------------------------ 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: Non vitae sed scholae discimus
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Michael Poxon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: AAAUUUUGH! (was Re: consport/congaming)
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: new Unnamed Conlang
From: Tamas Racsko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. OT:Re: Disappointing...
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: NATLANG: Latin prefixes with er/ra
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Non vitae sed scholae discimus
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: new Unnamed Conlang
From: Tamas Racsko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: new Unnamed Conlang
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: new Unnamed Conlang (clarification)
From: Rodlox R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: Anti-Chomsky Insults
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Anti-Chomsky Insults
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: NATLANG: Latin prefixes with er/ra
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Trolls
From: "J. K. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: Non vitae sed scholae discimus
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: Anti-Chomsky Insults (was: ? how would you classify this language
?)
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Imperatives in split-S languages (was Anomaly of the (apparent) Cebuano
uvulars and Guarani info request)
From: J�rg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: Disappointing...
From: J�rg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: Anti-Chomsky Insults
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: Guarani info request
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: Imperatives in split-S languages (was Anomaly of the (apparent)
Cebuano uvulars and Guarani info request)
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: Anti-Chomsky Insults
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:12:23 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non vitae sed scholae discimus
On Saturday, September 18, 2004, at 11:44 , Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:51:02 +0200, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know if my previous mail on this topic went thru, but I went
>>> home
>> and
>>> checked Tore Jansson's _Latin_, and it agrees with what I thought I
>> recalled;
>>> what Seneca actually wrote was _Non vitae sed scholae discimus_ "Not for
>> life
>>> but for school do we learn". It's noted its often quoted in opposite
>>> form,
>>> and yet attributed to Seneca (which strikes me as highly discourteous,
>>> no
>>> matter how dead the old man might be).
>>
>> It's not that bad since he meant it should be the other way round.
If he actually meant it the other way round, then it is very bad. "non
uitae sed scholae discimus" *cannot* mean 'we learn not for school but
for life' and Seneca would certainly have known that! If in fact he meant
the other way round, then he has been extremely careless.
>> By
>> inversing Seneca's word, we get it the way he'd have wanted it.
How do you in fact know that that is what he would have wanted? Did he add
something like: "Oops, made a mistake there! Please transpose _uitae_ and
_scholae_." I guess not. Obviously the sentence is being quoted out of
context. But what is it that makes it clear that Seneca meant it the other
way round and why, then, did he not write it the other way round?
I am not 'just curious'; I am *very* curious.
>> It's not a
>> proper quote, but an allusion, and a quite litteral one.
Um - seems to be a bit of a contradiction there.
> Well, I don't pretend to know what Seneca would have felt about it. I do
> know
> I'd hate it if I somehow knew that future generations would invert a
> saying of
> mine and yet present it as quote with my name on it, quite regardless
> whether
> the inversion expressed what I wished to be the case.
Absolutely spot! and I suspect Seneca would in fact be none too pleased.
If we are going quote him, we might as well do it properly.
But we have assumed all along the Seneca meant 'school' when he wrote
_scholae_. But the native Latin for school is _ludus_, _schola_ is a Greek
borrowing. It may mean 'school', but it can also mean 'leisure time [given
to learning]'. Maybe he meant:
"We don't learn for our daily living but for the our leisure time."
Does any know the context in which the sentence occurs?
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:32:18 +0100
From: Michael Poxon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
Yes, a part of South Lincolnshire is still called Holland. The Fens has to
be the most depressing place in the entire world.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wesley Parish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
> Part of the British Isles was called Holland - the East Anglian fens?
Have I
> got the right spot?
>
> "the hollow lands" = the swampy fenlands? I think that's the meaning -
though
> as usual, I bow to superior knowledge.
>
> Wesley Parish
>
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:22, B. Garcia wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:19:58 +0100, Peter Bleackley
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 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
> >
> > It's pretty common for many Americans* to call the Netherlands
> > "Holland". I try to say "The Netherlands" but sometimes habit is hard
> > to break and "Holland" slips out.
> >
> > Note: the following is NOT to start an arguement, just something I
> > find interesting:
> >
> > *As for "American" people have been calling people of the United
> > states that for much longer than the current issue of "Why do people
> > in the United States use "American" to refer to themselves?". Anyway,
> > Robert Louis Stevenson used "American" to refer to the people of the
> > United states in the late 1800's as such
> >
> > From "Across the Plains" in the chapter "Mexicans, Americans and
Indians":
> >
> > " Not even the most Americanised would descend to wear the vile dress
> > hat of civilisation. Spanish was the language of the streets. It was
> > difficult to get along without a word or two of that language for an
> > occasion."
> >
> > (I included that quote only because it's interesting that the
> > situation with Spanish is switched with English... it's difficult to
> > get along in Monterey now without a word or two of English, although
> > you can get by if you speak Spanish... so all is not lost for Spanish
> > here :))
> >
> >
> > "Across the Plains" is interesting, especially where it discusses
> > Monterey in both chapters "The Old Pacific Capital" and "Mexicans,
> > Americans, and Indians". It's very interesting and his description of
> > the weather here is still the same.
> >
> > You can find "The Old Pacific Capital" here:
> > http://www.bookrags.com/ebooks/614/30.html
> >
> > And "Mexicans, Americans, and Indians" here:
> > http://www.bookrags.com/ebooks/614/35.html
> >
> > --
> > Listen Johnny;
> > You're like a mother to the girl you've fallen for,
> > And you're still falling,
> > And if they come tonight
> > You'll roll up tight and take whatever's coming to you next.
> >
> > Slow Graffitti - Belle and Sebastian
>
> --
> Wesley Parish
> * * *
> Clinersterton beademung - in all of love. RIP James Blish
> * * *
> Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
> You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
> Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
> I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:51:00 +0200
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: AAAUUUUGH! (was Re: consport/congaming)
Hi to y'all!
After some hibernation, I'm back. So, hi!
Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can we please think twice, then leave the computer, go get a cup of chai
> and a cigarette,
I must object to this! I don't smoke! :-)))
Sorry, I could not resist. :-) But tee is good, will get one now.
**Henrik
> Let's get back to Conlanging, or at least to general language or
> linguistics discussion, and leave the partisanship (on *any* subject) at
> the door.
Definitely.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:54:02 +0100
From: Tamas Racsko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang
On 18 Sep 2004 Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Various 'lects of German and Spanish. Frenchs for /r/ in words like
> "croissant".
I do not wat to defend Mongolian as a specification for |kh|, but
I think, 'lects of better known languages could be equally unknown
to the general public as a standard of a less known languages.
(E.g. in a previous thread there was no solid conclusion about
affricative pronunciation of Spanish |y|.)
French /r/ is the voiced variant of |kh| (that is |g| before back
vowels is Khalkha). I am not completely aware of French sound
assimilation rules. Is /r/ really become unvoiced after voiced
stops?
> Well, I'd be more incline to go by Rodlox' statement that it's [J\]
> than by some reconstruction of AE phonology that might differ from the
> one he's familiar with.
IMHO it is not so simple. Hungarian |gy| in phonetically
affricate [J\j\] but it usually written as a plosive [J\]. This is
rather about accuracy of the notation and not about different
phonology.
And Rodlox used notation |jy|. If we take it serious, this sound
is somehow a modified |j|. If |j| is to be read as [j] than it is a
modified _approximant / fricative_. Approximants (fricatives)
change more likely into an affricate than into a plosive. But |ii|
= [ai] seems to be an English-based solution. In this case |j| can
be treated as [dZ] and |jy| is still a modified affricate.
Let's suppose that |y| makes approximant / fricative |j| into a
homorganic plosive. What can we suppose then for |sy| and |zy|? An
alveolar [t] and [d]? In this case, on the one part it is not too
East European, on the other what can be Rodlox's |d| (like "Dog" &
"aDD")?
In another argumentation |y| can denote a shift in articulation
place and not in the type of the plosion (or lack of plosion). In
this case |jy| is either an approximant/fricative or affricate. If
it would be a plosive like [J\], it should be spelled as |dy|
instead.
However, there is a third option: notations |jy|, |sy|, |zy| are
not systematic. In this case, you are right but we cannot say
anything about |sy| and |zy|.
> Since by Rodlox' own words, 'jy' is a palatal, it seems most likely to
> assume that '-y' denotes palatal POA rarther than palatalization or
> alveopalatal POA.
Personally I pronounce different [J\(j\)] sounds before front and
back vowels. And the distinction between my [J\(j\)] before
palatal vowels and alveolopalatal [dz\] is not the place of the
articulation but the shape of my tongue.
IMHO "alveolopalatal" is rather a label than a description of the
exact articulation place. Therefore I think the term palatal could
cover also prepalatals e.g. as alveolopalatals.
Another possible solution is outlined by Christian Thalmann: >>On
romconlang, somebody told Rodlox that the change from dentals and
velars to /tS dZ S Z/ etc was palatalization, so maybe he means one
of those sounds by "palatal".<< Palatal(ization) is not just a
phonetical term but even a functional. And Roxlox did not use
exact phonetical terms -- this is why we can argue about the
pronunciation --, Rodlox did not mention palatals at all, just used
the notation [J\]. And I still do not know the background, on the
other hand [dz\] is not on the IPA chart, [J\] does.
> Since you appear to be familiar with EEan languages, do you know any
> that uses the digraphs 'sy' and 'zy'?
Originally I did not mean that the notations |sy| and |zy| would
be Eastern Europish, just the concept they convey.
But to answer your questions, I see two instances where |sy| and
|zy| occur in Eastern European orthographies:
1. Romanizations of Cyrillic script. In a number of these
Romanizations pre-iotic Cyrillic letters are transcribed by |y| as
|ya|, |yu|, |ye|, |yo| etc. It these systems, we get Russian
|syuda| [s'u_X"da] '(to) here' and |zyat'| [z'at'] 'son-in-law,
brother-in-law (sister's husband)' etc.
2. Some Romany dialects preserved "soft" sibillants. These sounds
are written as |sy| and |zy| in some Romany orthographies (e.g. in
the one used in Hungary). In these systems |y| is a diacritic for
palatalization, just as in Rodlox's system, e.g. |dy| [J\], |ly|
[L], |ny| [J], |ty| [c]. In case of sibillants, the result is
rather an alveolopalatal than a palatal: |sy| [s\], |zy| [z\].
(They are merged
into |sh| [S] and |zh| [Z] in the majority the present dialects).
(Some other Romany orthographies use |j| instead of |y|, others
use
accent marks.)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:12:53 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT:Re: Disappointing...
Iain E. Davis wrote:
>Conlang List Members,
>
>I've been sick for a week, and busy before that, and now I return
>to...something terrible...
>
>
Actually, it's always been like this. I suggest, if you don't want to
see OT posts, filter them out.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:10:29 -0600
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NATLANG: Latin prefixes with er/ra
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 03:12:53 -0400, Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are a few that I can think of (knowing no Latin):
>
> super-/supra-
> ulter-/ultra-
> infer-/infra-
> inter-/intra-
>
> Is there some kind of pattern, other than that the first of each pair can
> prefix "-ior" in English? Or, indeed, is that itself a pattern that I'm
> too dense to work out? It's not[*] equitive vs comparative, it's not
> comparative vs superlative, it's not location vs direction, it's not
> proximal vs distal, and it's not any of a half dozen other things that
> have passed through my brain.
I see two patterns here:
"Super" is the basic preposition, also used as an adverb,and the one most used as a
prefix in Latin.
"Supra" is a derived adverb; also used as a preposition. Same seems to be the case
with "inter"/"intra"
"ulter" is an adjective, and "ultra" is its adverb and preposition, doesn't seem to be
(much?) used as a Latin prefix. Same with "infer"/"infra".
*Muke!
--
website: http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt: http://kohath.deviantart.com/
FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 07:17:03 -0600
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 10:13:55 +0300, Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That would make them the tri-Angles, nyuk, nyuk.
>> Kou
>
> Is that another one of those strangely-spelled English clicks, like the
> mythical |tsk|?
> Or is it actually pronounced something like /njVk/?
/njVk/ it is. It's a laugh out of the _Three Stooges_.
*Muke!
--
website: http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt: http://kohath.deviantart.com/
FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:27:28 +0200
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non vitae sed scholae discimus
Quoting Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If he actually meant it the other way round, then it is very bad. "non
> uitae sed scholae discimus" *cannot* mean 'we learn not for school but
> for life' and Seneca would certainly have known that! If in fact he meant
> the other way round, then he has been extremely careless.
I think Mach meant that Seneca's noting that we, in reality, learn for school
rather than life was meant to imply that, ideally, it should be the other way
around.
> But we have assumed all along the Seneca meant 'school' when he wrote
> _scholae_. But the native Latin for school is _ludus_, _schola_ is a Greek
> borrowing. It may mean 'school', but it can also mean 'leisure time [given
> to learning]'. Maybe he meant:
> "We don't learn for our daily living but for the our leisure time."
>
> Does any know the context in which the sentence occurs?
I'm given to understand it occurs as criticism of the paedagogical practices of
the Roman schools of his day. Jansson's discussion, in any case, presupposes
that _schola_ means "school" here, and, being a former professor of Latin*, he
should know.
* He's now professor of African languages.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:51:02 +0100
From: Tamas Racsko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang
On 18 Sep 2004 Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> interjection, "ie" (or better, ieeeee, or jeeeee) is so typical for
> Alsacian [...] I don't know its etymology (perhaps a shortened form for
> Jesus ?). It expresses amazement, and/or alarm, or indignation
Probably it comes form |Jesus|, but not necessary: Hungarian also
has this interjection |j�| [je:] for surprise, especially with
pleasure. However its "sign" is the opposite of Alsacian [je:],
the suddenness is the same. A similar |jaj(j)| [jOj(:)] is used in
Hungarian for negative amazement, sudden pain, pity etc., and
|juj(j)| [juj(:)] for "little", often funny suprise.
There are also other j-initial interjections in German lenguages,
like German |Juch| ~ English |yippee|, the base of verb G. |jaulen|
~ E. |yowl| etc. Or in Greek |ia| 'sound, cry', |iai| 'whoop
(pleasure)', |i�| '(pain; pleaure)', |iou| '(pain; pleaure)' etc.
The palatal epenthesis is often alternates with velar one, cf. E.
|yowl| ~ |(cater)waul| ~ |wow|, |yippie| ~ |whoopee|, and Greek
|iai| ~ |iaiboi| ~ |ouai|, Latin |vae|. Sometimes a third buffer
consonant (e.g. |h|) is used, cf. E. |yowl| ~ |(cater)waul| ~
|howl|.
Therefore I think it is a simple onomatopoeic interjection but
maybe used sometimes instead of profanity |Jesus| as an euphemism.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:49:23 +0200
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang
Quoting Tamas Racsko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 18 Sep 2004 Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Various 'lects of German and Spanish. Frenchs for /r/ in words like
> > "croissant".
>
> I do not wat to defend Mongolian as a specification for |kh|, but
> I think, 'lects of better known languages could be equally unknown
> to the general public as a standard of a less known languages.
I believe I've indicated a lack of faith in the utility of such specifications
at all. The question, however, was whether the voiceless uvular fricative
occurs in more well-known languages, which it certainly does.
(Some books give [X] as the value of /x/ after back vowels in Modern Standard
High German, which 'lect I dare claim is alot more well-known than the vast
majority of languages.)
> French /r/ is the voiced variant of |kh| (that is |g| before back
> vowels is Khalkha). I am not completely aware of French sound
> assimilation rules. Is /r/ really become unvoiced after voiced
> stops?
French people have told me so. Initial /kr/ is, I'm told, realized as [qX].
> > Well, I'd be more incline to go by Rodlox' statement that it's [J\]
> > than by some reconstruction of AE phonology that might differ from the
> > one he's familiar with.
>
> IMHO it is not so simple. Hungarian |gy| in phonetically
> affricate [J\j\] but it usually written as a plosive [J\]. This is
> rather about accuracy of the notation and not about different
> phonology.
I do not see why we should be more inclined to trust his statement that it's
like AE 'dj', which certainly is polyvalent, more than his statement that it's
[J\], which only has one reading. Particularly since the later statement came
after the first.
> And Rodlox used notation |jy|. If we take it serious, this sound
> is somehow a modified |j|. If |j| is to be read as [j] than it is a
> modified _approximant / fricative_. Approximants (fricatives)
> change more likely into an affricate than into a plosive. But |ii|
> = [ai] seems to be an English-based solution. In this case |j| can
> be treated as [dZ] and |jy| is still a modified affricate.
While I do not see any reason to take the notation 'jy' serious in this sense,
I'll have it noted that X-SAMPA thinks that [J\] is a modified 'j'. The IPA
symbol also seems to be based on 'j'.
> However, there is a third option: notations |jy|, |sy|, |zy| are
> not systematic. In this case, you are right but we cannot say
> anything about |sy| and |zy|.
No, but orthographic devices that are not perfectly systematic are often
approximately so. It would a priori be unsurprising if all all digraphs in -y
denoted palatals.
> > Since by Rodlox' own words, 'jy' is a palatal, it seems most likely to
> > assume that '-y' denotes palatal POA rarther than palatalization or
> > alveopalatal POA.
>
> Personally I pronounce different [J\(j\)] sounds before front and
> back vowels. And the distinction between my [J\(j\)] before
> palatal vowels and alveolopalatal [dz\] is not the place of the
> articulation but the shape of my tongue.
>
> IMHO "alveolopalatal" is rather a label than a description of the
> exact articulation place. Therefore I think the term palatal could
> cover also prepalatals e.g. as alveolopalatals.
Certainly possible, but there does not seem to be any specific reason to believe
that they are alveopalatal rather than (normal) palatal.
> > Since you appear to be familiar with EEan languages, do you know any
> > that uses the digraphs 'sy' and 'zy'?
>
> Originally I did not mean that the notations |sy| and |zy| would
> be Eastern Europish, just the concept they convey.
Rodlox, however, said it was like in EEan languages when describing the
orthograpy, which certainly _suggests_ he believes some or other EEan language
uses them in the same way.
> But to answer your questions, I see two instances where |sy| and
> |zy| occur in Eastern European orthographies:
>
> 1. Romanizations of Cyrillic script. In a number of these
> Romanizations pre-iotic Cyrillic letters are transcribed by |y| as
> |ya|, |yu|, |ye|, |yo| etc. It these systems, we get Russian
> |syuda| [s'u_X"da] '(to) here' and |zyat'| [z'at'] 'son-in-law,
> brother-in-law (sister's husband)' etc.
I originally asked specifically about _Latin_ orthographies, but good to know
anyway.
> 2. Some Romany dialects preserved "soft" sibillants. These sounds
> are written as |sy| and |zy| in some Romany orthographies (e.g. in
> the one used in Hungary). In these systems |y| is a diacritic for
> palatalization, just as in Rodlox's system, e.g. |dy| [J\], |ly|
> [L], |ny| [J], |ty| [c]. In case of sibillants, the result is
> rather an alveolopalatal than a palatal: |sy| [s\], |zy| [z\].
> (They are merged
> into |sh| [S] and |zh| [Z] in the majority the present dialects).
> (Some other Romany orthographies use |j| instead of |y|, others
> use
> accent marks.)
Cool.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:17:50 +0000
From: Rodlox R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang (clarification)
> > And Rodlox used notation |jy|. If we take it serious, this sound
> > is somehow a modified |j|. If |j| is to be read as [j] than it is a
> > modified _approximant / fricative_. Approximants (fricatives)
> > change more likely into an affricate than into a plosive. But |ii|
> > = [ai] seems to be an English-based solution. In this case |j| can
> > be treated as [dZ] and |jy| is still a modified affricate.
>
>While I do not see any reason to take the notation 'jy' serious in this
>sense,
>I'll have it noted that X-SAMPA thinks that [J\] is a modified 'j'. The IPA
>symbol also seems to be based on 'j'.
minor clarification on my part -- when I made METES...I searched
X-Sampa...and the *closest* that I found to the AE sound was J\
apologies for any confusion resulting from my statement.
> > > Since you appear to be familiar with EEan languages, do you know any
> > > that uses the digraphs 'sy' and 'zy'?
> > Originally I did not mean that the notations |sy| and |zy| would
> > be Eastern Europish, just the concept they convey.
>
>Rodlox, however, said it was like in EEan languages when describing the
>orthograpy, which certainly _suggests_ he believes some or other EEan
>language
>uses them in the same way.
well...I thought I had seen an Eastern European name written like
that...somewhere. my apology.
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:21:06 +0100
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anti-Chomsky Insults
> Noam Chomsky's first name is generally pronounced /no:m/, right? (as
> opposed to other "Noam"s where the /a/ is pronounced).
>
> So i was wondering, do any of his ideological/theory-disagreeing
> opponents call him "the Gnome" /no:m/ as an insult? ;-)
>
>
> -Stephen (Steg)
> "i defend myself, therefore i exist."
> ~ herbert pagani
>
This wouldn't work in my dialect of english. :(( Well.... not if his
surname is /no:m/ regardless of dialect... I have a diphthong in Gnome.
Just thought I'd start YAEPT. :p lol.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:31:36 +0300
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anti-Chomsky Insults
On Sep 19, 2004, at 6:21 PM, Chris Bates wrote:
>> Noam Chomsky's first name is generally pronounced /no:m/, right? (as
>> opposed to other "Noam"s where the /a/ is pronounced).
>> So i was wondering, do any of his ideological/theory-disagreeing
>> opponents call him "the Gnome" /no:m/ as an insult? ;-)
> This wouldn't work in my dialect of english. :(( Well.... not if his
> surname is /no:m/ regardless of dialect... I have a diphthong in Gnome.
> Just thought I'd start YAEPT. :p lol.
Whell, (what the heck whas that? :P eeeep i'm being invaded by Hs...)
cough cough let me start again.
Well, whatever your "long O" vowel is, whether it's /o:/ or /ow/ or
/Ow/ or /@w/ or /Ew/ or who knows what... you pronounce "Noam" (=Nome,
similar to Roam, Rome, Bone, Phone...) differently than "gnome"? How
so?
-Stephen (Steg)
"i defend myself, therefore i exist."
~ herbert pagani
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:52:35 -0400
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NATLANG: Latin prefixes with er/ra
Paul Bennett wrote:
> There are a few that I can think of (knowing no Latin):
>
> super-/supra-
> ulter-/ultra-
> infer-/infra-
> inter-/intra-
>
> Is there some kind of pattern, other than that the first of each pair can
> prefix "-ior" in English? Or, indeed, is that itself a pattern that I'm
> too dense to work out? It's not[*] equitive vs comparative, it's not
> comparative vs superlative, it's not location vs direction, it's not
> proximal vs distal, and it's not any of a half dozen other things that
> have passed through my brain.
>
> Whatever the pattern is, I suspect that knowing it would shed light for me
> onto some greater issue with Latin, or possibly PIE.
>
Ya missed one: (*exter):extra
I think I might have raised the same questions a long time ago, and Ray
Brown no doubt clarified things....
My guess would be that at some point, the forms in -er were adjectival; the
forms in -ra were adverbials regularly derived via the Feminine Ablative.
Note that in addition to having comparatives in -ior, they _do_ have
superlatives -- in -imus (and a few -emus): supremus, ultimus, infimus,
intimus, extremus -- as well as some derivatives in -nal-: cf. Engl.
supernal, infernal, internal, external.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:19:22 -0500
From: "J. K. Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Trolls
The New Hacer Dictionary defines "troll" thusly:
troll v.,n.
1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on
Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post
itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn
comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails
bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll
is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves
look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to
the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If
you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it.
2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts
specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup,
discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone
or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the
have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply
want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after,
they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are
recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him,
he's just a troll."
3. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS student.
Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are
followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark
cavelike corners. (Check for yourself at
http://www.hack.gr/jargon/html/T/troll.html )
For a bit more information on the history of trolling as a practice,
and, hopefully, why it should be avoided, you can see the Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
And, so, in closing, let me say only, PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
Thank you,
Jim
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==================================================================
--
"Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time, for that's the stuff
that life is made of."
-Ben Franklin
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:27:29 -0400
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 10:13:55AM +0300, Steg Belsky wrote:
> >That would make them the tri-Angles, nyuk, nyuk.
> >Kou
>
> Is that another one of those strangely-spelled English clicks, like the
> mythical |tsk|?
> Or is it actually pronounced something like /njVk/?
It's actually pronounced something like /njVk/. More like [n_jjV~k],
IME.
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 09:27:55 -0700
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non vitae sed scholae discimus
>From several sources I found on the Web and others,
Seneca was in fact criticizing a school system whose
aim was the school itself, instead of life. He
actually ascertained a fact rather than he defined
what should be. Therefore it is not false to quote the
reverse sentence: Non scholae sed vitae discimus,
insofar we have in mind what should be, and not what
exists.
Interesting that, when reading the original sentence,
nearly everybody thinks immediately that there must be
a mistake somewhere. Probably culture conditioning. We
understand "discimus" has "we have to learn, we must
learn, we should learn". But "discimus" means nothing
of the sort. It just means "we learn".
--- Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2004, at 11:44 , Andreas
> Johansson wrote:
>
> > Quoting "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:51:02 +0200, Andreas
> Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't know if my previous mail on this topic
> went thru, but I went
> >>> home
> >> and
> >>> checked Tore Jansson's _Latin_, and it agrees
> with what I thought I
> >> recalled;
> >>> what Seneca actually wrote was _Non vitae sed
> scholae discimus_ "Not for
> >> life
> >>> but for school do we learn". It's noted its
> often quoted in opposite
> >>> form,
> >>> and yet attributed to Seneca (which strikes me
> as highly discourteous,
> >>> no
> >>> matter how dead the old man might be).
> >>
> >> It's not that bad since he meant it should be the
> other way round.
>
> If he actually meant it the other way round, then it
> is very bad. "non
> uitae sed scholae discimus" *cannot* mean 'we learn
> not for school but
> for life' and Seneca would certainly have known
> that! If in fact he meant
> the other way round, then he has been extremely
> careless.
>
> >> By
> >> inversing Seneca's word, we get it the way he'd
> have wanted it.
>
> How do you in fact know that that is what he would
> have wanted? Did he add
> something like: "Oops, made a mistake there! Please
> transpose _uitae_ and
> _scholae_." I guess not. Obviously the sentence is
> being quoted out of
> context. But what is it that makes it clear that
> Seneca meant it the other
> way round and why, then, did he not write it the
> other way round?
>
> I am not 'just curious'; I am *very* curious.
>
> >> It's not a
> >> proper quote, but an allusion, and a quite
> litteral one.
>
> Um - seems to be a bit of a contradiction there.
>
> > Well, I don't pretend to know what Seneca would
> have felt about it. I do
> > know
> > I'd hate it if I somehow knew that future
> generations would invert a
> > saying of
> > mine and yet present it as quote with my name on
> it, quite regardless
> > whether
> > the inversion expressed what I wished to be the
> case.
>
> Absolutely spot! and I suspect Seneca would in fact
> be none too pleased.
>
> If we are going quote him, we might as well do it
> properly.
>
> But we have assumed all along the Seneca meant
> 'school' when he wrote
> _scholae_. But the native Latin for school is
> _ludus_, _schola_ is a Greek
> borrowing. It may mean 'school', but it can also
> mean 'leisure time [given
> to learning]'. Maybe he meant:
> "We don't learn for our daily living but for the our
> leisure time."
>
> Does any know the context in which the sentence
> occurs?
>
> Ray
> ===============================================
> http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ===============================================
> "They are evidently confusing science with
> technology."
> UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
>
=====
Philippe Caquant
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intellegor illis (Ovidius).
Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo (Horatius).
Interdum stultus opportune loquitur (Henry Fielding).
Scire leges non hoc est verba earum tenere, sed vim ac potestatem (Somebody).
Melius est ut scandalum oriatur, quam ut veritas relinquatur (Somebody else).
Ceterum censeo *vi* esse oblitterandum (Me).
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:30:50 -0400
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anti-Chomsky Insults (was: ? how would you classify this language
?)
Steg Belsky wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2004, at 2:42 AM, Roger Mills wrote:
--otherwise all
> > languages would have the same word order (at least, according to some
> > linguists). >
>
> > Don't they???? (Signed, Noam) :-)))))))
Hey! That wasn't an insult, just a mild poking of fun........(I need to
revive and popularize my emoticon for "elephantine humor"-- was it )O~ or
/O~ ??)
>
> Noam Chomsky's first name is generally pronounced /no:m/, right? (as
> opposed to other "Noam"s where the /a/ is pronounced).
>
> So i was wondering, do any of his ideological/theory-disagreeing
> opponents call him "the Gnome" /no:m/ as an insult? ;-)
>
I've mostly heard (and use) ['no(w)@m], with [nom] as a casual or
fast-speech variant. I've never heard him called Gnome (he's hardly
gnome-like in person IMO), but then there's the famous Nim Chimpsky.....
(And the famous radical Gwr scholar Chang Shi Noq Ang (2659-2701 p.m.), who
also held that all languages were, at bottom, the same.)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:46:03 +0200
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
Here are Elizabeth's styles:
>
> In the U.K.: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United
> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms and
> Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
[snip]
> In the U.S.: Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor. :-)
In my family: (The late) grandma Elsa's Doppelg�nger!
I wish my scanner worked so I could show you a picture
of my grandma. The resemblance is quite uncanny!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:04:35 +0200
From: J�rg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Imperatives in split-S languages (was Anomaly of the (apparent) Cebuano
uvulars and Guarani info request)
Hallo!
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:22:00 -0400,
Trebor Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the Conlang Collaboration group, Paul Bennett �rta: "...let me quickly
> summarise the split-S language Guarani, because it's quite interesting:
>
> "Transitive verbs ('give', 'steal', 'know') take A and O
> Intransitive verbs ('go', 'remain', 'follow') take S_a
> Quality verbs (used for adjectives) take S_o
>
> "Transitive and Intransitive verbs may be placed in the imperative. Quality
> verbs cannot."
>
> This sounds pretty cool!
And it makes sense, as the quality verbs are not about actually *doing*
something. It is the same way in my conlang Old Albic (a fluid-S
language).
Greetings,
J�rg.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:36:48 +0200
From: J�rg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disappointing...
Hallo!
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:30:55 -0500,
"Iain E. Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Conlang List Members,
>
> I've been sick for a week, and busy before that, and now I return
> to...something terrible...
>
> I read the conlang list to read about _conlanging_.
So do I.
> I don't come here to
> read about education, politics, religion, sex, gender studies, the best OS,
> the best wordprocessor, the best person, the price of tea in china, or even
> how to treat my nasty cold.
Nor do I. Actually, I have gone nomail years ago - because I don't
want all that crap to clog up my mailbox. If all posts that are not
about conlanging hadn't been there, I'd never have gone nomail.
(Not that every single post about conlanging actually interests me,
and not that every single off-topic post is uninteresting to me.
But the reason why I am on CONLANG is that I want to talk with
other people about *conlanging* here. There are many things that
interest me, ranging from music to politics, but these things I talk
about *elsewhere* and keep them out of CONLANG.)
> This list has an impressive amount of traffic. It is significantly busier
> than any other list I am subscribed to. On most days, I accept that as part
> of the package, because the discussion is about _conlanging_. But when I
> find that my inbox is overflowing with messages that have nothing to do with
> conlanging, that annoys me. I spend too much of my life-span deleting
> messages I asked for...without having a barrage of messages I did not.
Yes. Traffic is not an end in itself. I'd prefer a low-volume mailing
list where most of the stuff interests me over a list where posts having
nothing to do with the topic of the list drown out the on-topic traffic.
Many people here seem to have forgotten that this is CONLANG, and not
some random talk-about-what-you-like chatroom.
> When I subscribed to this list, I asked for discussions of conlanging, and
> an opportunity to (at least attempt, with my limited knowledge) contribute
> to discussions about conlanging. I DID NOT ask for endless arguments about
> things that have nothing to do with conlanging. The last few months, I've
> seen it crop up a few times, and no doubt it has cropped up in years past.
> But today, looking at what has gone on recently...I think it has got out of
> hand.
Yes. I estimate that at least 95% of all posts here are at least
of dubious appropriateness.
> I realize in the course of studying language, we have to touch on ANY
> subject.
True. But there's a difference between touching on a subject and
embarking on every facet of it. The latter is what makes the bulk
of traffic on CONLANG these days.
> However, I'm pretty certain everyone on this list is capable of
> realizing when we've stopped talking about the subject in the context of
> constructed languages. When that happens, the subject should be dropped, or
> "re-railed" back on topic.
Yes. And far too few people realize that subject lines can be changed.
In more than half of all posts on CONLANG, the subject line has nothing
to do with the contents of the article. That's unacceptable.
The purpose of the subject line is to indicate what the message is
about - and that means what it is *actually* about, and not what
some half-forgotten message some twenty posts up the thread may have
been about two weeks ago.
> If you wish to continue discussion of those topics, there ARE appropiate
> forums for those topics. Go to those. Mailing lists, netnews, web-based
> forums, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. Go talk to someone who cares to
> hear about whatever it is that is so important to you.
Yes. Some people insist on talking about *everything*, and they insist
on doing that *here*. The latter part is what is wrong.
> But when you come to
> this list, leave it behind you, and focus on conlanging.
> I implore everyone...let all of this die. It has no place here and is
> rapidly destroying what was once a good thing.
I whole-heartedly agree here. Before someone misunderstands me:
I am very in favour of free speech, but that doesn't mean that
a forum dedicated to some kind of topic may be freely abused to
talk about everything else. CONLANG *is* dedicated to a particular
topic, namely, conlanging.
Greetings,
J�rg.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:22:29 +0100
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anti-Chomsky Insults
>
> Whell, (what the heck whas that? :P eeeep i'm being invaded by Hs...)
> cough cough let me start again.
>
> Well, whatever your "long O" vowel is, whether it's /o:/ or /ow/ or
> /Ow/ or /@w/ or /Ew/ or who knows what... you pronounce "Noam" (=Nome,
> similar to Roam, Rome, Bone, Phone...) differently than "gnome"? How
> so?
>
>
Gnome rhymes with Rome, Roam, Bone, etc.... but I was just saying, if
"Noam" is correctly pronounced no:m regardless of dialect (the name
isn't English anyway is it?), then in my dialect Gnome doesn't rhyme
with Noam. On the other hand, if I can pronounce Noam so it rhymes with
Roam, Bone etc (not pronounce it no:m), then it does rhyme. :)
Although... I've always pronounced it /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ or something similar from
just seeing it spelt.
> -Stephen (Steg)
> "i defend myself, therefore i exist."
> ~ herbert pagani
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:59:42 +0100
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guarani info request
Trebor Jung wrote at 2004-09-17 17:22:00 (-0400)
>
> In the Conlang Collaboration group, Paul Bennett �rta: "...let me
> quickly summarise the split-S language Guarani, because it's quite
> interesting:
>
> "Transitive verbs ('give', 'steal', 'know') take A and O
> Intransitive verbs ('go', 'remain', 'follow') take S_a
> Quality verbs (used for adjectives) take S_o
>
> "Transitive and Intransitive verbs may be placed in the
> imperative. Quality verbs cannot."
>
> This sounds pretty cool! Does anyone have any other info on
> Guarani? (Quotes from books would be appreciated... :) ) I've read
> a bit about its phonology online and that's pretty cool too...
>
Have you read conlanger Daniel Andr�asson's thesis on active
languages? It includes a section on Guaran�, among others.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be online any more - I have a copy,
but it's a pdf - do you have any software that can manage that?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:00:19 -0700
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperatives in split-S languages (was Anomaly of the (apparent)
Cebuano uvulars and Guarani info request)
--- J�rg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:22:00 -0400,
> Trebor Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In the Conlang Collaboration group, Paul Bennett
> �rta: "...let me quickly
> > summarise the split-S language Guarani, because
> it's quite interesting:
> >
> > "Transitive verbs ('give', 'steal', 'know') take A
> and O
> > Intransitive verbs ('go', 'remain', 'follow') take
> S_a
> > Quality verbs (used for adjectives) take S_o
> >
> > "Transitive and Intransitive verbs may be placed
> in the imperative. Quality
> > verbs cannot."
> >
> > This sounds pretty cool!
>
> And it makes sense, as the quality verbs are not
> about actually *doing*
> something. It is the same way in my conlang Old
> Albic (a fluid-S
> language).
>
I can't see that verbs like "to know" or "to remain"
are actually *doing* something neither. I think it's
risky to look for a consistent semantic explanation
for facts that are pure grammatical hazards,
concerning only some languages, and not others. As I
always quote, "to follow" is transitive in French (and
in English), but not in German (dative). In Russian:
ja sleduju za kem-to (I'm following somebody) = I
follow after somebody (case = Instrumental; why the
hell should this be instrumental, I have no idea,
except if "instrumental" means in fact a lot of
different things, many of them having nothing to do
with the concept of "instrument"; it's just that after
"za", one should use, either Acc, either Instr).
------
Quoting Tamas Racsko:
Probably it comes form |Jesus|, but not necessary:
Hungarian also
has this interjection |j�| [je:] for surprise,
especially with
pleasure. However its "sign" is the opposite of
Alsacian [je:],
the suddenness is the same. A similar |jaj(j)|
[jOj(:)] is used in
Hungarian for negative amazement, sudden pain, pity
etc., and
|juj(j)| [juj(:)] for "little", often funny suprise.
There are also other j-initial interjections in
German lenguages,
like German |Juch| ~ English |yippee|, the base of
verb G. |jaulen|
~ E. |yowl| etc. Or in Greek |ia| 'sound, cry', |iai|
'whoop
(pleasure)', |i�| '(pain; pleaure)', |iou| '(pain;
pleaure)' etc.
The palatal epenthesis is often alternates with velar
one, cf. E.
|yowl| ~ |(cater)waul| ~ |wow|, |yippie| ~ |whoopee|,
and Greek
|iai| ~ |iaiboi| ~ |ouai|, Latin |vae|. Sometimes a
third buffer
consonant (e.g. |h|) is used, cf. E. |yowl| ~
|(cater)waul| ~
|howl|.
Therefore I think it is a simple onomatopoeic
interjection but
maybe used sometimes instead of profanity |Jesus| as
an euphemism.
-----------
True, "je:::" also can be used for surprise + pleasure
in Alsacian. Also when becoming tender, for ex when
discovering a kitty or some small pretty, delicate
animal. It all depends of the tone used. In fact,
je::: is the universal interjection :-)
But there is another very common one, "jo: !" (coming
from German "ja") Jo: is not je::: ! It means: come on
! (you're pulling my leg), this is not true, this
should not be done, this I don't believe or won't do.
It is often preceded by "e". If somebody tells you he
will give you your money back tomorrow, for ex, you
can answer : "E jo: !", or "jo ammel !" (orthograph
not guaranteed) : yes, for sure (ironical). "Jo !"
also can mean that you're tired, disgusted, vexed,
annoyed, from something, in that case it is uttered
shorter and higher.
So if you know how to use "je" and "jo", you already
know much of Alsacian. The rest is mainly details :-)
(Even if I left Alsace 25 years ago and never was a
native speaker, I still find it hard not to say "jo!"
from time to time when something vexes me, or "je:::"
in other situations. It somehow became encrusted in my
ears. For French natives, these would mean absolutely
nothing).
=====
Philippe Caquant
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intellegor illis (Ovidius).
Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo (Horatius).
Interdum stultus opportune loquitur (Henry Fielding).
Scire leges non hoc est verba earum tenere, sed vim ac potestatem (Somebody).
Melius est ut scandalum oriatur, quam ut veritas relinquatur (Somebody else).
Ceterum censeo *vi* esse oblitterandum (Me).
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:19:27 -0400
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anti-Chomsky Insults
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:22:29 +0100, Chris Bates
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although... I've always pronounced it /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ or something similar
With a /N/? Yikes.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
