------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 17 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: new Unnamed Conlang
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: ? how would you classify this language ?
From: Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: ? how would you classify this language ?
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: Conlang flag design; comments and proposals
From: "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: Conlang flag design; comments and proposals
From: "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Can we stop this? (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Jeffrey Henning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: fragments of a creole
From: Jeffrey Henning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: Further language development Q's
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: ? how would you classify this language ?
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Non scol... sed vita... discimus
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Non scol... sed vita... discimus
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: OT Caution!! IRA funding (was: English word order and bumper stickers)
From: "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:00:24 -0400
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang
Rodlox/Mark J. Reed/Rodlox wrote:
>
> > > h ( like "Hat" and "aHa!")
> >
> > Don't you find that sound difficult to hear in final position?
>
> nah
>
Good for you. Maybe you should study Indonesian, it's full of final h's--
true, it's difficult for lots of learners, but it just takes practice.
Technically, it's not really a glottal [h], which _is_ a little difficult to
do after a vowel, but a voiceless continuation of the vowel articulation.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:03:29 -0700
From: Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ? how would you classify this language ?
David Peterson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> <<AIUI, that's SVO in both clauses. The relative pronoun is considered
> part of the main clause, while the relative clause has a "gap": in
> English, the argument that corresponds to the relative pronoun is left out.
>
> full sentence: That is what (I want).
>
> main clause: That is what
> S V O
>
> relative clause: I want [...]
> S V (O)>>
>
> No. The whole reason that they proposed gaps and movement was that
> their syntax didn't match up with the extent word order. So when they
> talk about "word order", they mean surface word order--otherwise all
> languages would have the same word order (at least, according to some
> linguists). And technically, there's another gap in this sentence--the WH-
> word has to move "covertly" to be in proper position. (Or is that the
> empty operator...? Geez, I've forgotten my old school syntax already..)
Who are "they?". I thought it worked like that because it meant you had
to do less fiddling around to compare languages with and without
resumptive pronouns.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:42:01 -0400
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ? how would you classify this language ?
David Peterson and others have written:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<<AIUI, that's SVO in both clauses. The relative pronoun is considered
part of the main clause, while the relative clause has a "gap": in
English, the argument that corresponds to the relative pronoun is left out.
full sentence: That is what (I want).
main clause: That is what
S V O
relative clause: I want [...]
S V (O)>>
>No. The whole reason that they proposed gaps and movement was that
their syntax didn't match up with the extent word order. So when they
talk about "word order", they mean surface word order--otherwise all
languages would have the same word order (at least, according to some
linguists). >
Don't they???? (Signed, Noam) :-)))))))
> And technically, there's another gap in this sentence--the WH-
word has to move "covertly" to be in proper position. (Or is that the
empty operator...? Geez, I've forgotten my old school syntax already...)>
I guess there's at least a couple way to analyze it, as it stands.
1. This is [what I want]
NP COP S[> NP+[V+O] (with some kind of fronting transformation-- I
don't think we want to call it the Q-trans.)
2. This is what [I want *what*]
NP COP NP+S[> NP V (+deleted O)] which makes in comparable to a relative
clause with deleted relative pron. e.g. 'That's the man I saw'
But 3: "what" is actually a substitute for _that which_ (which it is), so
that in fact the underlying structure is most similar to #2 above.
Both in Kash and Gwr, I tried to avoid using any form of the interrog.
pronoun in this construction-- though Kash ended up with an apparent variant
(kar, cf. kari 'who', kandri 'what')-- but Gwr worked better -- the form is
_lay_, a reduction of la-de 'things', cf.:
ko s�q gr ja (ko)?
Q we do what (Q)?
'What shall/did we do?'.....vs.
mo naw ch�ng lay mo gr tri
I not know THINGS I do then
'I don't know what I did then/next.'
I hope this is reasonably clear; it's always risky to write posts at
cocktail time..........
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:54:18 +0100
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
Joe wrote at 2004-09-16 21:46:59 (+0100)
> Tim May wrote:
> >England and Scotland are kingdoms, I think. Certainly they were
> >kingdoms before the Act of Union... Wales is a principality, and
> >Northern Ireland is a province. I'm not sure that there _is_ a
> >general term, unless Joe's right about 'part'.
> >
> >
>
>
> Well, England and Scotland aren't Kingdoms. The Act of Union dealt with
> that.
This may be the case, although as I read it the text of the Act leaves
open the question of whether the two kingdoms have any continuing
existence within the new United Kingdom:
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1707
> Northern Ireland is all that remains of the ex-Kingdom of
> Ireland, though that was also stripped of its Kingdomhood in 1801.
All true, but irrelevant to the question of its current status. What
information I can find suggests that the Government of Ireland Act
1920 created it as the "Province of Northern Ireland", although I
can't find the text online. I _do_ know that it is commonly referred
to as "the Province" by e.g. the BBC. The issue is somewhat confused
by its identification with the historic province of Ulster, with which
it is not coterminous. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 does not appear
to use the term "province" - nor, AFAICT, does it use any other term.
> Wales mgith be a Principality, but Prince Charles has no actual
> power in Wales. So I'm not sure it can actually be called that.
Nonetheless, that is what it is called. It's not uncommon to see the
region referred to as "the Principality" in news reports etc.
On the other hand, the only official document I can referring to Wales
as a principality is this one:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2000/draft/20007334.htm
Which is one more than I can find referring to England, Scotland or
Northern Ireland as anything.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:42:33 +0930
From: "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang flag design; comments and proposals
After the first day of voting:
There are seventeen votes in so far, and one particular flag is
winning by a mile (it's the one I put in ninth place, so I can live
with that, and I don't think anyone would be really disappointed).
The diversity of views is interesting. For example, one person put the
flag I put in first place in last place, and the flag I put in last
place in first place. Another person put the flag I put in first place
also in first place, but the flag I put in last place in second place!
About 35% of people are placing all or most of the flags into an order
of preference, and the other 65% are voting for their favourite few
while leaving the majority of entries blank.
End of report.
Christian Thalmann wrote:
> Goblin-eyed elves kissing... not quite the symbolism
> I'd go for. =P I thought we had agreed not to put
> faces onto the flag.
What's this? Dirty minds on Conlang? I never would have believed it!
:-)
Anyway, they don't look as though they're kissing. If you've ever seen
people kissing you'll know perfectly well that it doesn't look like
*that*! (Personally, I don't associate tongues with kissing. Lips,
yeah.) :-)
More seriously: nobody has agreed on anything other than democracy. A
small group of people have expressed dislike of faces on flags. Well,
another small group of people have expressed a preference against
using symbols with religious connotations, such as the Tower of Babel.
Other groups of people have expressed other opinions. So what?
Adrian.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:57:22 +0930
From: "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang flag design; comments and proposals
I wrote, but erred. Corrections are marked in capitals:
> The diversity of views is interesting. For example, one person put the
> flag I put in first place in SECOND-last place, and the flag I put in
> last place in SECOND place. Another person put the flag I put in first
> place also in first place, but the flag I put in last place in second
> place!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:33:45 -0400
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
Rodlox scripsit:
> > Well, England and Scotland aren't Kingdoms. The Act of Union dealt with
> > that. Northern Ireland is all that remains of the ex-Kingdom of
> > Ireland, though that was also stripped of its Kingdomhood in 1801.
>
> because some Irish sided with Napoleon? *curious*
No, no. Because of the Act of Union in that year, which created the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. There had been a previous
Act of Union in 1707 between England and Scotland that created
the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
--
Go, and never darken my towels again! John Cowan
--Rufus T. Firefly www.ccil.org/~cowan
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:23:56 -0400
From: Jeffrey Henning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can we stop this? (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:16:15 +0100, Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 15,
>Good grief! What is happening to us? Do we really want this list to tear
>itself apart?
>
>We've just had one (IMO valued) member of the list leave because of the
>activities of over-zealous pro-Americans both on and off the list. Now we
>are treated to the rantings of an equally over-zealous anti-American. If
>this continues then it will inevitably lead to flames and more people
>leaving (Indeed, if Rodlox decides to leave now, quite frankly, I would
>not blame him; but I do think it a loss if people who join the list with
>an interest in language construction are put off in this way).
>
>I am *not* opposed to free speech. But there are fora on the Internet for
>those who want to engage in such discussions; that is not, as I understand
>it, the purpose of this list. I was under the impression that this list
>was for those interested in *language construction*. Yes, I know we do
>wander off topic - but as chums chatting, not bigots ranting.
>
>Do you think we could end this thread before it descends into flames and
>that we could get back to conlanging?
Sorry to quote all of the above, but I agree with it wholeheartedly and thought it was
worth seeing again.
Let's take these conversations elsewhere and talk conlanging here.
- Jeffrey
http://www.langmaker.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:35:30 -0400
From: Jeffrey Henning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: fragments of a creole
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:48:35 +1200, Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>karaeye
>kara = to loiter, -ai = continuative aspect, -ie = present tense
How do you get "haunting" from "loitering"? Why can _karaeye_ take an object? Why
shouldn't one read _Hiyha verdabakh karaeye na'eva!_ as "there's an evil spirit
loitering [around] the city"?
Inquiring minds want to know!
- Jeffrey
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:41:32 -0500
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Further language development Q's
From: Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 2) Ayeri is a trigger language, that means fluid-S AFAIK.
>
> I don't think trigger languages are really the same thing as fluid-S. I
> think they're separate categories. But I don't know.
I would have to second this. Fluid-S languages have gradient
marking depending on how volitional, animate, etc., the argument
is. Thus, an intransitive like "fall" would normally take O-marking
since you don't normally choose to fall, but if you did, you could
use A-marking. My understanding is that prototypical trigger languages
have no such split-behavior among intransitive predicates.
==========================================================================
Thomas Wier "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally,
Dept. of Linguistics because our secret police don't get it right
University of Chicago half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of
1010 E. 59th Street Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter.
Chicago, IL 60637
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:12:01 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
Tim May wrote:
>Joe wrote at 2004-09-16 21:46:59 (+0100)
> > Tim May wrote:
>
> > >England and Scotland are kingdoms, I think. Certainly they were
> > >kingdoms before the Act of Union... Wales is a principality, and
> > >Northern Ireland is a province. I'm not sure that there _is_ a
> > >general term, unless Joe's right about 'part'.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Well, England and Scotland aren't Kingdoms. The Act of Union dealt with
> > that.
>
>This may be the case, although as I read it the text of the Act leaves
>open the question of whether the two kingdoms have any continuing
>existence within the new United Kingdom:
>http://wikisource.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1707
>
>
I don't think so:
That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May
next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One
Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN
Thus there is only one Kingdom.
> > Northern Ireland is all that remains of the ex-Kingdom of
> > Ireland, though that was also stripped of its Kingdomhood in 1801.
>
>All true, but irrelevant to the question of its current status. What
>information I can find suggests that the Government of Ireland Act
>1920 created it as the "Province of Northern Ireland", although I
>can't find the text online. I _do_ know that it is commonly referred
>to as "the Province" by e.g. the BBC. The issue is somewhat confused
>by its identification with the historic province of Ulster, with which
>it is not coterminous. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 does not appear
>to use the term "province" - nor, AFAICT, does it use any other term.
>
>
>
Well, the Government of Ireland Act a)Is repealed, and b)Predated the
Anglo-Irish Treaty. I'd say it suggests that it was considered a
Province of the part called Ireland(along with Southern Ireland). The
current 'constitution' of Northern Ireland refers to it as a part.
> > Wales mgith be a Principality, but Prince Charles has no actual
> > power in Wales. So I'm not sure it can actually be called that.
>
>Nonetheless, that is what it is called. It's not uncommon to see the
>region referred to as "the Principality" in news reports etc.
>
>On the other hand, the only official document I can referring to Wales
>as a principality is this one:
>http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2000/draft/20007334.htm
>Which is one more than I can find referring to England, Scotland or
>Northern Ireland as anything.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:26:33 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ? how would you classify this language ?
On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 01:27 , Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Classical Latin was basically SVO, but varied considerably, usually
>> because of topic fronting and shifting focus to the end.
>
> It was? I thought it was basically SOV? The example sentences in my Latin
> mini-grammar are; _puer puellam amat_.
OOPS!! Lapsus manu:s - I thought I'd typed SOV :=(
Latin was basically a Subject-Object-Verb lang - but I got the
topicalization & focusing correct ;)
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:26:22 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non scol... sed vita... discimus
On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 02:38 , Carsten Becker wrote:
> Hey!
>
> My father, cramming together his knowledge of Latin wanted to know if
> the sentence "Non scholae sed vita discimus" is correct and which cases
> there are --
I guess _scholae_ could be locative, though that is not at usual with
common nouns; _vita_ is certainly ablative.
"We learn not in school but from life."
But it would be more in keeping with Roman practice to have both nouns in
the same case. Therefore:
---------------------------------------------------
On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 02:59 , Peter Bleackley wrote:
[snip]
> If the intended meaning is "We learn not from school, but from life", I
> think it's
>
> non schola sed vita discimus
>
> using the ablative in each case
Quite correct use of the ablative & more 'normal' Latin than
_scholae......vita_. But if we do not learn in school or from school, then
what is the purpose of school?
---------------------------------------------------
On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 03:26 , J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
[snip]
> When I google for "Non scholae sed vita discimus", then google asks me:
>
> Did you mean: "non scholae sed vitae discimus"
>
> This is also how I remembered this saying, 'we don't learn for school, but
> for life'. Both nouns are in dative.
Indeed they are - and IMO this gives much better sense.
> The internet doesn't make quite clear whether this is a litteral quote or
> not,
IME "quotes" on the Internet are too often not literal.
> but it seems to be based on Seneca, Epistulae 106, 12.
It is many long year since I read Seneca. I cannot place the "quote".
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:16:30 +0100
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
Staving Ray Brown:
>On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, at 11:12 , J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
>[snip]
>>It's strange how names of countries are formed. Sometimes, the place name
>>adopted for the country may have been used for the whole area of that
>>country (Australia), sometimes only for a part (England, Holland). However
>
>Holland I understand. But England? I was born here and have lived in
>England nearly two thirds of my 65+ years (the other third I lived in
>Wales). But what is this part of England from which England is named?
This probably refers to the foreign (usually American) use of "England" to
mean "Britain". Often offensive to those who identify themselves primarily
with a particular part of the UK, rather than the UK as a whole.
Pete
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:19:58 +0100
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
Staving Douglas Koller:
>It seems to have improved in recent years, at least among my own
>coterie of friends, but in the hoarfrost of the 70's, England/(Great)
>Britain meant the whole of the UK. For those of us scrambling to be
>correct, it's "the Netherlands," and "the United Kingdom" is united
>because it's composed of four constituents.
A Dutch colleague habitually refers to his country as "Holland", in
preference to "the Netherlands". Whether this is a particularly Southern
Dutch habit or not, I don't know, but he seems to regard "Holland" as more
correct.
Pete
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:04:03 -0400
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non scol... sed vita... discimus
Sorry, I forgot to tell you: the intended meaning was "You don't learn for
school but for life".
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:35:14 +0930
From: "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT Caution!! IRA funding (was: English word order and bumper stickers)
Roger Mills wrote, quoting myself:
[Re: Interpretation of the phrase "terrorism funded by America".]
> > The word "America", in this context, was almost universally taken
> > by Americans to mean "the American government", whereas it was
> > almost universally taken by non-Americans to mean "the American
> > populace".
>
> Well, as you see, I fall into the first category; I'm truly
> surprised at the second-- everything one hears, even from the Arab
> world nowadays, certainly suggests to me that non-Americans are
> quite capable of distinguishing the two, indeed eager to do so.
Why are you surprised at the second? There is no suggestion of people
failing to distinguish between American government versus American
people; the variation lies in which of those two distinct bodies
people thought of when they heard the word "America" used unqualified.
Sometimes context will resolve the ambiguity. If I comment upon the
performance of America in the Olympics, it is clear that I am
referring neither to the performance of the American government /nor/
of the American populace, but rather that of American /athletes/.
However, if I say that a specified amount of terrorism was funded by
a specified country, then I *could* be talking about terrorism funded
officially by the government of that country, or I *could* be talking
about the total amount of terrorism funded by individuals who are
citizens of that country.
I'm very puzzled at why you think that the latter, but not the former,
indicates a failure to distinguish between the government and the
people.
Adrian.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
