------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Celtic, was Re: The etymology of (King) Arthur
From: Doug Dee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: what makes a con-script a Con-Script?
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: 1st, 2nd, 3rd - 4th person POV??
From: Carol Anne Buckley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: OOPs!! When is a class not a class? (Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes
in Language)
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: what makes a con-script a Con-Script?
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: OOPs!! When is a class not a class? (Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes
in Language)
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Split/Fluid-S systems: A 3-way split
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Split/Fluid-S systems: A 3-way split
From: Trebor Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: 1st, 2nd, 3rd - 4th person POV??
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: The etymology of (King) Arthur (was Re: CHAT: reign names)
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: The etymology of (King) Arthur (was Re: CHAT: reign names)
From: Mario Bonassin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: The etymology of (King) Arthur (was Re: CHAT: reign names)
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Split/Fluid-S systems: A 3-way split
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: The etymology of (King) Arthur (was Re: CHAT: reign names)
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Split/Fluid-S systems: A 3-way split
From: "Isaac A. Penzev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Inventing names
From: Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: Contemporaneous protolanguages
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: Contemporaneous protolanguages
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: The etymology of (King) Arthur (was Re: CHAT: reign names)
From: Doug Dee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Arabic Questions
From: Adam Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: Arabic Questions
From: David Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. P versus Q Celtic
From: bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: Arabic Questions
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: P versus Q Celtic
From: Ben Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: The etymology of (King) Arthur (was Re: CHAT: reign names)
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 08:52:58 EDT
From: Doug Dee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Celtic, was Re: The etymology of (King) Arthur
In a message dated 9/25/2004 2:36:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> when I hear someone question whether the ancient inhabitants of the
>> British
>> Isles were "Celts", my immediate interpretation is linguistic - I take it
>> as
>> questioning whether their languages belong to the same branch of IE as do
>> the
>> continental Celtic languages (Gaulish and friends).
>Friends? AFAIK Gaulish is the only known one - and what is known of that
>is far from perfect.
Other Continental Celtic languages of which something is known include
Celtiberian, Lepontic, and Galatian.
(According to _The Celtic Languages_, ed. by Martin J. Ball & James Fife.)
Doug
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:20:58 -0600
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: what makes a con-script a Con-Script?
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:17:43 +0000, Rodlox R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *curious*
>
> if you had five or fewer tablet (each the size of your palm), which had
> symbols etched in them...how would you know that it was a written
> language?...as opposed to random slashes in the rock...or something else?
You probably wouldn't know... (unless, of course, the symbols were the same
as or similar to symbols you already know).
Without context, you have the same issue as you have with the Phaistos Disc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaistos_Disc
...you may be able to assume it's meaningful, but that's not the same as its
being language. Common examples of "tablets with symbols" that don't
necessarily include language are, for example, maps, some board games, art,
or even simple accounting with pictographs and tally marks:
[sheep.gif] ||||
...doesn't represent "four sheep" any more or less than it does "quattuor
oves" or "hetz ewir".
*Muke!
--
website: http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt: http://kohath.deviantart.com/
FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:08:45 -0400
From: Carol Anne Buckley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 1st, 2nd, 3rd - 4th person POV??
Thank you, I do feel very welcomed. I am still trying to figure out which
discussed languages are con, and which merely (to me) obscure.
Please, all, consider me more a brainstormer than the Pitbull of Scientific
Method. I was just reading in Technology Review an allusion to Linus
Pauling's statement that the best way to have a good idea is to have lots of
ideas. Count on me for the lots; y'all can decide about the good.
Meanwhile, I consider this list a smorgasbord of Cool Stuff.
C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: 1st, 2nd, 3rd - 4th person POV??
> From: Carol Anne Buckley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I'm new! I have been lurking for a few days. I have a BA in
Linguistics
> > and Cognitive Psych and an MA in Linguistics (emphasis on Oceanic
languages)
> > and am interested in language in general and Polynesian languages in
> > particular. I write futurist fiction (as yet unpublished). I have no
> > pressing need to develop a conlang at the moment, and, perhaps
quixotically,
> > feel rather confident about doing it if I ever need to.
>
> Welcome to the list! We have a number of professional linguists on
> the list, in addition to participants who certainly have an above-average
> understanding of linguistics, so I think you'll feel at home here.
>
> ==========================================================================
> 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: 4
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:28:06 +0200
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OOPs!! When is a class not a class? (Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes
in Language)
--- Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev:
> > As I understood from Flanagan's "JavaScript" (I'm
> > currently at page 344 of the French edition, and
> there
> > are 955 in all), JavaScript in not a real OOP, but
> it
> > more or less behaves like an OOP.
>
> Either your Flanagan ain't the David Flanagan who
> wrote "JavaScript: the
> Definitive Guide" or he's changed his mind or
> something has gone awry in
> the translation.
Same Flanagan. In chapter 8, paragraph
"Object-oriented JavaScript (seems Flanagan doesn't
know one can can give numbers to paragraphs in a doc
:-( ), he writes (I'll better not translate back to
avoid mistakes): "La conception commune aux langages
de programmation oriente's objet est qu'ils sont
fortement type's et qu'ils prennent en compte
l'heritage de classe. Sur la base de ces criteres,
JavaScript n'est pas un veritable langage oriente'
objet et il est facile de l'exclure de ce groupe". But
two sentences further, "A cet egard, JavaScript est un
vrai langage oriente' objet". So it seems that there
is no definitive definition of what an oriented-object
language is, and thus JavaScript is sometimes one of
them and sometimes not.
In "JavaScript: the Definitive
> Guide" (page 137 of the
> Third edition) he writes:
> "The truth is that JavaScript is a true
> object-oriented language. It draws
> inspiration from a number of other (relatively
> obscure) object-oriented
> languages that use prototype-based inheritance
> instead of class-based
> inheritance."
>
> By 'other' he means other than classic OOP languages
> like C++ and Java,
> which uses class-based inheritance.
Yes. Anyway, be it object-oriented or not, what I want
is to be able to design a formular showing data to the
user and/or allowing him to fill the fields, and
allowing me to check them and to incorporate the data,
when needed, in a database. (This is an example).
> > As I don't know Java
> > neither C++, it's hard for me to explain it
> smartly.
> > What I know is that JS has no types
>
> Is this your first experience of an untyped
> language? You've a lot to
> learn :)
Precisely no: I'm very used at Pick Basic, which is
completely untyped, and is very easy to use. But it
doesn't allow you to make Web applications, AFAIK (or
maybe some recent version does ?)
> > and confuses "+"
> > and "concatenate" (well, it doesn't really confuse
> > them, it only makes it very likely that you will
> have
> > problems with that some day),
>
> Eh?? But "+" is commonly used for concatenation.
> I've used it for years
> and so far have had no problems.
In Pick Basic: concatenation = ":", addition = "+". So
the program performs concatenating or adding,
depending of what *you* told it (by using an operator
meaning what *you* mean, and not what *it* fancies
(because he finds that 1st or 2nd operand happens to
be a number or a string). What is important is the
operator. When Pick Basic finds something like 'x =
"aaa" + "bbb"', it answers you quite logically: hey,
wait, "aaa" is not a number, it is a string, and so is
"bbb", so I cannot perform what you told me, thus I
consider that operands will have a zero value and I
will return 0, plus an error message. Perfectly
logical. But when you write something like 'x == a +
b' in JavaScript (in case this syntax would be ok),
JavaScript will perform, either an addition, either a
concatenation, depending of the current type of the
operands, and signal you no error. Are you always sure
of what are the current types of a and b, in an
untyped language ? I'm not. Thus you can fancy that
you will add 2 + 2, and JavaScript will return you
"22", because one of the operands, or perhaps both,
happen to be considered as strings at this moment.
When you say 'x = "2"+"2"' to Pick Basic, it performs
a type conversion and returns 4. Right, because what I
wanted to do was adding. When you say 'x = 2:2', it
will return "22". Right, because what I wanted was
concatenating.
>
> How can you learn Apache?? It's a webserver (and a
> ood one too IMO) -
Well, I suppose, by buying some nice book at 45 euros
like:
http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/284177225X/pd_ka_0/402-6817569-0144140
> unless you actually mean the language of the Apaches
> of North America
> (That's much more interesting!).
Yes, I think so. BTW, I recently learned that Apache
is pronounced like "Apatshee" by the Anglo-Saxon,
while we say "Apash". So my knowledge is not totally
null on that topic :-)
> You sound like a
> carpenter bemoaning having to learn how use all the
> different tools of
> carpentry.
Yes, looks like that. Yet in my different jobs I've
programmed and maintained entire applications in
Basic, Cobol, PL/1 (and also a personal application in
Assembler on Apple II, long ago). But that's not of
any help to me: everything to learn from zero, or
nearly, once again.
>
> I hate to disillusion you, but it is quite easy to
> put a page on the
> Internet that says "Hello World" and you do *not*
> need DHTML, XTHML, XML,
> XSL, PHP, MySQL, Perl, Unix, vi, Apache, or Tomcat
> in order to do it!
Yes, it was a metaphor. I know how to show a message
"Hello, world" on a screen:
<html>
<head>
<title>Hello, world></title>
</head>
<body>
Hello, world
</body>
</html>
(hope I'm right)
But all the tools I mentioned I should *really* know
(more or less) to be efficient in my present job.
Looks like quite a lot, isn't it ? While the
functionalities are (mainly) *still the same ones* I
already programmed 20 years ago (only, not for the
Web). Where is the progress ? Development environments
should be easier and easier (and more and more
intuitive), to gain in efficiency and productivity.
Namely, what took me 3 days, 20 years ago, should take
me 3 hours by now. Actually, it takes me 3 weeks, plus
the risk for a nervous breakdown :-(
(Oh, and I forgot: of course, I have to add Oracle,
SQL and PL/SQL to the list).
=====
Philippe Caquant
Ceterum censeo *vi* esse oblitterandum (Me).
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:33:25 +0200
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: what makes a con-script a Con-Script?
--- Rodlox R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev:
> if you had five or fewer tablet (each the size of
> your palm), which had
> symbols etched in them...how would you know that it
> was a written
> language?...as opposed to random slashes in the
> rock...or something else?
>
> just wondering.
>
Probably by noticing that some symbols come back at
different places, especially if they are not very
simple ones (like a single stroke), and perhaps even
come back in a similar "context" ? If you see several
times something like "vi", for ex (God forbid), it
might be a clue that there can be some meaning in it,
although it is hard to know which one.
=====
Philippe Caquant
Ceterum censeo *vi* esse oblitterandum (Me).
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:02:45 +0200
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OOPs!! When is a class not a class? (Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes
in Language)
--- Keith Gaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev:
(I've answered to some points in my last message; we
agree about type handling problems).
> >> So, when I'l be through with JavaScript, I'll
> learn
> >> Java (probably at least 1500 pages ?) and C++,
> and a
> >> dozen of other things, including DHTML, XTHML,
> XML,
> >> XSL, PHP, MySQL, Perl, Unix, vi, Apache, Tomcat,
> etc,
>
> Learn Python.
Aaaaargh ! I had forgotten Python. Well, I'll give you
a real (true) anecdot about it. Don't get me the wrong
way, just read it to the end :
Some smart guy (not joking, he *is* smart) wrote a
small Python application for us, coupled with a Zope
database (I don't know anything about Zope). The
purpose was to incorporate a list of codes into the
DB, from time to time. The first time I did it myself
(because my colleague was ill), I saw a list of
different "scripts" on my screen. I chose the one
which looked right to me, according to its title, and
clicked. The result was immediate: Windows was out of
service, and I had to restart the machine (couldn't
even use Ctl-Alt-Sup any more).
Was Python guilty ? Not at all, of course. The
conceptor was guilty. He had proposed different
scripts in bulk, and one of these scripts was supposed
to incorporate the data (unfortunately, I had missed
it), while another one was supposed to reload the
SCRIPTS (and that's what I had done). So, do you
suppose that there would have been an alert message,
like: "Hey, man, watch what you're doing, are you SURE
you will erase the scripts and reload them ?" Not at
all. When I explained "my" mistake to the smart guy,
he was rather angry, because he had to REWRITE the
scripts (he had a copy of them somewhere, but it
wasn't at hand...), and when I asked him "but why
didn't you include an alert ?", he said: well,
normally, *I* was supposed to do the job, so I was
supposed to know what I am doing.
Oh yes. Never suppose anything when programming. What
you suppose will NOT happen (first programmer's rule).
That's for one. Secund: such obvious methodology
problems I was alreading facing 20 years ago. So it
seems that we have learned nothing in all these years.
We have learned new languages, new concepts, more and
more complicated, but we still are not able to make a
simple, safe, easy-to-use and efficient application.
So, Python or not Python, the result was the same, the
scripts were erased and everybody lost his time and
went angry.
>It's a dream to use and you won't regret it.
Quite. That's what I thought after erasing the scripts
:-)
>And stick with JavaScript: it's got a lot of good
ideas.
True. But, as Flanagan himself says: JavaScript is NOT
simple (this is a "myth").
=====
Philippe Caquant
Ceterum censeo *vi* esse oblitterandum (Me).
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:48:33 +0100
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Split/Fluid-S systems: A 3-way split
I know there are some systems where the marking of the argument of an
intransitive verb can be accusative or ergative based on volition. I
also know in some languages some experiencers can appear as datives
(although I don't know of any language where this is systematic), eg
to me see her = I see her
If you put all experiencers in the dative case, then (I think) this
would include the arguments of most stative verbs (eg to be red, to be
ill, ...) wouldn't it? So you could get a three way instead of two way
split in intransitives:
stative verbs/verbs with experiencer as single argument (argument in
dative case)
active verbs when action is volitional (argument in nom/erg case)
active verbs when action isn't volitional (argument in acc/abs case)
Do you think this is a realistic system? I'm thinking about doing it in
a conlang. :)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:57:04 -0400
From: Trebor Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Split/Fluid-S systems: A 3-way split
I really like your system, Chris! As for its plausibility in the real
world,I'm not sure-- but the experiencer+stative verbs idea is very
intuitive. IMO at least. Have you seen Daniel Andr�asson's thesis "Active
Languages"? It's excellent, and can be downloaded at
http://hem.bredband.net/dinajel/meny.html.
Oh, and if you want some ideas, here's a link to Pablo Flores's very cool
split-S language Terbian:
<http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/nyh/terb/lng/index.html>
Cheers,
Trebor
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:06:23 -0400
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 1st, 2nd, 3rd - 4th person POV??
Carol Anne Buckley scripsit:
> Thank you, I do feel very welcomed. I am still trying to figure out which
> discussed languages are con, and which merely (to me) obscure.
You can usually find natlangs, however obscure, by looking on Ethnologue
(http://www.ethnologue.com/language_index.asp).
> Meanwhile, I consider this list a smorgasbord of Cool Stuff.
>
Oll Korrect.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
Promises become binding when there is a meeting of the minds and consideration
is exchanged. So it was at King's Bench in common law England; so it was
under the common law in the American colonies; so it was through more than
two centuries of jurisprudence in this country; and so it is today.
--Specht v. Netscape
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:40:38 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The etymology of (King) Arthur (was Re: CHAT: reign names)
Ray Brown wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2004, at 08:12 , Andreas Johansson wrote:
>
>> Quoting Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
> [snip]
>
>>> I still find it noteworthy that no ancient author ever referred to the
>>> inhabitants of Britain or Ireland as Celts, yet they knew Celts on the
>>> continent.
>>>
>>> Far too many assumptions are made IMHO about early Britain.
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> I might be uncharacteristically uninfected by the whole ol' "Celtic
>> Myth"
>> for a
>> young westerner who spent much of his teens plowing thru Fantasy novels,
>> but
>> when I hear someone question whether the ancient inhabitants of the
>> British
>> Isles were "Celts", my immediate interpretation is linguistic - I
>> take it
>> as
>> questioning whether their languages belong to the same branch of IE
>> as do
>> the
>> continental Celtic languages (Gaulish and friends).
>
>
> Friends? AFAIK Gaulish is the only known one
I don't believe Gaulish is even the best known one. Lepontic and
Celtiberian are also around(and Celtiberian is Q-Celtic). Though the
Celticity of Lepontic is debateable. It may be Italic, with Gaulish
influence.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:37:17 -0400
From: Mario Bonassin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The etymology of (King) Arthur (was Re: CHAT: reign names)
I always thought that Welsh and Gaelic were both descendents of the Celtic
languages as well?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:05:42 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The etymology of (King) Arthur (was Re: CHAT: reign names)
Mario Bonassin wrote:
>I always thought that Welsh and Gaelic were both descendents of the Celtic
>languages as well?
>
>
>
>
Insular Celtic. We were discussing Continental Celtic. The list of
attested languages is as follows (An asterisk means extinct, though the
insular ones are undergoing revivals):
P. Celtic
Insular Celtic
Welsh
Cornish*
Breton
Continental Celtic
Gaulish
Lepontic(possibly Italic)
Q. Celtic
Insular Celtic
Irish Gaelic
Manx Gaelic*
Scottish Gaelic
Continental Celtic
Celtiberian
Pictish may fit somewhere in here as well. But it's not very certain.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 16:13:35 -0400
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Split/Fluid-S systems: A 3-way split
Chris Bates wrote:
>
> If you put all experiencers in the dative case, then (I think) this
> would include the arguments of most stative verbs (eg to be red, to be
> ill, ...) wouldn't it?
Personally think I'd want to limit dative-experiencer to animates (maybe
just humans). Inanimates aren't really "experiencing" the qualities they
exhibit...no? I'm not sure what case they ought to be in-- absolute?
instrumental? locative? It might vary according to the semantics.
Seems not unlike the Kash system, where human direct objects are in the
accusative only if the verb action brings about a change, or a physical
affect-- hit, bite, kill etc. (and special case, give {in marriage] and
archaic, buy/sell [a slave]). Otherwise human direct objects are in the
dative. Non-human animates, and inanimates, are always in the accusative. I
wonder if any natlang has such a system.
(Other special cases of acc. human objects might be: abandon ~adopt ~give (a
child), exile ~expel s.o.-- and 'give birth to' probably ought to, too--
perhaps historically they did, but modern-day speakers (and myself) are so
used to using the far more frequent dative that the system probably has a
lot of variation.)
So you could get a three way instead of two way
> split in intransitives:
>
> stative verbs/verbs with experiencer as single argument (argument in
> dative case)
> active verbs when action is volitional (argument in nom/erg case)
> active verbs when action isn't volitional (argument in acc/abs case)
>
> Do you think this is a realistic system?
Yes, and I suspect there are ANADEWisms.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:03:56 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The etymology of (King) Arthur (was Re: CHAT: reign names)
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: The etymology of (King) Arthur (was Re: CHAT: reign names)
> Mario Bonassin wrote:
>
> >I always thought that Welsh and Gaelic were both descendents of the
Celtic
> >languages as well?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Insular Celtic. We were discussing Continental Celtic. The list of
> attested languages is as follows (An asterisk means extinct, though the
> insular ones are undergoing revivals):
>
> P. Celtic
> Insular Celtic
> Welsh
> Cornish*
> Q. Celtic
> Insular Celtic
> Irish Gaelic
> Manx Gaelic*
what happened to drive Manx [and Cornish] into the long night of linguistic
history? *curious*
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:11:21 +0300
From: "Isaac A. Penzev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Split/Fluid-S systems: A 3-way split
Chris Bates wrote:
> I know there are some systems where the marking of the argument of an
> intransitive verb can be accusative or ergative based on volition. I
> also know in some languages some experiencers can appear as datives
> (although I don't know of any language where this is systematic), eg
>
> to me see her = I see her
>
> If you put all experiencers in the dative case, then (I think) this
> would include the arguments of most stative verbs (eg to be red, to be
> ill, ...) wouldn't it?
In Avaro-Ando-Tsezian lgs (North Caucasus) this happens to verbs of
perception.
> So you could get a three way instead of two way
> split in intransitives:
>
> stative verbs/verbs with experiencer as single argument (argument in
> dative case)
> active verbs when action is volitional (argument in nom/erg case)
> active verbs when action isn't volitional (argument in acc/abs case)
>
> Do you think this is a realistic system? I'm thinking about doing it in
> a conlang. :)
Well, not exactly the same, but a similar can be found in the mentioned
group. Three types of sentences are present (in rough approximation):
1. Subject in ABS for intransitive verbs
2. Subject in ERG for transitive verbs
3. Subject in DAT for verbs of perception.
I want to use this idea in my newest project provisionally labeled as P36.
-- Yitzik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 15:28:15 -0700
From: Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Inventing names
Carsten Becker wrote:
>
> *) ::sniff:: -- I think it's [h] + voiceless aspirated
> breathy voiced bilabial nasal ingressive fricative. I
> assumed breathing in (reverse airstream, into the lungs) is
> _< in X-Sampa. There's no "fricativized" diacritic in IPA
> as it seems :-(
No, _< means voiced implosive. That's a glottalic ingressive (inward,
but using the glottis, not the lungs).
And there is no "fricativized" diacritic in IPA, but you can accomplish
it with creative application of the "raised" and "lowered" diacritics.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:51:41 +0200
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Contemporaneous protolanguages
Quoting "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> My understanding is that PAA is usually situated far to the South,
> somewhere near the Red Sea. It's clear that Akkadian started
> arriving from southward into Sumerian-speaking lands, and the
> overall center of gravity of PAA is along the Red Sea, but other
> than these facts I don't know anything very specific about it.
>From southward? What I've read of Mesopotamian history rather seemed to suggest
they came from the north or west; what evidence is there to allow us to tell,
anyway?
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 02:48:22 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Contemporaneous protolanguages
> Quoting "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > My understanding is that PAA is usually situated far to the South,
> > somewhere near the Red Sea. It's clear that Akkadian started
> > arriving from southward into Sumerian-speaking lands, and the
> > overall center of gravity of PAA is along the Red Sea, but other
> > than these facts I don't know anything very specific about it.
>
> From southward? What I've read of Mesopotamian history rather seemed to
suggest
> they came from the north or west; what evidence is there to allow us to
tell,
> anyway?
If I recall correctly, I once read that the Sumerians (or was it the
Akkadians?) had migrated from a (plain/lake)* of salt....does that help any?
* = sorry, but my mind is not what it used to be.
>
> Andreas
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:29:40 EDT
From: Doug Dee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The etymology of (King) Arthur (was Re: CHAT: reign names)
In a message dated 9/25/2004 5:07:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>what happened to drive Manx [and Cornish] into the long night of linguistic
>history? *curious*
The short answer: competition from English, the same thing that is currently
endangering Irish and Scottish Gaelic.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:54:17 EDT
From: Adam Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Arabic Questions
There is a letter in Arabic that I need help on. It's often transliterated
as c, it's name is cayn and is the letter between khaa' and ghayn. I think I
once saw it described as ?\ in SAMPA - a voiced pharyngeal fricative. Of
course, I'm not the best person at understanding those descriptions (even though
I've looked up pharynx in the dictionary), so does anyone know a way to describe
it, or at least make a sound file in which you say "cayn" (?\ajn). Also, the
word for "yes" is transliterated as 'aywa, but the Arabic alphabet spells it
as "nXcXm" (X = unwritten vowels) - can anyone explain that to me?
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:51:09 EDT
From: David Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Arabic Questions
The distinction between "aywa" and "na'am" is the same distinction (about)
between "yeah" and "yes".
As for how to pronounce ayn, maybe this will help:
The "ee" in "meet" [i] is to the "y" in "yellow" [j],
as the "oo" in "boot" [u] is to the "w" in "white" [w],
as the "a" in "father" [A] is to the letter "'ayn".
-David
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:35:11 -0700
From: bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: P versus Q Celtic
What is the difference between P and Q Celtic languages? Did one group undergo
different sound changes? Different grammatical changes? A combination of the two?
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:42:47 -0400
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Arabic Questions
David Peterson wrote:
> The distinction between "aywa" and "na'am" is the same distinction (about)
> between "yeah" and "yes".
>
> As for how to pronounce ayn, maybe this will help:
>
> The "ee" in "meet" [i] is to the "y" in "yellow" [j],
> as the "oo" in "boot" [u] is to the "w" in "white" [w],
> as the "a" in "father" [A] is to the letter "'ayn".
A good explanation, I think. I take it 'ayn is "backward glottal stop" in
the IPA?? As I recall from phonetics class, it was hard to hear, and I think
we confused it with "voiced glottal fric. (h-hook)" which the instructor
said was approx. a "voiced h" as in _aha_ or casual _uh-huh_ 'yes'.
Is there any friction or is it smooth? It occurs to me that in a language
with contrastive initial /?/::/0/, it might be the onset of /0/-initial
words?? Since IIRC you're familiar with both Arabic and Hawaiian, am I more
or less right?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 02:04:59 -0400
From: Ben Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: P versus Q Celtic
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:35:11 -0700, bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What is the difference between P and Q Celtic languages? Did one group
undergo different sound changes? Different grammatical changes? A
combination of the two?
There might be (and probably are) other differences, but the P vs. Q
reference concerns the descent of the PIE labiovelar. You have in Latin
kw-->qu, Germanic kw-->hw, but Celtic languages took one of two approaches.
Some did kw-->q (still a labiovelar, for similar use see Tolkien's "Qenya
Lexicon") while others did kw-->p.
To bring up Tolkien again, Sindarin was to Quenya as P Celtic was to Latin.
Contrast 'quette(?)' and 'peth' "word", for example.
Ben
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:46:14 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The etymology of (King) Arthur (was Re: CHAT: reign names)
Doug Dee wrote:
>In a message dated 9/25/2004 5:07:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>
>>what happened to drive Manx [and Cornish] into the long night of linguistic
>>history? *curious*
>>
>>
>
>The short answer: competition from English, the same thing that is currently
>endangering Irish and Scottish Gaelic.
>
>
>
>
Interestingly, though Scottish Gaelic has a lot less speakers than
Irish, I'd say it's actually less likely to go extinct by the virtue of
the fact that it has a rather isolated community on the Western Isles.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
