------------------------ 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. Re: Voices
From: Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: Nasalized fricatives ...
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: Voices
From: Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Voices
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: Voices
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: Calendar Systems
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Loss of Syllables
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Calendar Systems
From: scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: applicative (again) (was: Re: Voices)
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: Calendar Systems
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Voices
From: Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: Nasalized fricatives ...
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Calendar Systems
From: "Ph. D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Nasalized fricatives ...
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Voices
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: ?? Re: a "natural language" ?
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: [NATLANG] Amharic and Irish help
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: ?? Re: a "natural language" ?
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: Dynamic vs. Stative Verbs
From: # 1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: Calendar Systems
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: ?? Re: a "natural language" ?
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:15:38 +0100
From: Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Voices
The reflexive form can indeed be called the reflexive
voice, though I'd be more inclined to called it the
middle voice, since the action in the middle voice is
done for the benefit of the actor (if I interpret it
correctly), although the German 'sich' constructions
have been called middle voice by some.
For many of my conlangs, I have a split between the
'reflexive' and 'mutual' voices, where the reflexive
action is done for the benefit of a single actor ('he
gave himself a present'), and the mutual is done for
the benefit of more than one actor ('they gave each
other presents').
Another idea, quite-thoroughly discussed about a month
ago, is the applicative voice. Basically, it works
like this:
Active voice:
"The cat [ACT] slept on the mat [OBL]."
Where the cat is the actor of the sentence, and the
mat is in an oblique phrase (that is, a phrase that is
neither the actor or the patient, such as a dative or
prepositional phrase). To make it applicative, you'd
do something like this:
Applicative voice:
"The cat [ACT] (on)slept the mat [PAT]."
Where the cat is still the actor, but the mat is
raised to the status of the patient, and if you like,
you can indicate the exact role the former oblique
phrase took as a verbal adfix (which is why I put 'on'
in parentheses there).
I stole this idea from Pablo David Flores, since at
least one of his conlangs has the applicative, and I
think it's such a cool idea, since it fits very nicely
with my insanely pro-drop conlang (the verbal adfix is
almost _never_ added, so you get phrases like 'the cat
slept the mat', and it's up to the hearer to decipher
it properly, muhahahahahahaaa!).
English has some constructions that look suspiciously
applicative, as does German (though it can be argued
otherwise in both cases), but I can't think of any
natlangs offhand that have the applicative, though
I've heard that it's fairly common at any rate.
--- Yann Kiraly-h <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> idà-i:
> Hi! I was wondering if you knew any other voices
> besides active, passive, middle and antipassive
> voice. And, can I call the reflexive form of a verb
> the reflexive voice?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:25:36 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nasalized fricatives ...
Quoting Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Andreas Johansson wrote:
>
> > I'm considering /s/>/h/ mutation. On the plus side, it would yield some
> totally
> > hysterical mutations like _seomas_ ['Somas] "creation" > _sheomas_
> ['hjomas]
> > "the creation" and _sem_ [Sem] "tree" > _seshem_ [Se'hem]. On the minus
> side,
> > it might make [s] a rarer and [h] a commoner sound than I really want.
>
> You could have a distinction between formerly geminate and former
> simple *s as you apparently have for nasals.
I already do - that's why the final -s of _seomas_ stays - but the /s/ of _sem_,
_seshem_ can't be from *ss, since it's stem-initial (proto-Meghean only allowed
geminates in post-vocalic position).
> > It occurs to me right know that it would imply the existence of words like
> > _tash_ [tah], which I'd have every excuse to pluralize as _tans_ [tans].
>
> So make it [EMAIL PROTECTED] IMO it can be plural _tans_ anyway!
> 'Tis called analogy, y'know! :)
Nah, I prefer _tash_->_tans_ and _tas_->_tasan_ (where the -s of _tas_ is from
*ss).
(There can still be individual exceptions, of course; as mentioned in an earlier
mail, _guthu_->_gunt_, not ->**_guthun_ as expected.)
> > That's
> > probably to much to pass up along with _seshem_ [Se'hem].
>
> What would thàt mean?
That s>h mutation is in.
> > I've considered having [r\] as the mutated ("fricativized") version of [r],
> and
> > even of "anti-mutating" [l] in non-mutating positions to [K\], but I do not
> see
> > any reason the definite form _shouldn't_ be dysfunctional in some cases. In
> any
> > case, it's hard to see what it could _do_ to [i e j w], at least as long as
> I
> > don't allow [j] before front vowels, which isn't gonna happen.
>
> If /r/ is trilled, you can have both /r/ and /l/ become [4] and [l\]
> when lenited -- which IMO would be much cooler. If you can't pronounce
> a proper [l\] you can always cheat with good ol' Swedish /l\`]! ;)
That's a possibility. I'll consider it.
(Incidentally, I think my 'rl' is simply [l`] - it doesn't seem any less
approximanty than plain 'l' to me.)
> OTOH I agree about the non-lenition of [i e j w] (unless [j w]
> go to zero!)
As said, that would simply wreck to much havoc.
> I'd also have to convince myself of a more intricate reason not
> to
> > have pl an>aD~, which I don't want to happen. Deriving it from a geminate
> is
> > the obvious solution, but, since it's supposed to be "the same" element as
> the
> > infixed -n- in plurals like _ñoch_>_ñoñc_, that's perhaps rather odd.
>
> Why? The infixed -nn- may have simplified before the following
> obstruent prior to lenition.
I don't know, infixing a geminate just seems weird to me. Any natlang precedent?
In any case, nasals in NC clusters don't lenite, so there's no saying it
wouldn't *work* as intended.
> > The really bright side of having them finally is that it would suggest the
> > existence of a plural formation class of the type _gamh_>_gam_. I like the
> > thought of orthographic plural by truncation.
>
> Brilliant!
I rather thought so myself. :)
> > It's worth noting that even entirely regular inflections can get pretty
> hairy by
> > now; eg _ñoch_ [Nox] "day", _ñhoiñc_ [G~ojNk] "of the days". Neither onset
> not
> > nucleus nor coda is left intact!
>
> Groovy! Similarity of historically or systemically
> related forms is of course no imperative unless yóu
> make it one, and la langue mechante doesn't seem the
> right place for that!
Had I wanted to keep stems easily recognizeable I'd never touched infixes and
mutations in the first place. I need something aggressively fusional as
counterweight to the agglutinating structure of most of my other projects.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:07:13 -0000
From: Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Voices
Hi everyone, I'm back from Kiwiland. =)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Applicative voice:
> "The cat [ACT] (on)slept the mat [PAT]."
That sounds much like the productive German prefix be-, as
in:
Sie werfen Steine auf den Suender.
"They throw stones at the sinner."
Sie bewerfen den Suender mit Steinen.
"They bethrow the sinner with stones."
In the sleeping cat case, I'm afraid the prefix wouldn't be
applicable, since my old Latin dictionary gives "beschlafen"
as the translation of FUTUERE. ;o)
In Obrenje, a similar distinction is made with the
directive case as opposed to the predicative case. Many
verbs allow both cases as arguments:
|Tyv torav i nossa| {read:3e man:DEF DIR book}
"The man reads at a book", i.e. directs the action "read"
at the object "book".
|Tyv torav u nossa| {read:3e man:DEF PRE book}
"The man book-reads", i.e. performs the action of reading
a book.
The former would be used with a specific book in mind
("Where is my Locom Blues Episode #213 book?" -- "Zhandi
is reading at it.") whereas the latter uses "book" to
describe the verb action rather than its target ("Zhandi
is book-reading rather than newspaper-reading right now.")
-- Christian Thalmann
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 18:23:40 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Voices
Hi!
Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ago, is the applicative voice. Basically, it works
> like this:
>
> Active voice:
> "The cat [ACT] slept on the mat [OBL]."
Oh yes, I love this, too. Qthen|gai has regular derivatives for
applicative for any of its adjunct cases (I don't know how many those
are, around 10 to 15). :-) Together with antipassive voice and
nominalisers, it gets really interesting. Qthen|gai uses this
very productively. :-)
>...
> with my insanely pro-drop conlang (the verbal adfix is
> almost _never_ added, so you get phrases like 'the cat
> slept the mat', and it's up to the hearer to decipher
> it properly, muhahahahahahaaa!).
HAHA! :-)
Tyl-Sjok, which is my insanely pro-drop conlang, drops the particles
that structure the sentence. And because nouns are verbs are
syntactically the same, you must guess which one is the predicate. Or
in relative clauses, which clause modifies which word. There *are*
particles for doing this, but they are dropped a lot. :-)
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 18:25:58 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Voices
Hi!
Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> In the sleeping cat case, I'm afraid the prefix wouldn't be
> applicable, since my old Latin dictionary gives "beschlafen"
> as the translation of FUTUERE. ;o)
It *is* an applicative for a comitative adjunct. :-)
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 18:43:53 +0100
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Calendar Systems
Hey!
Here are my two cents:
On Wednesday 01 December 2004 16:23, Geoff Horswood wrote:
> How do you arrange your calendar (assuming it's a
> non-standard one)? Is it solar or lunar? If you have no
> moon, or multiple moons, how does that affect the
> calendar system?
I've written about that recently:
listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0411a&L=conlang&P=27327
The followup must be somwhere at
listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0411b&L=conlang,
"Re: First thoughts on Ayeri calendar system". Also on the
same page, "CONCULTURE: Re: First thoughts on Ayeri
calendar system" (someone added "CONCULTURE" and we all
sticked to that tag).
It's far from being worked-out and being sensible yet, I
even don't know if I really should keep two moons. I need
to work out some scientific stuff for that, but have not
really time for anything "conart" related at the moment
because of school. It's only 12 days of school until the
Christmas holidays begin for me! OTOH, there are still 6
class tests to be written.
> What do you call your months?
> What about days of the week? Do you name them after
> deities, have a "first day, second day" system like
> Russian, name them after typical household events
> ("washing-day, mending-day"...), what?
perin -- sun
colun -- moon
concyan -- month (< colun-ca-hicyan)
pericyan -- year (< perin-ca-hicyan)
I'm ashamed to say, but there's no word for "day" yet.
I think themonths will be named after the gods
or spirits (and thus maybe after star constellations),
cycles of years might also get names of animals or so.
You're right, why not naming weekdays after household
events!
Although the years on Areca are ~455.75 days, their years
are shorter than ours because the planet moves 1.2 times
faster than Earth (1 e-sec ~5/6 a-sec). I.e. the Arecan
year is about 8,75 weeks shorter than ours.
I also haven't thought of a day 0, but I think perhaps it's
some mythological event.
However, there's much to do and I think it'll take years
until I have come up with something sensible, but anyway.
Carsten
--
http://www.beckerscarsten.de
http://gitarrenklampfer.deviantart.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:13:40 -0500
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Loss of Syllables
OK, thank you very much Ray!
So apart from the calendar, there's even more to do now :|
Carsten
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:37:21 -0500
From: scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Calendar Systems
On Dec 03, 2004, at 12:43 PM, Carsten Becker wrote:
> perin -- sun
> colun -- moon
> concyan -- month (< colun-ca-hicyan)
> pericyan -- year (< perin-ca-hicyan)
Translation of ca-hicyan?
later,
scott
"The man with no arms and no legs begged me to remember him."
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:41:46 -0500
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: applicative (again) (was: Re: Voices)
Steven Williams wrote:
> Another idea, quite-thoroughly discussed about a month
> ago, is the applicative voice. Basically, it works
> like this:
>
> Active voice:
> "The cat [ACT] slept on the mat [OBL]."
>
>..... To make it applicative, you'd
> do something like this:
>
> Applicative voice:
> "The cat [ACT] (on)slept the mat [PAT]."
>
> Where the cat is still the actor, but the mat is
> raised to the status of the patient, and if you like,
> you can indicate the exact role the former oblique
> phrase took as a verbal adfix (which is why I put 'on'
> in parentheses there).
>
> English has some constructions that look suspiciously
> applicative,
Yes, things like: to water (the plants), to cage (a bird), to pocket (a
coin) etc. basically "put X in/on NOUN"
>... but I can't think of any
> natlangs offhand that have the applicative, though
> I've heard that it's fairly common at any rate.
Indonesian does this with its verbal suffix -i:
air 'water' > meng/air/i 'to irrigate s.t.'
minyak 'oil' > me/minyak/i 'to oil s.t.'
kurang 'less' > mengurang/i 'to reduce s.t.' (however, there's
near-synonymous mengurang/kan 'to reduce s.t.'-- The exs. in the dictionary
don't make clear what the difference is, and I'm no longer sure either...if
there is a difference.
Note that in Indonesian, just as in Engl., "skin ~to skin" (kulit
~menguliti) means "_remove_ the skin from...". Peculiar.
The meanings sometime change rather radically: datang 'come' but
men/datang-i 'to attack'.
Our sleeping cat ex. works nicely in Indo. too; the (a) exs. are SV+PrepP,
the (b)s are SVO--
1a. kucing tidur di kursi 'the cat slept in/on the chair'
1b. kucing meniduri kursi 'the cat slept-in/on the chair' OR
2a. Ali tidur di tikar 'Ali slept on a mat'
2b. Ali meniduri tikar 'Ali slept-on a mat'
Problem: my non-native Sprachgefühl says that 1a simply states a fact, while
1b suggests that the cat shouldn't have been in the chair (though 1a could
also imply that). But conversely, 2a suggests either habitual or one-time
occurrence, but 2b suggests only _habitual_. I'm not at all sure of this,
however-- but it could be an interesting distinction to make in a conlang.
The main use of the -i forms (since they're transitive) is in relative
clauses where a passive may be required:
Kursi mana yang ditiduri kucing? 'Which chair (is it) that is/was-slept-in
(by) the cat?
Tikar yang ditiduri Ali, kurang bersih 'The mat that is/was-slept-on (by)
Ali is/was not very clean.'
In these cases, only context will tell whether it's habitual/one-time,
permitted/non-permitted action. (Of course an auxiliary verb would clear
things up-- suka tidur di../meniduri... 'likes to sleep-on...', tak mesti
tidur di.../meniduri... 'mustn't sleep on...')
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:53:49 -0500
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Calendar Systems
In the course of figuring out Cindu's leap-years (3 per 19 yrs), I had to
come up with names for the leap-days. One thing that's necessary (and I
haven't figured out) is that the equinoxes/solstices are supposed always to
fall on the 1st day of the 1st - 5th - 9th - 13th month (of l6). I assume
that on occasions, it will be the solstice/equinox day that is a little out
of whack, consequently the extra day is inserted just before the 1st of
those months, and it is called _lecele_ 'waiting day'. Otherwise the extra
day is inserted mid-month somewhere (giving a two day "weekend") and is
called _lekrandam_ 'dancing day'-- why, I don't know, but it seems like a
nice term.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 19:51:39 +0100
From: Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Voices
--- Henrik Theiling-ah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> idà-i:
> Tyl-Sjok, which is my insanely pro-drop conlang,
> drops the particles that structure the sentence.
> And because nouns are verbs are syntactically the
> same, you must guess which one is the predicate. Or
> in relative clauses, which clause modifies which
> word. There *are* particles for doing this, but
> they are dropped a lot. :-)
My GOD that's evil! Do you have examples?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 20:37:30 +0100
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nasalized fricatives ...
Andreas Johansson wrote:
>>>It occurs to me right know that it would imply the existence of
words like
>>>_tash_ [tah], which I'd have every excuse to pluralize as _tans_ [tans].
>>
>>So make it [EMAIL PROTECTED] IMO it can be plural _tans_ anyway!
>>'Tis called analogy, y'know! :)
>
>
> Nah, I prefer _tash_->_tans_ and _tas_->_tasan_ (where the -s of _tas_ is from
> *ss).
OK I misunderstood you.
>
> (There can still be individual exceptions, of course; as mentioned in an
> earlier
> mail, _guthu_->_gunt_, not ->**_guthun_ as expected.)
Yeah. Exceptions is good in a naturalistic language.
Too bad I'm so bad at coming up with them...
>
> (Incidentally, I think my 'rl' is simply [l`] - it doesn't seem any less
> approximanty than plain 'l' to me.)
That would be the normal thing. The original source of /l\`/ is
Old Swedish /rD/, e.g. [ju:l\`] "earth". Many dialects later
merged /l/ with /l\`/, e.g. Värmländska.
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
(Tacitus)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:16:40 -0500
From: "Ph. D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Calendar Systems
Geoff Horswood said:
> Ok. Here's what I've come up with so far.
>
> [snip]
>
> Anyway, they divide the year up into 7 "months" of
> 60 days, plus 3 days left over, which are considered
> outside the year and ill-omened. Possibly so ill-omened
> as to mean that children born in these days are killed,
> but we'll see if I can stomach that long-term.
Perhaps rather than killing them, they might be
shunned and become a caste of untouchables.
--Ph.D.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:05:40 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nasalized fricatives ...
Quoting Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Andreas Johansson wrote:
>
> > (Incidentally, I think my 'rl' is simply [l`] - it doesn't seem any less
> > approximanty than plain 'l' to me.)
>
> That would be the normal thing. The original source of /l\`/ is
> Old Swedish /rD/, e.g. [ju:l\`] "earth". Many dialects later
> merged /l/ with /l\`/, e.g. Värmländska.
I don't have that either; [ju:d`].
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:29:34 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Voices
Hi!
Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Henrik Theiling-ah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> idà-i:
> > Tyl-Sjok, which is my insanely pro-drop conlang,
> > drops the particles that structure the sentence.
> > And because nouns are verbs are syntactically the
> > same, you must guess which one is the predicate. Or
> > in relative clauses, which clause modifies which
> > word. There *are* particles for doing this, but
> > they are dropped a lot. :-)
>
> My GOD that's evil! Do you have examples?
Actually, it's not that evil -- I found that in most sentences,
semantical constraints do the work well. :-) (Yes, it's evil, as I
noticed in a relay...)
Even very short sentences are ambiguous:
good blue book.
(I don't have any colour words yet, so I give the glosses without the
native words only.)
Even assuming the structure (good (blue book)), this is ambiguous.
The following translations are possible, together with the equivalent
in Tyl-Sjok using structuring and requence particles:
'It is good that the book is blue.'
Disambiguated: good REF BEGIN blue book.
'The blue book is good.' or
Disambiguated: good BEGIN blue REF book.
'The blue (colour) of the book is good.'
Disambiguated: good BEGIN REF blue book.
The structure ((good blue) book), which is syntactically feasible, yet
has less possibilities of interpretation, since with 'book' as a
predicate, it makes no good sense. However, the following reading is
possible:
'The book is in good blue.'
Disambiguated: good REF blue END book.
Another example:
I watch you drive car.
Seems clear, no? Not really.
(I watch (you drive car)):
'I watch that you drive a car.' I watch REF BEGIN you drive car.
'I watch you, driving a car.' I watch BEGIN REF you drive car.
'I watch your car-driving.' I watch BEGIN you REF drive car.
'I watch the car you are driving.' I watch BEGIN you drive REF car.
((I watch you) drive car):
'I, driving a car, watch you.' REF I watch you END drive car.
'You, whom I watch, drive a car.' I watch REF you END drive car.
Eventually, I dropped this approach after introducing more and more
dropping, including dropping the default action for things (e.g. 'car'
= 'the car' or 'drive a car') and now regard Tyl-Sjok as a proto
language that might be the origin for languages with a few more syntax
rules.
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 23:05:25 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ?? Re: a "natural language" ?
----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas R. Wier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: a "natural language" ?
> From: Joerg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In my experience with the languages of North America and the
> > > Caucasus, this is not at all the case. On top of all the other
> > > things that make Georgian a difficult language to learn, it is
> > > replete with suppletive verb (and noun!) stems,
is suppletive supposed to mean that it is supplementary?
>>> a number of
> > > different kinds of verbal and nominal ablaut,
what is an ablaut?
>>> sometimes intersecting
> > > one another but sometimes not,
how does something intersect?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:45:55 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [NATLANG] Amharic and Irish help
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 11:05:12AM -0500, Thomas Leigh wrote:
> The only "teach yourself"-type course in English that I know of is
> "Colloquial Amharic" by David Appleyard, in Routledge's "Colloquial"
> series.
Thanks!
> There is a nice-looking, fairly inexpensive Amharic-English and
> English-Amharic dictionary available by the great German Amharicist Wolf
> Leslau, who also has a textbook and a ludicrously expensive (but
> magnificent) reference grammar put out by an academic publishing house
> in Germany.
I posted a query on sci.lang and Peter Daniels pointed me in Leslau's
direction. He appears to have been quite prolific, just since turning
90! Has he devoted his entire life to Ethiopian Semitics? That's
incredible.
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:03:38 +0000
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
On Thursday, December 2, 2004, at 03:22 , And Rosta wrote:
[snip]
> Eh? There are a number of Present Day English versions (at least
> of the NT,
..and of the complete Bible. I well understand your "Eh?" I was taught of
the existence of modern translations when I was at school in the 1950s!
> though necessarily not the Book of Common Prayer,
That would be a bit like having a modern English version of Shakespeare.
But in fact the Church of England did want to revise the Book of Common
Prayer back in the 1920s, and a revised version was by Convocation in 1927
& 1928. However, as the Church is established in law it meant it could not
replace the older book without the approval of the British Parliament
which rejected it down. However, the 1928 revision, tho not replacing the
1662 book, was widely used in CofE churches back in the 1950s - I left it
in 1961. Since then I understand an 'Alternative Services Book' which
contains, so I understand, alternaive forms of services some being
revisions of the BCP and some entirely in modern English - but I do not
know the 'present state of play'.
> afaik
> -- these two being the source of the bestknown debts/traspesses versions)
> .
The source of both 'debts' and 'trespasses' is in fact the Greek NT. A
literal translation of Matthew 6:12 is:
"And forgive us our debts, as also we have forgiven our debtors"
After the prayer, in verses 14 & 15, Jesus is quoted as adding by way of
explanation:
"For if you forgive people their trespasses [parapto:mata], your heavenly
father will forgive you also; but if you do not forgive people, neither
will your heavenly father forgive your trespasses."
For that reason, when the prayer is excerpted from the passage for
liturgical use, the "trespasses" from the explanatory bit afterwards, has
been substituted for 'debts' to make it more meaningful. But this
tradition in English must be older the Book of Common Prayer as it was and
still is traditional in Catholic use which was quite independent of the
PCP.
A modern translation, if it is a translation and not a paraphrase, must
leave 'debts' in Matt. 6:12 - after all debts are probably even more a
feature of modern life than they were of the 1st cent CE when the Matthew
was written!
But a modern translation might chose something else than 'trespasses' -
tho the concept of trespassing is hardly an unknown one. The Greek
_parapto:mata_ is the plural of _parapto:ma_ "a straying from the path"
_pto:ma_ is a neuter noun derived from the stem -pt- (ablaut grades
-pet- ~ -pot-) "fall". The verb "to fall" is _pi-pt-ein_. The noun
_pto:ma_ could literally mean "a fall" but could also mean "ruin",
"calamity", "misfortune".
_para-_ as a prefix meant either "alongside of" (cf. parallel) or "to the
side of"
So:
_parapto:ma_ was a "falling to the side", it denote a straying from the
path (quite literally), hence trespassing; it could also mean an error or
a blunder in a more general sense.
The modern version I have in front of me (The Jerusalem Bible) translates
it thus:
"Yes, if you forgive others their failings, your heavenly Father will
forgive you yours; but if you do not forgive others, your Father will not
forgive your failings either."
Returning from the NT to the liturgical use of the Pater Noster - about 30
years back IIRC a common form in modern English was agreed between all the
main Christian churches in the UK and it was intended that this would
replace the traditional 'outdated' wording. It has not happened and the
reasons seems to have been congregations generally (I imagine there were
exceptions) simply did not want to change. It reminds me a bit of the
early days of Esperanto when Zamenhof proposed several changes, but the
rank & file Esperantists did not want the language changed. People simply
get used to things :)
> Presumably some [Present Day English versions] are available online too.
You presume correctly :)
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:07:40 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ?? Re: a "natural language" ?
Rodlox scripsit:
> is suppletive supposed to mean that it is supplementary?
No. A suppletive inflected form is one that is supplied from a different
root. For example, the past tense of "go" in English is "went", which is
supplied from the root "wend" (now archaic and poetic). This happened
when the regular past tense of "go" disappeared in the pre-Old-English
period (oddly, OE itself had a *different* suppletive past tense for
this verb).
More examples at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppletion .
> what is an ablaut?
A change in the vowel of a root representing either inflection or
derivation. "Sing-sang-sung" is an example of ablaut. Ablaut comes down
from Proto-Indo- European times. Not to be confused with umlaut, which
is a change in a vowel representing the quality of a second (following)
vowel in the word, now usually lost: "man-men" is an example. Again,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablaut is your friend.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please leave your values Check your assumptions. In fact,
at the front desk. check your assumptions at the door.
--sign in Paris hotel --Cordelia Vorkosigan
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:07:20 -0500
From: # 1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dynamic vs. Stative Verbs
[This message is not in displayable format]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 17:30:36 -0500
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Calendar Systems
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 13:37:21 -0500, scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Dec 03, 2004, at 12:43 PM, Carsten Becker wrote:
>
>> perin -- sun
>> colun -- moon
>> concyan -- month (< colun-ca-hicyan)
>> pericyan -- year (< perin-ca-hicyan)
>
>Translation of ca-hicyan?
ca = a linker between two compound words, actually unneccessary, but hey! I
wanted to use it, at least for a single time :P
hicyan = circle; round. Is supposed to be related to -ican, "very" (German
bias here: very = "ganz" => second meaning of "ganz": unbroken =>
association: circle)
And now I've exceeded my per-day limit I think.
Carsten
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:38:17 +0000
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ?? Re: a "natural language" ?
John Cowan wrote:
>Rodlox scripsit:
>
>
>
>> is suppletive supposed to mean that it is supplementary?
>>
>>
>
>No. A suppletive inflected form is one that is supplied from a different
>root. For example, the past tense of "go" in English is "went", which is
>supplied from the root "wend" (now archaic and poetic). This happened
>when the regular past tense of "go" disappeared in the pre-Old-English
>period (oddly, OE itself had a *different* suppletive past tense for
>this verb).
>
>More examples at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppletion .
>
>
>
The only suppletive form that I can think of that still retains a
seperate root is 'fast~quickly', if that counts.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:48:18 -0700
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:58:38 +0100, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> It seems that |quo| and |co| were both pronounced the same [k_wo] by most
>> (all?) speakers, and there are other examples of confusion in spelling.
>
> Reminds me - I saw a piece on Latin inflection somewhere that claimed that
> forms
> like _equus_, _equi_ were late regularizations for classical _ecus_, _equi_.
> Any
> comment on this?
That is the normal explanation, yeah. Original |quu| and |quo| became
|cu| and |co|. In many places where analogy allowed restoration of |qu|,
it was restored, |equus| being an example. For many function words in |qu-|
there was a lot of wavering, such as for |quot-| and |cot(t)-| in this word.
In some cases the |c| form won out, as |cum| over attested |quum|.
*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: 24
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 23:09:11 -0000
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think religeous texts are almost always amongst the most difficult
>things to translate. I remember hearing once about a missionary who
>wanted to translate the bible into the local language, but this was
>somewhere where they didn't have donkeys, horses or anything similar.
>How do you translate the story of the birth of Jesus without
>mentioning a donkey!?! You could translate it as "big four legged
>beast that carries things" I suppose, but if you don't mention that
>these were common place then readers not familiar with donkeys or
>horses etc might assume that this beast is a miracle rather than
>something you see every day. So you have to include way more than
>just one word just to get across the basic idea of Mary riding on a
>donkey.
I agree with you in principle. Missionaries do have problems in
translating terms that are culturally bound. Just a reminder,
though, that the donkey is not mentioned in the Christmas stories of
Matthew and Luke. Neither are camels or oxen. It would be very easy
to translate the Christmas stories without mentioning donkeys. I
would be more worried about the espousal custom in Matthew or the
census in Luke. Or the manger.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 23:29:32 +0000
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
caeruleancentaur wrote:
>Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I think religeous texts are almost always amongst the most difficult
>>things to translate. I remember hearing once about a missionary who
>>wanted to translate the bible into the local language, but this was
>>somewhere where they didn't have donkeys, horses or anything similar.
>>How do you translate the story of the birth of Jesus without
>>mentioning a donkey!?! You could translate it as "big four legged
>>beast that carries things" I suppose, but if you don't mention that
>>these were common place then readers not familiar with donkeys or
>>horses etc might assume that this beast is a miracle rather than
>>something you see every day. So you have to include way more than
>>just one word just to get across the basic idea of Mary riding on a
>>donkey.
>>
>>
>
>I agree with you in principle. Missionaries do have problems in
>translating terms that are culturally bound. Just a reminder,
>though, that the donkey is not mentioned in the Christmas stories of
>Matthew and Luke. Neither are camels or oxen. It would be very easy
>to translate the Christmas stories without mentioning donkeys. I
>would be more worried about the espousal custom in Matthew or the
>census in Luke. Or the manger.
>
>
Personally, and this is just me, I'd insert an approximate phonetic
rendition of said object and follow it with an explanation.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
