------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 24 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: NATLANG: Latin prefixes with er/ra
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: NATLANG: Latin prefixes with er/ra
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: NON-LIST: Re: Anti-Chomsky Insults (was: ? how would you classify this
language ?)
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: OT:Re: Disappointing...
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: OT:Re: Disappointing...
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. CHAT: reign names
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Further language development Q's
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: NATLANG: Latin prefixes with er/ra
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. ANNOUNCE: S7 has a name: Q'en|gai
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Number/Specificality/Archetypes in Language
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: CHAT: reign names
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Talk Like a Pirate Day!
From: Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Conlang Flag: Voting Now Open.
From: "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Non vitae sed scholae discimus
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: NATLANG: Latin prefixes with er/ra
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: CHAT: reign names
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: Anti-Chomsky Insults
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Orthography help, please.
From: bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: The (necessarily anti-American, it seems) French guy salutes you and
leaves
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Internship: Rosetta Project/Long Now Foundation]
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: new Unnamed Conlang
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:31:23 -0400
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
B.P. Jonsson wrote:
> > 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!
>
My late Aunt Janet [dZ@'nEt] was also a dead ringer for H.M. My sister, too,
in some photos. And the one time I got into drag for a Halloween party, I
turned out to look a lot like Auntie, hence H.M. by extension (except my wig
was black)....
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:36:34 -0400
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NATLANG: Latin prefixes with er/ra
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:56:26 -0700, Philippe Caquant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [*] Note throughout this sentence, the arrogantoid
>> voice applied to the
>> essive: I can't understand how it is, therefore it
>> is not.
>>
> Is this a voice ? I would have said a modality (the
> IMHOive one).
Some people have a mental block about left vs right. I have a mental block
about voice vs mood. I will confuse them around 50% of the time, without
realising it. It's quite burdensome in the right (wrong?) contexts.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:47:19 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NATLANG: Latin prefixes with er/ra
Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:56:26 -0700, Philippe Caquant
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> [*] Note throughout this sentence, the arrogantoid
>>> voice applied to the
>>> essive: I can't understand how it is, therefore it
>>> is not.
>>>
>> Is this a voice ? I would have said a modality (the
>> IMHOive one).
>
>
> Some people have a mental block about left vs right. I have a mental
> block
> about voice vs mood. I will confuse them around 50% of the time, without
> realising it. It's quite burdensome in the right (wrong?) contexts.
>
I have the same problem, but Aspect vs. Mood.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:47:52 -0400
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NON-LIST: Re: Anti-Chomsky Insults (was: ? how would you classify this
language ?)
Steg Belsky, having fulfilled his quota, wrote to me:
> >> On Sep 17, 2004, at 2:42 AM, Roger Mills wrote:
> >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.)
>
> Cool... do Gwr family names come first?
>
Yes. Family name, Chang + Clan name, Shi + given name(s) often two words,
and often relating to incidents/conditions at time of birth, like "bright
morning" "Spring blossom" etc. (But "gloomy night" would be unlikely.)
My (ethnic) Indonesian teacher and his wife named one of their children,
born here, Doni [dOni] because born at dawn, the other child Frida (Frieda?)
because born on Friday. Rather nice, IMO. This same man told us it's quite
common in Indonesia to change one's name--to reflect better conditions in
life, for better luck etc. etc. He himself claimed to have had 3 names in
his lifetime.
Roger, up to No. 4 (Stop me before I write more!!)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:47:54 -0400
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT:Re: Disappointing...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:12:53 +0100, Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
It isn't always quite as off-topic as some of the recent threads. Do we
digress? Yes. To the extent demonstrated recently? Very rarely. Is it
annoying when it happens? I suspect almost universally.
I myself have been guilty of some protracted and emotional flaming in
these very parts in the past (I shan't mention the subject, but Godwin was
invoked). I now see the error of my ways, and finding myself on the
outside looking in, I see exactly how much fun for onlookers it isn't.
We have shown ourselves capable of avoiding inflammatory material for
periods of months at a time. I think that's a fairly good goal to aim for,
rather than having multiple simultaneous arguments occuring at once.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:54:08 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT:Re: Disappointing...
Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:12:53 +0100, Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> It isn't always quite as off-topic as some of the recent threads. Do we
> digress? Yes. To the extent demonstrated recently? Very rarely. Is it
> annoying when it happens? I suspect almost universally.
>
Not quite to the extent here, no. But it's not *that* much more
off-topic than normal. And if it is too off-topic, does it really
matter, so long as we tag our posts (if we don't, then we have a
problem)? I agree with the rest of what youre saying, though.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:19:19 -0500
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: CHAT: reign names
Ray wrote:
> But 'George' is one of the Prince of Wales's names! Many people had been
> hoping he would choose one of his other names, 'Arthur' (which BTW, unlike
> either Charles or George, is spelled the same in Welsh as in English).
So, if he were to adopt Arthur as his regnal name, would he
be called "King Arthur II"? For that matter, what status do
any of the preconquest kings have? A few of the very early
names are still in use:
<http://www.hostkingdom.net/engl.html>
I've met people named 'Owen' (the king of which name r. 410-425 AD),
for example. (Not that a modern monarch is likely to have such a
name.) Heck, if Sargon II of Assyria (r. 722-705 BC) can be called
thus because of Sargon I the Great of Akkad (r. 2371-2315 BC), I
suppose anything can happen.
==========================================================================
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: 8
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:19:21 -0500
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Further language development Q's
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 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.
>
> OK, OK, so I misunderstood the term. But what about one
> daughter lang developing from Trigger to Ergative and
> another one from Trigger to Accusative? It should be
> possible, shouldn't it?
I'm by no means an expert on trigger languages, but I don't
see any obvious problem with this. One word of warning:
most, if not all, languages have mixed systems. Even a language like
English has some manifestations of ergativity. The -ee suffix,
borrowed from French but now independent, can be used for any
intransitives (on buses in Chicago one can e.g. see signs
refering to the duties of 'standees') or the patient roles of
transitive verbs (as in employee). So, you may want to consider
keeping vestiges of the trigger system around. (Ask me about
Mingrelian sometime, which is a really neat example of vestiges
like this.)
> The first is called "absolutive" IIRC (with
> the absolutive being called "subject"?!) and the second is
> called "nominative" (with the nominative object being
> called "subject").
There are two issues here: what we call the cases, and how that
case morphology patterns in the syntax. As you probably know,
many morphologically ergative languages, like Basque, have accusative
syntax, and so one cannot properly speaking call the absolutive
case a subject unless you show syntactic criteria that it behaves
as such.
> Would the Ergative lang make more use of
> causatives as well? (Causative in Ayeri = someone/-thing
> caused someone/-thing to do something)
AFAIK causativization has nothing to do with the subjective
alignment system a language has. One possible exception might
be split-S systems, given that in some languages a so-called
unergative intransitive cannot be causativized, while so-called
unaccusative verbs can be. The implication is that in a split-S
language, A-marking intransitives may not be able to be causativized
while P-marking intransitives can be. But this doesn't apply to
ergative languages as such, but to languages in general.
> I mean like in the
> example I gave, "to invent" -> "being invented", where
> "being invented" is "invent.CAU".
This sounds more like a passive to me than a causative.
==========================================================================
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: 9
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:28:31 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NATLANG: Latin prefixes with er/ra
On Sunday, September 19, 2004, at 08:56 , Philippe Caquant wrote:
> My Latin dictionary gives both 'super' and 'supra',
> both as adverbs and prepositions, with very closely
> the same meaning.
Sort of - but there's rather more to it than that - see below.
> 'Super' (prep.) is said to be used
> with Acc or Abl,
Why 'said to be'? It actually was one of the few Latin prepositions that
was used with both cases, but with difference of meaning.
> while 'supra' (prep) with Acc only.
True - 'supra' in fact was originally an adverb but like many adverbs came
to be used as a preposition also. Always these 'adverbs used as
prepositions' govern he accusative, which was the 'default' case for
prepositiions.
[snip]
> I guess using a supra- prefix just makes you look very
> erudite, while super- is common.
Rather cynical IMO - not is it correct.
'supra-' is used only with meaning "above" and usually in a quite literal
sense, e.g. supracillary "above the eyebrow", supracostal "above/on a rib"
, spratemporal "above the temples"; but the meaning can be metophorically
above, e.g. supranational "overriding national sovereignty',
suprasegmental "continuing above/through two or more speech sounds".
'super-' is more common because it is used in a wider meaning of "in
excess", "beyond [what is expected]", "in addition" or simply "very".
> On the other hand,
> ulter- and infer- are not prefixes in French, while
> ultra- and infra- are.
The same is so in English. One could, I suppose, analyze 'ulterior' as
'ulter+ior', but that would be a bound root morpheme + suffix. But such
analysis poses problems with "superior". One can hardly have prefix +
suffix and not root or base morpheme! Such analysis is, I believe, due to
diachronic considerations and is unwarranted in a synchronic analysis of
English. IMO 'ulterior' is best regarded as monomorphemic.
> Inter- and intra- are both used
> as prefixes (international, but intraveineuse).
They are in English also, with different meaning, cf. intranet (a
communication system providing similar services to the Internet used
solely _within_ a particular company or organization) ~ Internet (<---
inter[connected] net[works], i.e. a set of networks connected _between_
themselves).
That is the difference in meaning. 'intra-' means "within", "inside of",
so 'intravenous' "within a vein' "introduced with the veins" (*intervenous
would simply mean 'among the veins'), 'intracardiac "within the heart" etc
'inter-' means "among", "between" as in international, interconnect,
interdental (*intradental would be "inside a tooth") etc.
>
> --- 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,
See above.
>> other than that the
>> first of each pair can
>> prefix "-ior" in English?
But what meaning is then given to the bound and (presumably) root morpheme
-ior. Also it seems to me not the best analysis to set up two prefixes,
namely *ulter- and *infer-, that can occur only in front of the morpheme
-ior. IMO it is better in English to treat 'ulterior' and 'inferior' as
single morphemes.
>> Or, indeed, is that itself
>> a pattern that I'm
>> too dense to work out?
I think the problem is that you are trying to create a pattern that does
not exist in english.
[snip]
>> Whatever the pattern is, I suspect that knowing it
>> would shed light for me
>> onto some greater issue with Latin, or possibly PIE.
As I said, I don't think there is any pattern in English, except that the
(genuine) prefixes relate to the meanings of their Latin originals. As to
the Latin:
(a) SVPER, SVPRA
super
i. [adverb] above, "on top", "in addition", "moreover" etc. (Classical,
but rare).
ii. [prep. with the accusative] over, above, on top of; during, at [time];
besides, in addition to.
iii. [prep. with the ablative] over, on top of (rare, mainly poetic);
about, concerning, with respect to (frequent in pre-Classical and in
post-Augustine Latin; rare in the 'Golden' Classical period when "de" was
preferred with this meaning).
supra:
i. [adverb] on the upper side, above [location]; before, formerly [time];
beyond, over, more [numbers or measures].
ii. [prep. with accusative] over, above, on top of; above, beyond, more
than [numbers, e.g. supra tres = more than three)
Just to confuse matters, manuscripts of te same passage differ between
'super' and 'supra' :)
superus (the masculine singular aso occasionally appears as 'super')
[adjective] that which is above (literally or metaphorically; the plural
_superi_ often means 'the gods').
From this adjective are derived}
i. [regularly formed comparative] superior
ii. [_two_ irregular superlatives (both with similar meanings}]
supre:mus
summus (<-- *supimus)
(b) VLTER, VLTRA
ulter
[adjective] that which is on the other side (rare).
From this rare adjective are derived the commonly used -
i. [comparative] ulterior
ii. [superlative] ultimus
ultra:
i. [adverb] on the other side, over, besides (either literally or
metaphorically).
ii. [prep. with the accusative] on the farther side of, beyond [location];
beyond, past [time] (ultra tres horas = past three hours, more than three
hours); beyond, above, more than [numbers, measures, i.e. = supra:].
(c) INFER, INTRA:
i:nfer
[adjective] - but rare in this form. It is more often -
i:nferus
[adjective] that which is below, underneath (either literally or
metaphorically).
From the adjective are derived
i. [comparative] i:nferior
ii. [two superlatives with similar meaning]
i:nfimus
i:mus
i:nfra:
i. [adverb] on the under side, below, beneath [location]; below, beneath
[value, esteem]; later [time] (Classical, but rare in this use)
ii. [prep. with accusative] below, under [location]; below, beneath [in
rank, esteem]; less than [number] (rare); later [time] (rare)
(d) INTER, INTRA
inter
i. [adverb] in the midst, in between (rare & poetic)
ii. [prep. with accusative] among, between [location]; among, between
[relation between people whether of friendship, rivalry or enmity];
between, within, during [time].
intra:
i. [adverb] on the inside of, within, inwardly
ii. [prep. with accusative] within, inside of; into [the inside of], into
[the midst of]; within, in the course of [time, e.g. intra tres dies
'within 3 days', 'in the course of 3 days']; less than, within the limis
of.
No adjective *inter or *interus (that which is between) is found in
writing; but that such an adjective must have occurred is attested by the
derived form _intra:_ (see below) and by the derived:
i. [comparative] interior
ii. [superlative] intimus
NOTE:
i. the forms ending in -a: were derived from contracted forms of the
ablative feminine singular of the adjective; for example:
supra: <-- supera: [parte] on the above side
Hence these forms were first used adverbially and then came to be used as
prepositions with the accusative case.
(The only prep. above which is directly derived from PIE is _super_)
ii. The comparative and superlative adverb forms were derived _regularly_
from the corresponding comparative & superlative adjectives, i.e.
- comparative adverb has final -us instead of final -or;
- superlative adverb has final -e: instead of final -us.
There were, as Paul says, some other similar words. But I'm feeling tired
& will content myself with the four sets he listed :)
I hope all this helps.
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:31:51 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
On Saturday, September 18, 2004, at 08:38 , Joe wrote:
> Ray Brown wrote:
[snip]
>> "In the case of England & Scotland its because they are _kingdoms_ which,
>> since the Stuarts, have been united under one crown and were in 1709
>> formally united as the Kingdom of Great Britain." Duh!
>>
>
> They're not kingdoms. They *were* kingdoms. But now they are one
> kingdom.
{sigh - beats head against wall} "...formally united as the Kingdom of
Great Britain."
If something is united, it is made _one_. 'Kingdom' is *singular*, that
means _one_. (More than one is what we call 'plural'.)
1709 is when it happened, nearly 300 years ago.
But it ain't so simple a you keep trying to tell me, John & others. Relics
of the former two monarchies still survive. For example our present Queen
is still, as Queen of England, the Supreme Governor of the establish
(Episcopalian) Church of England and also, as Queen of Scotland, the
Supreme Governor of the established (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland.
[snip]
>> In fact, as far as I can see it, the logic of your position is that she
>> should be Elizabeth I, since she is the first queen of that name to be
>> Queen of the UK. Have you stopped to ask yourself why she is styled
>> Elizabeth II?
>>
>
> I have, actually. I don't know. It seems a tad stupid to me. The most
> sensible styling would simply be 'Elizabeth of the United Kingdom', as
> opposed to 'Elizabeth of England'.
Yes, if it was as simple as you make out then she would be 'Elizabeth,
Queen of Great Britain' (or maybe 'the United Kingdom'), and Elizabeth
Tudor would be simply 'Elizabeth, Queen of England'.
> But who knows?
I do, and many other people do also. I have been vainly trying to explain.
>> Why, if what I said is untrue, was it agreed at the time that the
>> reigning
>> monarch of the UK would take the higher number out of the English & Scots
>> lines of monarchs?
> Well, that's a good question. I'd guess it was around the time of
> William IV(Who should strictly have been William III in Scotland).
Nope - Scots nationalism was pretty weak then (if indeed it existed).
It was, as I have said several times, around the time of the accession of
Elizabeth II. The person who made the suggestion was Winston Churchill; it
was in response to some people north of the border who were insisting on
calling her Elizabeth I. But the point is that this compromise makes no
sense unless the former kingdoms of England & Scotland have some sort of
continuity in the _one_ Kingdom of Great Britain (and NI).
===============================================
On Sunday, September 19, 2004, at 05:04 , John Cowan wrote:
> Ray Brown scripsit:
>
>> Indeed, strictly she is not only Queen of the United Kingdom either; she
>> is Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and one or other places IIRC.
>
> Here are Elizabeth's styles:
[snip - but great list!]
>> Nah - the UK is a unique institution, with much of its
>> constitution unwritten, designed to mystify all furriners ;)
>
> Not just foreigners, but natives too, I think.
I think you're right :)
>> But 'George' is one of the Prince of Wales's names!
>
> So it is: Charles Philip Arthur George, no less.
Yep.
>> Many people had been hoping he would choose one of his other names,
>> 'Arthur' (which BTW, unlike either Charles or George, is spelled the
>> same in Welsh as in English).
>
> Perhaps he didn't feel he could live up to being King Arthur.
Maybe - but if he emulates his grandfather, George VI, he won't do too
badly IMO.
(BTW the Welsh for _Charles_ is 'Siarl', for _Philip_ is 'Phylip' [sic]
and for _George_ is 'Si�r')
> --
> Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes.
:-D
PS - Maybe it is time this thread closed - IMO it's becoming tedious and
really has nothing to do with language construction.
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:21:31 +0200
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ANNOUNCE: S7 has a name: Q'en|gai
Hi!
I'd like to proudly announce the official name of my current conlang,
S7: it is called:
Q'en|g�i
The pronunciation in X-Sampa is: [q_>@_M.n|\gaI)_F], which, when
decoded, means:
syllable 1:
- ejective uvular voiceless plosive,
- schwa
- mid level tone (IPA 3)
syllable 2:
- voiced nasalised dental click with velar plosive release
- dipthong [a] + [I]
- falling tone (IPA 4-2)
Bye,
Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:34:53 +0100
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Number/Specificality/Archetypes in Language
Okay... I was reading a book called "the 100 greatest philosophers" out
of boredom during my lunchbreak at my part time job, and I was reading
the section on Plato (I think), talking about archetypes etc, and I was
thinking about how this relates to qualifiers, quantifiers, plurality
etc. It seems to me... if a common noun represents an archetype, say
"man", then we can get from that:
the archetype itself (perhaps "maleness"?)
the set of instantiations of the architype ("all men")
a subset of the complete set
an individual member of the set ("a/the man")
And then I started wondering if any languages "number" system actually
makes this four way distinction... and from that I got onto the problem
of the definition of subset, since a subset can contain only one
element, or, in set theory at least, no elements at all (the null set is
a subset of all sets including itself), so the distinctions above don't
necessarily make any distinction between singular and plural (and how do
you handle mass nouns? Count the whole set as the set every single
"atom", "molecule", "point", whatever of the substance and then use
subsets but not individual members? Or some other approach?), and
started thinking about making other distinctions such as plurality or
specificality (if we distinguish specificality in this system then it
seems to me that taken as a whole we mostly do away with the need for
qualifying words such as "any" etc).
I was also thinking about what it means to have a plural argument to a
verb... take for instance "The men went to the supermarket". This
amounts to feeding each member of the group "the men" to the verb, with
(often) the added implication that each of them went in a way somehow
related to the others going. If I said "John went to the supermarket,
and Fred went to the supermarket, and..." then I am not necessarily
implying that they did it together or that each of them going is related
in any way. Most languages have an easy way of giving the first meaning,
but the second seems to me more tricky. In English we'd usually use
"each" I think, as for example in: "Each man went to the supermarket" or
"Each of the men went to the supermarket". This removes the implication
that the events are related, or at least makes them more distantly
related. How do other languages handle this? How do your conlangs handle
this?
This has mostly been a ramble... there wasn't any objective really,
except that I thought someone else might have ideas on this topic. :) I
hope someone finds it interesting.... or has some added thoughts. :)
I've always found the examples of logical languages I've seen... less
than exciting to be honest, but thoughts linking maths/logic and
language are interesting me tonight.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:40:35 -0400
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT: reign names
Thomas R. Wier scripsit:
> So, if he were to adopt Arthur as his regnal name, would he
> be called "King Arthur II"? For that matter, what status do
> any of the preconquest kings have?
The pre-Conquest monarchs of England are totally ignored in the
numbering scheme.
--
Here lies the Christian, John Cowan
judge, and poet Peter, http://www.reutershealth.com
Who broke the laws of God http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and man and metre. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:53:30 +0000
From: Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Talk Like a Pirate Day!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Today was the International Talk Like a Pirate day. I figured this was
remotely conlang related, plus its just fun.
http://www.talklikeapirate.com/piratehome.html :D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)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=Hlrx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:57:09 +0930
From: "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang Flag: Voting Now Open.
After four days of voting, averaging approximately ten votes a day,
I've drawn a little graph showing the rate at which votes are coming
in. The vertical axis shows the number of minutes that elapse between
the submission of one vote and the next. The main thing to observe is
that as the line tends higher, the submission rate becomes lower.
http://web.netyp.com/member/dragon/temp/votesin.png
Here are the things people are unanimous about. There is not a single
voter who prefers flag U over flag T. Nor is there a single voter who
prefers flag U to flag W, or flag C to flag W.
Adrian.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 07:00:55 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non vitae sed scholae discimus
On Sunday, September 19, 2004, at 02:27 , Andreas Johansson wrote:
> 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.
Right - I understand that.
[snip]
>> 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.
Right - that's precisely why I asked about the context. Quoting single
sentences out of context can be misleading, as indeed this quote shows.
So he really did intend to say, as the Latin itself says: "We learn for
school but not for life". But he was stating it as a _criticism_ of
contemporary educational practices.
The sad thing is that two millennia later, education systems still
encourage pupils/students to learn for school and not for life.
Plus �a change, plus c'est la m�me chose.
======================================================
On Sunday, September 19, 2004, at 05:27 , Philippe Caquant wrote:
> 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.
Yes - precisely what Andreas has said also. This makes perfect sense.
> 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.
Except that in English 'quote' means repeating the verba_ipsissima (or a
faithful translation of the actual words) not repeating what we may image
the person to be thinking. We may state the latter, but it is not a quote.
We may quote the words "non scholae sed vitae discimus" if we want, but
either give the source as anonymous (we don't know who coined this version)
or as 'based on Seneca'. But it is false to quote them as Seneca's words.
Indeed, now that I know the context, Seneca's words have far more meaning
for me than the bland and platitudinous "non scholae sed vitae discimus".
> Interesting that, when reading the original sentence,
> nearly everybody thinks immediately that there must be
> a mistake somewhere.
Only if meeting it out of context!
> 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".
Eh?? Sorry - we? Who are 'we'? Is this yet another generalization?
There is _nothing_ in my culture condition (Britain of the WWII and
post-WWII) that leads me to understand 'discimus' as meaning anything else
than:
either: "we learn" [habitual]
or: "we are learning" [progressive]
But then in those far off days we were taught to be _accurate_ - a quaint,
old-fashioned idea, maybe. But that's why I say inaccurate quotes are
false and why I know the difference between 'discimus' and 'nobis
discendum est'.
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 07:43:43 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NATLANG: Latin prefixes with er/ra
On Sunday, September 19, 2004, at 02:10 , Muke Tever wrote:
[snip]
> 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.
Yep - _supra_ being derived, in fact, from the feminine ablative singular
of an adjective.
> Same seems to be the case with "inter"/"intra"
Oops - yes, indeed. I should have included that with _super_ in my
previous mail.
> "ulter" is an adjective, and "ultra" is its adverb and preposition, doesn'
> t seem to be (much?) used as a Latin prefix.
AFAIK _ultramundanus_ "that which is beyond the world" is the only one
from the Classical period.
> Same with "infer"/"infra".
True - and AFAIK "infra" was not used as a prefix in Classical Latin
("infer" certainly wasn't).
===============================================
>
On Sunday, September 19, 2004, at 04:52 , Roger Mills wrote:
[snip]
> Ya missed one: (*exter):extra
>
Yep - but no need for the asterisk with _exter_.
EXTER/ EXTRA
exter (alternative form 'exterus')
[adjective] = on the outside, outward, of another country.
From this are derived:
i. [comparative] exterior
ii. [superlarive] extre:mus
extra:
i. [adverb] on the outside; except (follwed by 'quam'. i.e. extra quam =
'except that)
ii. [prep. with accusative] outside of, beyond; with the exception of
> I think I might have raised the same questions a long time ago, and Ray
> Brown no doubt clarified things....
I have some vague memory of this from many moons ago :)
> 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.
Spot on!
> Note that in addition to having comparatives in -ior, they _do_ have
> superlatives -- in -imus (and a few -emus): supremus, ultimus, infimus,
> intimus, extremus --
Yep.
> as well as some derivatives in -nal-: cf. Engl.
> supernal, infernal, internal, external.
The Classical Latin equivalents were: supernus, infernus, internus,
externus
The addition of the redundant -al- seems to be a medievalism.
But even with _exter/extra_ we have not exhausted the list of -er/-ra
words. If time allows today, I'll chase up a few more for you all ;)
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 07:43:52 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT: reign names
On Sunday, September 19, 2004, at 08:19 , Thomas R. Wier wrote:
> Ray wrote:
>> But 'George' is one of the Prince of Wales's names! Many people had been
>> hoping he would choose one of his other names, 'Arthur' (which BTW,
>> unlike
>> either Charles or George, is spelled the same in Welsh as in English).
>
> So, if he were to adopt Arthur as his regnal name, would he
> be called "King Arthur II"?
No. There is no evidence that there was ever a historic 'King Arthur' of
anywhere. If the Arthur of legend has any basis in reality, then 'Arthur'
was probably a Romano-British leader (presumably called Arctorius) holding
out against Saxon encroachment after the legions had withdrawn from
Britain.
> For that matter, what status do
> any of the preconquest kings have? A few of the very early
> names are still in use:
In England, they have no standing. The monarchs of England are numbered
from William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, who is styled "William I". I
do not know when the Scots lists of monarchs starts; the Normans didn't
bring Scotland under their control.
[snip]
> name.) Heck, if Sargon II of Assyria (r. 722-705 BC) can be called
> thus because of Sargon I the Great of Akkad (r. 2371-2315 BC), I
> suppose anything can happen.
Yep - you're probably right there!
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 08:08:05 +0300
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anti-Chomsky Insults
On Sep 19, 2004, at 8:22 PM, Chris Bates wrote:
>> 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.
Nooooo... i was just using /o:/ (not [o:]) to represent the "gnOme"
vowel, which is the vowel i've heard used many times for Noam Chomsky's
name!
The name isn't English, it's Hebrew, Classical /no3am/ Israeli
/no(3)am/, other dialects do vary. Maybe everyone is actually saying
Noam's name the way you and are, [no(w)@m], and it just sounds like
/no:m/ to me because i'm used to "Noam" being pronounced [noam] with
two full non-schwa vowels.
-Stephen (Steg)
"ani ekhbosh et ha`olam!
ani ekakheiv beMTV!"
~ 'joni haqatan'
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:25:04 -0700
From: bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Orthography help, please.
I'm having much trouble with my newest a priori lang. I started it off alright,
finding that I like the phonology, but am having trouble with the orthography.
The phonemes are: (orthography is indicated for those that I've decided upon)
/t/ t
/d/ d
/t`/
/d`/
/t_h/
/d_h/
/k/ k
/g/ g
/k_h/
/g_h/
/k_?\/
/g_?\/
/m/ m
/n/ n
/N/
/n`/
/m_?\/
/N_?\/
/s/ s
/z/ s
/K/
/K\/
/S/
/Z/
/s`/
/z`/
NOTE: I am not sure if these sounds are correctly annotated
*/K`/ unvoiced retroflex lateral fricative
*/K\`/ voiced retroflex lateral fricative
/r\/
/l/
/r\`/
/l`/
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:09:08 +0200
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The (necessarily anti-American, it seems) French guy salutes you and
leaves
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:45:55 -0700, B. Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you want to shout, go to an appropriate forum to
> shout about your issue. This list is for *constructed languages*.
> Let's keep it on topic.
Or at least discuss OT things in a constructed language :)
(As with the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list, which has essentially two
rules for on-topic messages: discuss the Klingon language in English
[IIRC], or discuss anything you want if you write in Klingon.)
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Watch the Reply-To!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:11:10 +0200
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Internship: Rosetta Project/Long Now Foundation]
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:24:17 -0400, John Cowan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sigged:
> Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz.
> -- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words"
The first thing that caught my eye was "Calvin" and "foob" and I
thought, "Wow, a quote in Hmong!" Pity that the other words don't fit
the phonology.
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Watch the Reply-To!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:27:01 +0200
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:54:10 -0400, J. 'Mach' Wust
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> we use ['?m=?m=]
> or ['[EMAIL PROTECTED]@] for negation and [?m='hm=] or [?@'[EMAIL PROTECTED] for
> affirmation even though
> our words can't have [m=], [?], or stressed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No [?]? Interesting; I thought this was a fairly universal German thing.
Or do you mean "no word-medial [?]", perhaps? Though I have it in e.g.
|erinnern| and in |beinhalten|.
And I also have [m=] in words such as |geben| ["ge:bm=].
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Watch the Reply-To!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:20:20 +0100
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
>
>I think this is because there are enough nationalist and separatist
>movements (and their antitheseses) within the British Isles that tying
>anything down terminologically too tightly is bound to upset a significant
>portion of the voting public.
For what it's worth, the division of the BBC responsible for local
programming is known as "Nations and Regions".
Pete
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
