------------------------ 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 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Spanish-related question ((q)SVO ?)
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: THEORY: transitivity
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: Imperatives in split-S languages (was Anomaly of the (apparent) Cebuano
uvulars and Guarani info request)
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Imperatives in split-S languages (was Anomaly of the (apparent) Cebuano
uvulars and Guarani info request)
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: NATLANG: Latin prefixes with er/ra
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: Imperatives in split-S languages (was Anomaly of the (apparent) Cebuano
uvulars and Guarani info request)
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes in Language
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Further language development Q's
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: Conlang IRC server
From: taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes in Language
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Further language development Q's
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: Orthography help, please.
From: Trebor Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Further language development Q's
From: Trebor Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Orthography help, please.
From: Trebor Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: ANNOUNCE: S7 has a name: Q'en|gai
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Conlang IRC server
From: Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: Writing Grammatical Rules for Conlangs in the Conlang itself
From: Elliott Lash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: Further language development Q's
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: Spanish-related question ((q)SVO ?)
From: David Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: Conlang IRC server
From: Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. The IRC server is up! priscilla.ath.cx
From: Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: Orthography help, please.
From: bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: Orthography help, please.
From: bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: CXS Help
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: the sound of "DJ" (was Re new Unnamed Conlang)
From: Tamas Racsko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:42:44 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Spanish-related question ((q)SVO ?)
for Lost Languages, you have heard correctly that I am bringing to light
Orinoco English, which seems to have simplified what Spanish loans it
has...but there's something I'm unsure of...
Orinoco English seems to *always* (without fail: there are no exceptions at
all) put the questioning-word at the start of a sentance.
ie "Que wot be thee."
("what are you?" loose translation - please take no offense...that example
was atop my notes today).
so...would that make Orinoco English a qSVO language? *curious*
thanks.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:35:38 -0700
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: THEORY: transitivity
>
> Paul Hopper and Sandra Thompson wrote an excellent
> article in the early
> 80s (Language, Vol. 56, no. 2) entitled
> "Transitivity in Grammar
> and Discourse". Therein they list 10 (!) different
> criteria that
> languages use to encode transitivity, and they show
> that transitivity
> is really more of a cline than a discrete
> proposition. The 10
> criteria are:
>
> (1) Participants: two or more vs. one
> (2) Kinesis: action vs. nonaction
> (3) Aspect: telic vs. atelic
> (4) Punctuality: punctual vs. nonpunctual
> (5) Volitionality: volitional vs. nonvolitional
> (6) Affirmation: affirmative vs. negative
> (7) Mode: realis vs. irrealis
> (8) Agency: A high in potency vs. A low in potency
> (9) Affectedness of O: O totally affected vs. O
> not affected
> (10) Individuation of O: O highly individuated vs. O
> nonindividuated
>
> By most of these criteria, I would say German
> 'folgen' is high on
> the transitivity cline, despite the fact that it
> subcategorizes for
> a dative object. Another point is that sometimes
> verbs just lexically
> specify things, and their behavior does not reflect
> any actual synchronic
> generalizations about where the verb fits on the
> transitivity cline.
> So, if we've decided to lump things as transitive or
> intransitive,
> I would say 'folgen' is transitive.
Those criteria seem quite interesting. In fact, it
seems that the world once more collapsed under my
feet. I checked in my Dictionnary for Linguistics at
"transitif" and the result is that I have no more idea
of what is transitive and what is not. It is said that
traditionnal grammars distinguished between direct and
indirect transitivity ("indirect" meaning that there
must be some preposition before the complement), but
that's all old-fashioned (I summarize) and now we have
to think in terms of syntagms: "One could say that
every verb is a transitive verb in the context of a
complement nominal syntagm" (?) Then the transitive
verbs can also be used intransitively (ex: Pierre
mange). Other grammaticians talk about attributive
intransitives (like: ob�ir, parler...).
Well, what I meant was simply: some verbs are followed
by a "compl�ment d'objet direct" (clearly I should
have written: direct transitive) in some languages,
while the equivalent verbs are followed by a
"compl�ment d'objet indirect" in other languages, with
or without a preposition, and the preposition used, if
any, may differ from one language to another (I mean,
there are usually not equivalent), and this is all
purely syntactic (AFAIU, the references you give seem
to imply that transitivity is something semantic that
can be encoded is various ways ? or rather, something
like a cloud of various concepts ?). So I shall no
more use the word "transitive" since I don't
understand any more what it means.
Yet in my Bescherelle (tutorial for French
conjugation), there is a list of all usual French
verbs, and each one is followed by one or more of the
abbreviations:
I = intransitive
T = direct transitive
Ti = indirect transitive
P = pronominal
This was printed in 2000, so it's not so old. And
transitivity is here clearly meant syntactically (it
helps you to use the verb the correct way). So what
should I think ? Ah, wait a minute. I have another
older edition of the same book (1981) and it doesn't
say the same. For ex, ob�ir (to obey) was intransitive
in 1981 and indirect transitive in 2000. Hence
probably my initial confusion. But anyway, it's still
all about syntax. Oh my God, I don't know any more.
P.S. What is a cline ?
=====
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!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:39:07 -0400
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperatives in split-S languages (was Anomaly of the (apparent) Cebuano
uvulars and Guarani info request)
Tamas Racsko wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2004 J"rg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 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).
>
> AFAIK |tasy| 'be-ill' is a quality verb in Guarani: |xe rasy| 'I
> am-ill', |nde rasy| 'you are-ill', |hasy| < *|ha'e tasy| 'he/she is-
> ill', |nda.ore.rasy.i| 'we-are-not-ill'.
>
> If this verb has no imperative, how can English sentence 'Do not
> be ill!' is translated into Guarani? Or in Old Albic?
The problem is, lots of "quality" verbs, in English and many languages,
can't have imperatives either, and it may be a near-universal. There are
questions of logic, real-world possibility, applicability to humans,
volition. Thus, "don't be ill/sick" is not an acceptable sentence, just
like "don't be green", "don't be intelligent". Similarly, "don't know
that!", "don't understand that!"-- some in this last class are acceptable as
positives, though rather formal.
"Don't _get/become_ sick" i.e. stay healthy, is OK.
There are some special cases, but the meaning is not the same:
Don't be sick! (i.e. don't vomit)
Don't be stupid! (i.e. don't act stupid)
Don't be black! (advice to a chess player)
(To someone who is currently sick, one might say, "Don't be sick next
weekend!" (because we're having a party for you)-- and so on; very special
cases.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:57:18 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperatives in split-S languages (was Anomaly of the (apparent) Cebuano
uvulars and Guarani info request)
Roger Mills wrote:
>Tamas Racsko wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>On 19 Sep 2004 J"rg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>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).
>>>
>>>
>> AFAIK |tasy| 'be-ill' is a quality verb in Guarani: |xe rasy| 'I
>>am-ill', |nde rasy| 'you are-ill', |hasy| < *|ha'e tasy| 'he/she is-
>>ill', |nda.ore.rasy.i| 'we-are-not-ill'.
>>
>> If this verb has no imperative, how can English sentence 'Do not
>>be ill!' is translated into Guarani? Or in Old Albic?
>>
>>
>
>The problem is, lots of "quality" verbs, in English and many languages,
>can't have imperatives either, and it may be a near-universal. There are
>questions of logic, real-world possibility, applicability to humans,
>volition. Thus, "don't be ill/sick" is not an acceptable sentence, just
>like "don't be green", "don't be intelligent". Similarly, "don't know
>that!", "don't understand that!"-- some in this last class are acceptable as
>positives, though rather formal.
>
>
Au contraire. All of the above are quite grammatical. Nonsensical, of
course, but definitely grammatical.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:59:04 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NATLANG: Latin prefixes with er/ra
Further to my last mail on the subject:
I find that _exter_ also has the superlative _extimus_ besides the more
common superlative form _extre:mus_.
I've tracked down three more of these critters.
CITER/CITRA
citer
[adjective] on this side
[comparaitive] citerior
[superlative] citimus
citra:
[adverb]on this side
[prep. with acc.] on this side of
DEXTER/DEXTRA
dexter
[adjective] right(hand), on the right, rightward
[comparative] dexterior (more rightward. more to the right)
[superlative] dextimus (rightmost)
dextra:
[adverb] on the right
[prep. with acc.] on the right of
SINISTER/SINISTRA
sinister
[adjective] left(hand), on the left, leftward
[comparative] sinisterior
[superlative] sinistimus
sinistra:
[adverb] on the left
[prep. with acc.] on the left of
Must be some ideas for conlangs here ;)
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:05:47 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperatives in split-S languages (was Anomaly of the (apparent) Cebuano
uvulars and Guarani info request)
Joe wrote:
> Roger Mills wrote:
>
>> Tamas Racsko wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 19 Sep 2004 J"rg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 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).
>>>>
>>>>
>>> AFAIK |tasy| 'be-ill' is a quality verb in Guarani: |xe rasy| 'I
>>> am-ill', |nde rasy| 'you are-ill', |hasy| < *|ha'e tasy| 'he/she is-
>>> ill', |nda.ore.rasy.i| 'we-are-not-ill'.
>>>
>>> If this verb has no imperative, how can English sentence 'Do not
>>> be ill!' is translated into Guarani? Or in Old Albic?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The problem is, lots of "quality" verbs, in English and many languages,
>> can't have imperatives either, and it may be a near-universal. There are
>> questions of logic, real-world possibility, applicability to humans,
>> volition. Thus, "don't be ill/sick" is not an acceptable sentence, just
>> like "don't be green", "don't be intelligent". Similarly, "don't know
>> that!", "don't understand that!"-- some in this last class are
>> acceptable as
>> positives, though rather formal.
>>
>>
>
> Au contraire. All of the above are quite grammatical. Nonsensical, of
> course, but definitely grammatical.
>
>
I should probably add 'in my ideolect'.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:15:29 -0700
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes in Language
This I found interesting, although a little bit
confused. I have to think it over, but here are just
some remarks:
- I don't think "maleness" can be an archetype for all
men, because it doesn't refer to mankind. Animals and
plants can be male or female too. Perhaps
"male-mankind" ?
- there is a difference between "the set of all men"
and "the characteristics common to all men".
Strangely, in French we use the same word,
"humanite'": "L'humanite' court a sa perte" = mankind
is running toward its ruin", vs: "Il n'y avait pas
trace d'humanite' dans son regard" = there was nothing
human in his gaze"
- a group can be considered as an entity, for ex an
army is composed of soldiers, officers, horses etc,
but it is also a thing on its own; so is a forest. In
French, there is an hesitation in some cases, one may
say "une foule de gens se rassembla" or "une foule de
gens se rassemblerent" (a crowd [of people] gathered).
>From a purely syntactic standpoint one should say "se
rassembla", but both are admitted.
- a subset is defined by specific characteristics (or
attributes, or properties) of the set, therefore it is
perfectly possible that the subset contains 0, 1 or n
elements. The subset of all men who walked on Mars is
empty (in 2004). It might not always be.
(BTW, another interesting question: when I say: "The
Americans elected a President named Bush", "The
Americans walked on the Moon", and "The Americans
fought against each other during Secession War"), what
does "the Americans" mean in each case ? Seems they
are different sets, or subsets).
- I guess that" The men went to the supermarket" is
usually understood as: they were more or less
together. If not, one usually specifies: one by one,
separately, at different times, in small groups, etc.
Is this distinction a matter of number, or rather an
adverbial one (the *way* they went), this could be
discussed. This implies time (shall we go back to the
Hopi problem: is "three" the same concept in "three
days" as in "three men" ?)
(Mass and count nouns have already been discussed
quite heartily here).
--- Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 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.
[snip]
=====
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!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:31:12 -0400
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Further language development Q's
Further to Carsten's question as to the development of trigger languages--
If Proto Austronesian was (as seems likely) a trigger language, then the
modern descendants show developments to: (1) trigger languages, as most
Philippine languages (2) accusative languages (Malay/Indonesian and many
others) (3) ergative or ergative-like languages-- some Polynesian langs. are
said to be ergative, others like Buginese are ergative-like (in that you use
different subject/object affixes depending on transitive/intrans. verbs--
but there's also a connection with definite/indefinite).
laoka?, laoko, laoi /lao+ka?/-ko/-i/ 'I - you - he/she go(es)'
mitaka? asu (mita+ka?) "I see a dog"
uitai asue /u-ita-i asu-e/ 1sj-see-3oj. dog-def "I see the dog"
naitaka? asue /na-ita-ka?/ "the dog sees me"
uitako "I see you"
Carsten also wrote:
>That's also one thing I haven't fully
> understood yet, I mean why transitivity is important for
> Basque verbs. I know what the terms (in/di)transitive mean.
It's important because most trans. verbs require one auxiliary, which marks
both subject and object as well as tense, intransitives another, which marks
only subject and tense. A handful of verbs, of both types, have special
conjugation that doesn't use the aux.
I recall there's a large number of periphrastic verbs, usually denominals,
that are treated as transitive even though in most languages they'd be
considered intransitive-- like 'sneeze', in Basque IIRC it's _sneeze (noun)
make/do + trans.aux._
>
> > > 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.
>
> Yeah, actually you're right. Nevertheless I don't see why I
> should not form stative passives with the causative. IMO,
> something is "caused to be done" after all.
>
That's possible. Consider:
Stative: The door is open.
"Causative": John opened the door -- which can be viewed as either "John
caused the door to (become) open" or "John caused the door to be opened". I
think there's a question of direct/indirect causation here, but there's
certainly room for ambiguity.
ObConlang: Kash stative > causatives are generally active verbs; but there
is a series of verbal forms meaning "able to... ~able to be..." where,
especially if the base verb is transitive, the meaning is usually passive:
tikas 'to see' potikas 'visible' and many more.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:36:55 +0200
From: taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang IRC server
* Carsten Becker said on 2004-09-20 18:23:58 +0200
> On Sunday 19 September 2004 08:50, Steg Belsky wrote:
>
> > I remember people did that a while ago... they made a
> > #conlang channel over on... Dalnet, i think it was. As
> > far as i know, it's been defunct for a few years.
>
> Yay, in any case a #conlang channel would be a great idea.
> Hm... if this would reduce the offtopic discussions and
> flamewars here?
How about ircnet[*] (for the europeans anyway)? I've made one...
[*] No need for nick-servers, bot-servers, chan-servers, just
plain old irc.
t.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:15:54 +0100
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes in Language
Philippe Caquant wrote:
>This I found interesting, although a little bit
>confused. I have to think it over, but here are just
>some remarks:
>
>
It was confused... my rambles often jump around the landscape randomly.
;) Generally I wander off, see what comes to me, then try to refine it
and iron out the contradictions and/or mistakes.
>- I don't think "maleness" can be an archetype for all
>men, because it doesn't refer to mankind. Animals and
>plants can be male or female too. Perhaps
>"male-mankind" ?
>
>
I guess so.... :)
>- there is a difference between "the set of all men"
>and "the characteristics common to all men".
>Strangely, in French we use the same word,
>"humanite'": "L'humanite' court a sa perte" = mankind
>is running toward its ruin", vs: "Il n'y avait pas
>trace d'humanite' dans son regard" = there was nothing
>human in his gaze"
>
>
Surely this difference is reflected in the list I gave? Or perhaps
not... I was considering the architype itself to be a list of the
necessary and sufficient criteria for any object to be said to belong to
that architype: for instance "the characteristics common to men" =
"human-maleness". Maybe not? I don't know....
>- a group can be considered as an entity, for ex an
>army is composed of soldiers, officers, horses etc,
>but it is also a thing on its own; so is a forest. In
>French, there is an hesitation in some cases, one may
>say "une foule de gens se rassembla" or "une foule de
>gens se rassemblerent" (a crowd [of people] gathered).
>>From a purely syntactic standpoint one should say "se
>rassembla", but both are admitted.
>
>
If I ever designed a logical language, I guess I would need a way to
effectively make a set into an entity itself....
>- a subset is defined by specific characteristics (or
>attributes, or properties) of the set, therefore it is
>perfectly possible that the subset contains 0, 1 or n
>elements. The subset of all men who walked on Mars is
>empty (in 2004). It might not always be.
>
>
>
I know subsets can contain one or no members.... I was just worrying
about the fact that if you differentiate between subsets and elements,
this doesn't necessarily distinguish between singular and plural... so
if I incorporated this into a language (in some way) then I'd need to
make number optional, or marked in a separate way (I'm addicted to
compulsory number marking lol.... is there a number marking anonymous?)
>(BTW, another interesting question: when I say: "The
>Americans elected a President named Bush", "The
>Americans walked on the Moon", and "The Americans
>fought against each other during Secession War"), what
>does "the Americans" mean in each case ? Seems they
>are different sets, or subsets).
>
>
The problem of plurality seems more difficult than I thought at first.
What a plural argument means seems to vary from verb to verb and from
argument to argument. Using your example, "elected" very strongly
suggests that "the americans" performed the act together, since to elect
someone you all have to vote in the same election. But in some other
examples, the implication is different... perhaps this varies from verb
to verb, or is simply implied by the situation and can vary even when
the verb is the same?
>- I guess that" The men went to the supermarket" is
>usually understood as: they were more or less
>together. If not, one usually specifies: one by one,
>separately, at different times, in small groups, etc.
>Is this distinction a matter of number, or rather an
>adverbial one (the *way* they went), this could be
>discussed. This implies time (shall we go back to the
>Hopi problem: is "three" the same concept in "three
>days" as in "three men" ?)
>
>
>
The more I think about this, the more I realize that things I take for
granted in language (that every language I've ever studied treats in
roughly similar ways... I haven't just learned Indo-European languages,
and I'm working on learning Basque at the moment, but I've never learned
Hopi ;) ) don't need to work that way. *sigh* I'm going to go away now
and create some looney language, or just go quietly insane myself lol....
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:32:37 +0100
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Further language development Q's
>Carsten also wrote:
>
>
>>That's also one thing I haven't fully
>>understood yet, I mean why transitivity is important for
>>Basque verbs. I know what the terms (in/di)transitive mean.
>>
>>
>
>It's important because most trans. verbs require one auxiliary, which marks
>both subject and object as well as tense, intransitives another, which marks
>only subject and tense. A handful of verbs, of both types, have special
>conjugation that doesn't use the aux.
>
>I recall there's a large number of periphrastic verbs, usually denominals,
>that are treated as transitive even though in most languages they'd be
>considered intransitive-- like 'sneeze', in Basque IIRC it's _sneeze (noun)
>make/do + trans.aux._
>
>
The basic reason is that all the agreement is on the auxilliary (except
for the small number of verbs with their own simple finite forms) and
the auxilliary agrees with the Actor, Patient and Recipient/Beneficiary
if they're present, so if you use a transitive verb you need to use an
auxilliary which agrees with the Actor and Patient, and which is
different from an auxilliary with the same Actor but no patient. Some
examples (sorry if I make a mistake, I only just started learning
Basque...):
Nik Telebistan lan egin nahi dut
Ni-k Televista-n lan egin nahi du-t
I-ERG television-LOC work make want pres.transitive.3rd.ABS-1st.ERG
I want to work in Television
Ni Inglaterran bizi naiz
Ni Inglaterra-n bizi naiz
I-ABS england-LOC live pres.intrans.1st
I live in England
As you can see, the subject (I) is the same in both sentences, but the
auxilliaries are different because one is transitive (with "to work in
Television" as the other argument), and the other is intransitive, with
"I" as the only core argument. Note also that "to work", which is
intransitive in english, is treated as a transitive verb in Basque,
since its translated as "make work". This is an example similar to the
"sneeze" example Roger gave. To say "I work in Television" you'd say:
Telebistan lan egiten dut
Telebista-n lan egin-ten du-t
Television-LOC work make-(simple? I forget...)
pres.transitive.3rd.ABS-1st.ERG
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:41:16 -0400
From: Trebor Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Orthography help, please.
Bob �rta: "The phonemes are: (orthography is indicated for those that I've
decided upon)."
Hmm... How about this?
/t/ t
/d/ d
/t`/ t'
/d`/ d'
/t_h/ th
/d_h/ dh
/k/ k
/g/ g
/k_h/ kh
/g_h/ gh
/k_?\/ kk
/g_?\/ gg
/m/ m
/n/ n
/N/ �
/n`/ n'
/m_?\/ nn
/N_?\/ ��
/s/ s
/z/ z
/K/ x
/K\/ j
/S/ c
/Z/ �
/s`/ s'
/z`/ z'
/K`/ x'
/K\`/ j'
/r\/ r
/l/ l
/r\`/ r'
/l`/ l'
One question: Are pharyngealized velars even possible? If not, you might
like to replace them with uvulars, since Ubykh has those.
Trebor
"Oysters are a fine thing, so are strawberries: but mashed together?"
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:51:01 -0400
From: Trebor Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Further language development Q's
Chris �rta: "As you can see, the subject (I) is the same in both sentences,
but the auxilliaries are different because one is transitive (with "to work
in Television" as the other argument), and the other is intransitive, with
"I" as the only core argument. Note also that "to work", which is
intransitive in english, is treated as a transitive verb in Basque, since
its translated as "make work". This is an example similar to the "sneeze"
example Roger gave. To say "I work in Television" you'd say:
IIRC this is how some Australian lang works-- it has only three verbs... I
remember there was a paper on it... (IIRC the verbs were "to be", "to do",
and "to go".)
"Telebistan lan egiten dut
Telebista-n lan egin-ten du-t
Television-LOC work make-(simple? I forget...)
pres.transitive.3rd.ABS-1st.ERG
"Simple present"? Would that be equivalent to the English progressive, since
the English "present" is actually a habitual aspect? Or maybe something
totally different?
Trebor
"Oysters are a fine thing, so are strawberries: but mashed together?"
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:53:30 -0400
From: Trebor Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Orthography help, please.
"One question: Are pharyngealized velars even possible? If not, you might
like to replace them with uvulars, since Ubykh has those."
Should've said, "One question: Are pharyngealized velars even possible? If
not, you might like to replace them with pharyngealized uvulars, since Ubykh
has those-- thus a natlang precedence."
Trebor
"Oysters are a fine thing, so are strawberries: but mashed together?"
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:20:50 +0200
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: S7 has a name: Q'en|gai
Hi!
Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 19 September 2004 21:21, Henrik Theiling wrote:
>...
> > Q'en|g�i
> >
> > The pronunciation in X-Sampa is: [q_>@_M.n|\gaI)_F],
>...
> Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
> *wrings Henrik's neck, only in imagination, though* I don't
> get it, could you please upload a sound file?!
Hmhm, good idea.
I uploaded an MP3-file with the pronunciation given above and
linked it into the Q'en|gai main page:
http://www.theiling.de/projects/s7/
(The MP3 is here, in case you want a direct link:
http://www.theiling.de/qqe1nDgai3.mp3
)
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:55:29 +0000
From: Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang IRC server
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 20 September 2004 18:36, taliesin the storyteller wrote:
>
> How about ircnet[*] (for the europeans anyway)? I've made one...
>
> [*] No need for nick-servers, bot-servers, chan-servers, just
> plain old irc.
>
Hmm, if you have a server and would like to link with me, that would be nice,
to have a US server and a EU server.. Get back to me at my email.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)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=xxzU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:09:41 -0700
From: Elliott Lash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Writing Grammatical Rules for Conlangs in the Conlang itself
thanks a lot for your continuing support. I would like
to see this Old Albic grammar, whenever you make it,
if you do. I was looking into your website the other
day and I think Old Albic seems very interesting. I'll
have to look at it in more detail when I have time.
Currently, I'm trying to clear up somethings
concerning Grad School, etc. But in the meanwhile,
I'll be trying to further Silindion's grammar and so
forth.
Elliott Lash
--- J�rg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:52:31 -0700,
> Elliott Lash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Has anyone currently on the list tried to write
> > grammatical texts about the grammar of your
> conlangs
> > using the conlang itself?
>
> I haven't done so yet, but among my ideas about Old
> Albic is that
> one of the surviving texts in Old Albic is a grammar
> of Old Albic,
> and I dream of actually writing that grammar some
> day, when Old Albic
> has become mature enough to do that.
>
> > I know this has been done before. And I've just
> > started something about it in Silindion.
> >
> > [awesome stuff snipped]
>
> This is way, way, way cool! Thank you for sharing
> it with us!
>
> Greetings,
>
> J�rg.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:07:13 +0100
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Further language development Q's
> "Telebistan lan egiten dut
> Telebista-n lan egin-ten du-t
> Television-LOC work make-(simple? I forget...)
> pres.transitive.3rd.ABS-1st.ERG
>
> "Simple present"? Would that be equivalent to the English progressive,
> since
> the English "present" is actually a habitual aspect? Or maybe something
> totally different?
>
In basque, the auxilliary tends to mark tense (past vs non-past), mode
(there are subjunctive, conditional, possibilitative etc auxilliaries),
and person agreement (with Actor, Patient and Recipient), and the main
verb form (the infinitive) takes aspect markers. I think, but I haven't
practiced in a while (a few days, but I haven't been learning that long)
so I might be getting confused, that "egiten" is the "simple" form
(whose proper name I can't remember... corresponding roughly when used
with a present tense auxilliary to the english simple present tense).
Another example is the ending -ko, which is often analysed as a future
tense marker, but which I was reading (an argument by Larry Trask I
believe) is actually more like "unrealised" (it can occur with past
tense auxilliaries etc). An example of this is:
joango zara
joan-go zara
go-FUT/UNREALISED pres.intrans.2nd
you will go
I find the way the TAM information is split between the main verb and
auxilliary quite interesting in Basque. :)
I just looked it up in a basque grammar online... the aspect markers a
verb can take are:
perfective
imperfective
unrealized
However, there is also an (explicitly) progressive construction
involving the use of a word "ari" which I counted as a progressive
marking along the same lines as those listed above, even though it is a
construction rather than a single suffix on the main verb as is the case
with the other three.. so I guess I started thinking of the imperfective
marking as mainly habitual in nature, thus giving rise to the confusion
over what to call it (I couldn't decide whether to call it "simple" or
not by analogy with the English simple present tense... it would have
been easier to label it habitual or something anyway even if it wasn't
in fact an imperfective marker).
The Basque verbal system in its entirety is really amazing.... I've
never learned any other language which has so much TAM information and
person agreement compulsarily marked.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 19:06:26 EDT
From: David Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Spanish-related question ((q)SVO ?)
Rodlox wrote:
<< ie "Que wot be thee."
("what are you?" loose translation - please take no offense...that example
was atop my notes today).>>
This is another place where an interlinear translation was absolutely
necessary. Why? Because you talk about "the question word", but to my
eyes, there appear to be two: "que" and "wot". So when you said "the
question
word", which one did you mean?
<< so...would that make Orinoco English a qSVO language?� *curious*>>
The answer is "no", but I'll wait to see your interlinear to explain why.
One
thing might help out quite a bit: How would you say "You are a teacher",
or "Thou art a teacher", or "Thou art" anything? (Oh, and note: The word
order of the sentence you listed appears to be subject final.)
-David
*******************************************************************
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
-Jim Morrison
http://dedalvs.free.fr/
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:32:49 +0000
From: Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang IRC server
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 20 September 2004 16:23, Carsten Becker wrote:
>
> Yay, in any case a #conlang channel would be a great idea.
> Hm... if this would reduce the offtopic discussions and
> flamewars here?
>
> Carsten
Yes, that was my plan, and to give a place for real time discussions. Glad you
like it, I'll most likely have the server running by tonight.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iQIVAwUBQU8+cXckIUvyhRGeAQIzKxAAml5b6QIAXIEX3ZWdBDWE1NndZ1fIp9Ez
HH2GIj28gvGIdOfQl8vNJUH0dMjq2unh4+oajev58kcwEQCscMZPhHhUr2zV3SLV
kA/5TNxKmVg3OFgniDrGycEmJI38nhRsqqlEtIzwvaW6jwkqrxZe0K/x7aSK8B6/
mYWizNOmEk7NfbaEiYExZvcbget6x4sGB/jaijSxBWn9L0XFkqWEhPsQDSzrceWD
0yX+euHM5rPQNSBJ5Z8ruv4SaJ1tcCp4rIeDcc73vQuIy1wAMYEQ8EjLl7VI7Qzu
MDsMjJxr9en4bcoQnS/FTaOZCXW+r569X00qRKzAt8jLfuF7ke8/EBos2s6TXnD1
Fn+XtSnnX+hb3Ywl/PH1TCLUJctO3twxq9ulY1P8ubJ/zllzfnT4wQQKunxfNAdt
ujLHzxOmZ54IEjQB4rJ1nnRVTf/ABnAOjL2FyT/O2IO7L93eWscKck30JfcMKBgg
+cvZp6MKrvD2uc07DxtfyVG6PJH4o+0VSHbI15Kk/WUQq3phfyNh0av8x/tgvhmg
Xc1CAMtfJ5a7YOoh30Z2rdE+ws/9R/l/VTEt5JoX8Bn+IrYdr3Uy0w9B0+mC1yFZ
HTbrJ8to/A605IN3D3EyVvycf/vyq4LULh7NELx8YRcPrHGAN4j/TM9FoEJeGIoU
D6YsEHkHx0g=
=vS/n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:10:56 +0000
From: Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The IRC server is up! priscilla.ath.cx
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Come on in and talk, #conlang
Have fun :)
(BTW: It MAY be slow to connect. I have the I: and Y: lines set up for maximum
connections allowed.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)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=iZhH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:41:27 -0700
From: bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Orthography help, please.
Tamas Racsko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19 Sep 2004 bob thornton wrote:
> The phonemes are: (orthography is indicated for those that I've
> decided upon)
Did you set up the phonotactics yet? Are there geminates in your
conlang? Are consonant clusters CR allowed? -- where C = (/t/, /d/,
/n/, /s/, /z/, /K/, /K\/, /r\/, /l/) and R = (/r\/, /r\'/) Etc.
The way I work on a language is phonemes first, orthography second, tactics last of
the sound/sound representation section of the language. So, no, I do not have the
phonotactics yet. I just started on it this weekend.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:53:24 -0700
From: bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Orthography help, please.
Trebor Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bob �rta: "The phonemes are: (orthography is indicated for those that I've
decided upon)."
Hmm... How about this?
(Snippity do dah, snippity day)
One question: Are pharyngealized velars even possible? If not, you might
like to replace them with uvulars, since Ubykh has those.
A) Cannae pronounce uvulars. At least, not well.
B) I am making a noise, that sounds like a pharyngealized (I think) velar. Blast my
lack of recording equipment!
I like your usage of c cedilla, but find your apostrophes... bothersome. I'm tending
to prefer the other suggested orthography... perhaps a mix. Oooo... brain working.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:43:02 -0400
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CXS Help
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:04:44 -0400, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 06:41:17PM +0000, Jeremy Kleier wrote:
>> Can anyone provide the X-Sampa for the Japanese word 'tsunami'?
>
> Isn't it [ts)M.na.mi]?
I would be rather tempted to notate the Japanese |a| as /V/ rather than
either /a/ or /A/. That's what I've been taught by three different sources.
NB that I can barely say "Nihongo ga wakarimasen", but I *have* studied
two different books and a Pimsleur course. The books both said to use the
|u| in the British English word |cut|, and the Pimsleur sounds to my ear
like it agrees. The dribs and drabs of Japanese TV and radio I've
witnessed kinda give me the same impression.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:10:07 +0200
From: Tamas Racsko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the sound of "DJ" (was Re new Unnamed Conlang)
On 20 Sep 2004 08:29:32 Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quoted:
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > jy (like "DJoser" in Ancient Egyptian)
> >
> > Does anyone what Ancient Egyptian sounded like
>
> actually, after some thinking, I recall that I put a DJoser-
style DJ
sound
> in Metes, which I wrote in X-Sampa.
>
> it's [J\] if I recall.
Ancient Egyptian had millenaries to develop, therefore I think
more than one actual pronunciation can be assigned to the
hieroglyph of 'snake' (and its descendants).
My sources tell that this sound goes back to a common Afroasian
*[g]. It is the starting point and we know also the final
developmental stage: AFAIK in Coptic letter 'janja' sounds [dZ].
Thus we can draw a sound change sequence like:
(a) Afroasian [g] > [g'] > [d'] > [dz\] > Coptic [dZ], or
(b) Afroasian [g] > [g'] > [J\] > [J\j\] > [dz\] > Coptic [dZ], or
(c) ...
There is no actual information about which intermediate phase was
valid in time of Djoser, thus we can liberately choose any of them.
You must decide whether diacritical |-y| in your notations |jy|,
|sy|, |zy| is systematical or not. If it is not, |jy| can be [J\].
But if it is, I propose either changing the orthography to |dy| or
the pronuncuation to [J\j\] or better [dz\].
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
