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: tongue twisters
Keith Gaughan/Mark Reed wrote:
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:04:38AM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> >
> >>I was speaking Spanish this morning and wished to express the meaning of
> >>the English saying "The grass is always greener . . .". So I said
> >>"La hierba es siempre mas verde . . .".
> >
> > BTW, that should be |m�s|.
> >
> >>I meant to say [la 'jE4.ba Es 'sjEm.pre mas 'bE4.de]
> >
> > Or something like that. For some reason, |r|s confuse me; is a voiced
> > stop after them fricativized or not? That is, should it be
> > ['jE4.ba]/['bE4.de] or ['jE4.Ba]/['bE4.De]?
>
> Don't have my grammar with me at work, but I believe it's only between
> vowels, so it'd be ['jE4.ba]/['bE4.de]. Or wait: isn't <v>/<b> always
> [B], or am I raving?
Memory is fading, but I think /d/ can be [D] after /r/; definitely [d] after
other C's and word-initial. Not sure about after /l/-- I think [d].
Similarly b/v and g: [b], [g] word-initial and post-C, [B] [G] intervocalic.
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:42:23 +0200
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: tongue twisters
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:26:15 +0100, Keith Gaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Or wait: isn't <v>/<b> always [B], or am I raving?
I heard that it's [b] word(?)-initially and [B] in other positions.
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Watch the Reply-To!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:54:38 +0200
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A few phonetics-related q's
Quoting Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > And [anda] is what happens in Modern Greek, IIRC.
>
> Yes - tho I understand that in some dialects the nasal is lost entirely, i.
> e. /anta/ is pronounced [anda] or [ada] according to dialect.
I guess this must be the origin of the use of nu-tau for /d/ in foreign names
and words, then. It gives us wonderful things like "Donald" becoming "Ntonalnt"
(nu-tau-omicron-nu-alpha-nu-tau).
They also use mu-pi for /b/, and, IIRC, gamma-kappa for /g/.
One day I should invent a thoroughly messed-up orthography. (No, Meghean doesn't
count!)
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:41:50 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A few phonetics-development-related q's
> >>> In a word like /anta/, would it be more likely that it's pronounced
> >>> [anda]
> >>> or [an_0ta]?
> >>
> >> It might depend on other tendencies in the language.
>
> Yes, I think this is an important consideration. Phonological changes don'
> t develop in isolation.
what do they *tend* to develop alongside? & what do they only rarely
develop alongside of?
*curious*
thanks.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:16:18 +0200
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A few phonetics-related q's
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:54:38 +0200, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They also use mu-pi for /b/, and, IIRC, gamma-kappa for /g/.
*nods* you do RC.
Note that in all cases, a pronunciation as voiced stop, nasal +
homorganic voiced stop, or nasal + homorganic voiceless stop is
possible - e.g. |gk| can be [g], [Ng], or [Nk]. (The sequences with
voiceless stops are rare, though, and IIRC only occur in loanwords.)
> One day I should invent a thoroughly messed-up orthography. (No, Meghean doesn't
> count!)
Why not just invent a wonderful orthography, then subject the language
to sound changes while retaining a traditional orthography? It worked
for Gaelic and English! Or have some nice derivational sound changes
while using etymological spellings.
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Watch the Reply-To!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:23:21 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A few phonetics-development-related q's
Rodlox wrote:
>>>>>In a word like /anta/, would it be more likely that it's pronounced
>>>>>[anda]
>>>>>or [an_0ta]?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>It might depend on other tendencies in the language.
>>>>
>>>>
>>Yes, I think this is an important consideration. Phonological changes don'
>>t develop in isolation.
>>
>>
>
> what do they *tend* to develop alongside? & what do they only rarely
>develop alongside of?
> *curious*
>
>
>
Well, sometimes all stops, say, are devoiced in certain contexts.
Generally they follow a pattern like that. Or there's a chain mutation,
such as the Germanic consonant shift, which occured in all the Germanic
languages, from PIE:
First of all, I think:
b>p
d>t
g>k
then, to avoid confusion, the number of homophones are reduced by
shifting the originals:
p>f
t>�
k>x>h
(I've left out the voiced aspirates - just makes things difficult).
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:24:04 -0400
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A few phonetics-related q's
Ray Brown wrote:
> But no one so far has noted the way /nt/ is commonly pronounced in modern
> British English, i.e. /n?/
>
> I leave it to my American cousins to explain the various US pronunciations
> of /nt/ in "twenty" (Colloquial Brit ['twEn?i])
In my experience we don't glottalize our t's in _that_ environment, but we
do in phrase-final, and pre/post-C: I can't [k_h&~?]; where's the cat?
[k_h&?]; hatrack ['h&?r&k]; button ['bV`n=], Clinton [klI~?n=]
>
> No doubt this is all very confusing, but I am reminded of Yuen Ren Chao's
> observation:
> "If /ni/ can change into /a/, then practically anything can change into
> anything...."
> BTW for the curious, /ni/ was archaic Chinese for "two". In the modern
> Yangzhou dialect it is /a/. The changes can be traced through other
> dialects; it appears to be:
> /ni/ --> /nz\i/ --> /z\i/ --> /z`1/ --> /r\=/ --> /@r\/ --> /ar\/ --> /a/
I must remember that. So far, the sound changes from Proto to Modern Gwr are
maybe too straightforward. Cf. the word I mentioned the other day-- llaq
[d_la?] 'narrate' < *gul�p (via glap, dlap, dla?) (Anyway, it ought to be
lloq, since *a > o/_p# but let that pass.)
And related [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'story' < g�lap via gul@, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's all
much too simple :-((
Of course in related languages, many other outcomes are possible. Gwrs on
the other continent-- a more diverse lot-- generally kept to the CVCVC
structure and added to the skimpy proto-morphology.
-----------------------------------------
Unrelated message (free ride principle)--
In a volume of conference papers just published/purchased, there's a very
thorough article on Rotuman, entitled (haha) "Temathesis in Rotuman".
If anyone's interested, email me for the Biblio. data.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:47:54 +0300
From: "Isaac A. Penzev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Generalizing about U.S. education (was: Subject / Object / ?)
John Cowan scripsit:
> Consequently, people who claim that "U.S. schools" do or don't do this,
> that, or the other are *always* generalizing from extremely limited
> evidence, frequently personal experience. (This includes me.)
All right. Accept my apologies. I sincerely regret that my exclamation was
so hurting. It seems like comments on education systems disobey the
principle "No cross, no crown". I didn't intend to offend any person from
this list.
My best wishes,
-- Isaac
"from Ukraine with love"
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:59:02 +0300
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hebrew Dictionaries
On Sep 14, 2004, at 7:01 PM, David H wrote:
> In my recent attempt to learn Hebrew, I have decided that I will need a
> dictionary of Modern Israeli Hebrew. I have been looking for a
> dictionary
> that; uses vocalization, indicates gender of nouns (and irregular
> plurals)
> and inflections, is up-to-date and shows the meaning of the words well.
> Can anybody recommend a good dictionary that lives up to most of these
> things?
> Thanks
Well, i just bought the Oxford one, it seems pretty good. Although i
haven't really used it yet. And, like all of the contemporary
Hebrew-Engish dictionaries i've seen, it unfortunately omits _sheva'
nahh_.
-Stephen (Steg)
"tell me if i'm wrong
but it happens a lot..."
~ 'flippin out' by blue fringe
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:11:15 -0400
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A few phonetics-related q's
Ray Brown scripsit:
> I leave it to my American cousins to explain the various US pronunciations
> of /nt/ in "twenty" (Colloquial Brit ['twEn?i])
[t_hwEni] ~ [t_hwIni], I'd say.
> No doubt this is all very confusing, but I am reminded of Yuen Ren Chao's
> observation:
> "If /ni/ can change into /a/, then practically anything can change into
> anything."
See "The Derivation of Moses from Middletown" at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8389/moses.htm .
--
John Cowan www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lope de Vega: "It wonders me I can speak at all. Some caitiff rogue did
rudely yerk me on the knob, wherefrom my wits still wander."
An Englishman: "Ay, a filchman to the nab betimes 'll leave a man
crank for a spell." --Harry Turtledove, Ruled Britannia
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:14:03 -0400
From: makeenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on my Gwr Language
>===== Original Message From Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =====
>Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> li toki e ni:
>
>
>
>>> I'm afraid most ppl here are afraid to present anything too m
>> Yes, I too have noticed that. My only defense to that is the amount of time
>>spent on working on these types of languages. Personally I prefer a "simple"
>>type of language. My current baby is *very* simple compared to many of the
>>others projects, but I meant it to be that way, sort of as a secondary
>>language for me to use day to day.
>
>gjax-zym-byn is mostly isolating with some agglutinative bits; it
>has suffixes, but they're all whole syllables, many of which could be
>considered postpositive particles. I designed it with a simple grammar
>because I intended to become fluent in it (and have, to some degree).
I'd like to join in if I may to say that my latest is also strictly isolating.
I haven't remarked on it because I figured that most people here would be
bored with it. Hikka, is also mono-syllabic since its the latest developement
of my Ok theme. What I mean by that is that almost all of my languages have
been a further developement of my original language, Ok. Its structure is
C(C)V(L)(M)(N)(R) and its word order is SOV with modifiers preceding. Verb
tence is indicated by context.
-Duke
>- Jim Henry
>http://www.mindspring.com/~jimhenry/conlang.htm
The Keenans
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:55:27 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A few phonetics-related q's
John Cowan wrote:
>
>
>
>>No doubt this is all very confusing, but I am reminded of Yuen Ren Chao's
>>observation:
>>"If /ni/ can change into /a/, then practically anything can change into
>>anything."
>>
>>
>
>See "The Derivation of Moses from Middletown" at
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8389/moses.htm .
>
>
>
I have to say, I'd be much more interested to see the reverse.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:15:43 +0200
From: J�rg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Text in Silindion PART I
Hallo!
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:13:19 -0700,
Elliott Lash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the first portion of a Communion Liturgy in
> Silindion. I'll post it in two parts, since in this
> part I want to also introduce a bit about the
> Silindic/Nestic religion. This will be found below.
> To read the next part, see my next email.
>
> [text snipped]
Awesome! Another fine bit of a superb, masterfully crafted language.
And I like what you wrote about Silindic religion.
Greetings,
J�rg.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:59:56 -0400
From: "I. K. Peylough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: tongue twisters
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:50:11 -0400, Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Keith Gaughan wrote:
>> Mark Reed wrote:
>> > Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:04:38AM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> >> I was speaking Spanish this morning and wished to express the meaning
>> >> of the English saying "The grass is always greener . . .". So I said
>> >> "La hierba es siempre mas verde . . .".
>> >
>> > BTW, that should be |m�s|.
>> >
>> >> I meant to say [la 'jE4.ba Es 'sjEm.pre mas 'bE4.de]
>> >
>> > Or something like that. For some reason, |r|s confuse me; is a voiced
>> > stop after them fricativized or not? That is, should it be
>> > ['jE4.ba]/['bE4.de] or ['jE4.Ba]/['bE4.De]?
>>
>> Don't have my grammar with me at work, but I believe it's only between
>> vowels, so it'd be ['jE4.ba]/['bE4.de]. Or wait: isn't <v>/<b> always
>> [B], or am I raving?
>
> Memory is fading, but I think /d/ can be [D] after /r/; definitely [d]
> after other C's and word-initial. Not sure about after /l/-- I think [d].
>
> Similarly b/v and g: [b], [g] word-initial and post-C, [B] [G]
> intervocalic.
There is some lectal variation, after consonants, but I would have
pronounced it either [la 'J\E4.Ba e 'siem.p4e mah 'bE4.De] or [la 'J\E4.Ba
e 'siem.p4e mas 'BE4.De]. Also the fricative allophones can occur word-
initial as well, except after a pause or the appropriate consonant.
I
PS I *think* I've straightened out the quote attribution.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:13:26 -0400
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Generalizing about U.S. education (was: Subject / Object / ?)
Isaac A. Penzev scripsit:
> John Cowan scripsit:
>
> > Consequently, people who claim that "U.S. schools" do or don't do this,
> > that, or the other are *always* generalizing from extremely limited
> > evidence, frequently personal experience. (This includes me.)
>
> All right. Accept my apologies. I sincerely regret that my exclamation was
> so hurting. It seems like comments on education systems disobey the
> principle "No cross, no crown". I didn't intend to offend any person from
> this list.
I wasn't offended, though it seems that some people were. I was just tryin
to clarify the situation.
--
John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We want more school houses and less jails; more books and less arsenals;
more learning and less vice; more constant work and less crime; more
leisure and less greed; more justice and less revenge; in fact, more of
the opportunities to cultivate our better natures. --Samuel Gompers
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:09:26 -0400
From: "I. K. Peylough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dealing with an idea deficit...
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:13:19 -0400, Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David Peterson wrote:
>> Roger wrote:
>>
>> <<Can you summon up any specifics or examples from the memory banks? 150
>> seems
>> an awful lot.>>
>>
>> She was grouping verbs together that worked the same in *all* sentences.
>> So
>> here are two
>> similar examples:
>>
>> (1) "to like"
>> (a) I like cookies.
>> (b) I like to eat.
>> (c) I like for him to read.
>> (d) ?I like him to read.
>> (e) I like that he's okay with that.
>>
>> (2) "to want"
>> (a) I want cookies.
>> (b) I want to eat.
>> (c) I want for him to read.
>> (d) I want him to read.
>> (e) *I want that he's okay with that.
>>
>> Based on the examples above, these two verbs, though very similar,
>> form two distinct classes. This is because (1e) is okay but (2e) isn't.
>> ( (2d) is negligible.
>
>That's similar to what the person I mentioned who was doing the Venn
>diagrams was doing. [Parse that sentence!!] I've tried to find his/her
posts
>in the archive but no luck; I'm sure it was within the past year. Is he/she
>still with us? Lurking? Does anyone else remember, or have the site
>bookmarked?
>
>Thanks to Sylvia for the book title. It sounds worthwile.
Andrew Patterson endipatterson [at] YAHOO [dot] COM
There are a number of messages earlier this year. One (from May 2) is at
http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-
bin/wa?A2=ind0405A&L=conlang&P=R6001&D=0&O=D
You may have to copy and paste (or retype) it.
This contains the link:
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/Catenative.html
but I haven't checked to see if it's still valid.
I
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:38:19 -0400
From: David Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: tongue twisters
Philip wrote:
<< I heard that it's [b] word(?)-initially and [B] in other positions.>>
This is correct. Same is true for all other voiced stops.
-David
P.S.: When I hit "reply", it went straight to your address, Philip.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:40:18 +0100
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: New Language!
I've started the first language in a long time that I'm happy with. :) I
start quite a lot but most of them strike me as unsatisfactory pretty
quickly, and I generally become bored or depressed trying to fix them,
but my latest is the first I've been remotely happy with in years. I've
nicked a few bits from basque (mainly some ideas from the basque verbal
system), from Hungarian, and a few things from other places...
The reason I was asking about split ergative systems before is because
my new language has got one, and its slightly messy, and probably breaks
the universal about animacy and split ergative systems. Its split as
follows:
Verb Person (Accusative, but the verb agrees with both arguments if it
is transitive)
Pronouns:
1st & 2nd: Accusative
3rd: Split: pronouns representing people (like he/she in english) are
accusative, pronouns representing other things (like it) are accusative
Proper nouns: neutral (no marking either way)
Definite People (ie nouns referring to people occuring with a definite
article eg the men, the boys, the women etc): Accusative
Everything else: Ergative
The main messiness is the lack of marking of proper nouns, which are
sandwiched between accusative systems (so the lack of marking doesn't
occur where the divide does) and also the fact that some 3rd person
pronouns are ergative even though things further down the scale from
them are accusative. Also, I'm not sure if any natural language changes
from ergative to accusative because of a change of definiteness....
The difference between Nom and Acc, and Erg and Abs is marked on the
article, but all other cases are marked with suffixes on the noun itself
(this is the reason proper nouns are neutral: they don't take articles),
and some of the affixes (mainly the plural affix) change form depending
on whether the noun they're attached to is taking ergative or accusative
style marking...
Phonology wise it isn't amazingly interesting, apart from the fact it
has no bilabials or labiodentals whatsoever (no p, b, m, f, v, w...) but
it does have a set of dental fricatives (which I decided not to spell
using the handy unused letters f & v because that would be too easy).
If anyone's interested I'll post some examples when I've made some good
ones... or maybe a babel text. :)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:38:27 -0400
From: Trebor Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Language!
Chris Bates �rta: "Verb Person (Accusative, but the verb agrees with both
arguments if it is transitive)
Pronouns:
1st & 2nd: Accusative
3rd: Split: pronouns representing people (like he/she in english) are
accusative, pronouns representing other things (like it) are accusative
Proper nouns: neutral (no marking either way)
Definite People (ie nouns referring to people occuring with a definite
article eg the men, the boys, the women etc): Accusative
Everything else: Ergative
"The main messiness is the lack of marking of proper nouns, which are
sandwiched between accusative systems (so the lack of marking doesn't occur
where the divide does) and also the fact that some 3rd person pronouns are
ergative even though things further down the scale from them are accusative.
Also, I'm not sure if any natural language changes from ergative to
accusative because of a change of definiteness.... The difference between
Nom and Acc, and Erg and Abs is marked on the article, but all other cases
are marked with suffixes on the noun itself (this is the reason proper nouns
are neutral: they don't take articles), and some of the affixes (mainly the
plural affix) change form depending on whether the noun they're attached to
is taking ergative or accusative style marking... Phonology wise it isn't
amazingly interesting, apart from the fact it has no bilabials or
labiodentals whatsoever (no p, b, m, f, v, w...) but it does have a set of
dental fricatives (which I decided not to spell using the handy unused
letters f & v because that would be too easy)."
Nothing r'ly to add here, just... You are very creative, and I can't wait to
see more... :)))
Will you use � and � for your dental fricatives? (I.e. thorn and edh.)
Trebor
"Oysters are a fine thing, so are strawberries: but mashed together?"
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
