------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 22 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: OT, and religeous
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: Addendum: a holy spirit
From: "Pascal A. Kramm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: Addendum: a holy spirit
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Ignorant people & diacritics
From: "Pascal A. Kramm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. About perceiving flames. Was Addendum
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Fwd: Re: Addendum: a holy spirit
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Ignorant people & diacritics
From: "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. About perceiving flames. Was Addendum
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Fwd: Re: Ignorant people & diacritics
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: Ignorant people & diacritics
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Addendum: a holy spirit
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Unhappiness
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Addendum: a holy spirit
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Unhappiness
From: azathoth500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Fwd: Re: Ignorant people & diacritics
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. THEORY: Connections Between Word-Order and Typology
From: Rob Haden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: About perceiving flames. Was Addendum
From: Tristan Mc Leay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: Unhappiness
From: Tristan Mc Leay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: THEORY: Connections Between Word-Order and Typology
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: Addendum: a holy spirit
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: Unhappiness
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 18:10:56 +0000
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT, and religeous
>
> What, you've never heard of a Trickster Divinity? ;-)
>
I know they're my favourite kind. :) If I had to pick a God to worship
I'd go for Loki, the trickster from Norse Mythology. Unfortunately
though I don't really have it in me to believe in any god or religion.
I'm a cynic to the bone. Sometimes though, I think it'd be nice to have
faith that there is someone good up there, and that things happen for a
reason, and that there is an afterlife, and all those nice comforting
thoughts that help other people. :)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 13:54:39 -0500
From: "Pascal A. Kramm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Addendum: a holy spirit
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 01:14:36 -0500, Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Lk 1:15 ...et Spiritu sancto replebitur adhuc ex utero matris suae. " "And
>by [a/the] holy Spirit he will be filled even from his mother's womb."
...
>Mt 12:32 Et quicumque dixerit verbum contra Filium hominis, remittetur ei:
>qui autem dixerit contra Spiritum sanctum, non remittetur ei... "And whoever
>speaks a word against the Son of man, he will be forgiven; but whoever
>speaks against [a/the] holy Spirit, he shall not be forgiven."
One of these highly illogical things again - if he is filled with the holy
spirit, how who you be able to say something against him, while not saying
something against the holy spirit (which is in him) at the same time?
--
Pascal A. Kramm, author of Choton
official Choton homepage:
http://www.choton.org
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:01:29 +0000
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Addendum: a holy spirit
Pascal A. Kramm wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 01:14:36 -0500, Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Lk 1:15 ...et Spiritu sancto replebitur adhuc ex utero matris suae. " "And
>>by [a/the] holy Spirit he will be filled even from his mother's womb."
>>
>>
>...
>
>
>>Mt 12:32 Et quicumque dixerit verbum contra Filium hominis, remittetur ei:
>>qui autem dixerit contra Spiritum sanctum, non remittetur ei... "And whoever
>>speaks a word against the Son of man, he will be forgiven; but whoever
>>speaks against [a/the] holy Spirit, he shall not be forgiven."
>>
>>
>
>One of these highly illogical things again - if he is filled with the holy
>spirit, how who you be able to say something against him, while not saying
>something against the holy spirit (which is in him) at the same time?
>
>
The jug is not the water. Correct?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 14:22:04 -0500
From: "Pascal A. Kramm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ignorant people & diacritics
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:17:46 -0500, # 1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Could you disable the Html? Thank you.
><html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
><P>Sorry but I think you are wrong. It's not Moses who had build the ark,
>it's Noah. Moses is the one who liberated the egyptian
>slaves.</P></DIV></div></html>
Moses, Noah... all the same ilk :)
So I'm not one of these bible-thumping right-wing dudes who know the bible
by heart. Sue me. :D
--
Pascal A. Kramm, author of Choton
official Choton homepage:
http://www.choton.org
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 14:32:33 -0500
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: About perceiving flames. Was Addendum
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Saturday, December 4, 2004, at 01:55 , caeruleancentaur wrote:
> [snip]
>> BTW (not to you, Ph.D.), neither the Matthean annunciation story
>> (1:24) nor the Lucan (1:35) mention The Holy Spirit/Ghost. In those
>> verses the definite article is not used, so the translation would
>> be "a holy spirit."
Ray wrote:
> That IMNSHO is a dogmatic statement and contrary to linguistic evidence -
> see above.
A brief note about our rule concerning "no cross no crown." I don't really
know where it is that we seem to cross the line in a linguistic or
historical discussion of scripture into inflammation. Is it when we get
into issues of doctrine? In a conlang, issues of doctrine and translation
of them seems relevent. I think it depends entirely on how people receive
postings. Case in point: my extremely MINOR irk was the "BTW (not to you,
Ph.D.)" Father Charlie, whom I respect tremendously, could not remember me
or he chose not to name me, but his correction felt a little backhanded and
rude, especially when I was agreeing with him. It moved me, as perversity
is my middle name, to investigate the use of the definite article, which has
led to this big mess that Ray has put the capstone on. So please, Charlie.
It is bad netiquette to write "not to you, Ph.D." How easy it is to go back
and review the prior messages and find out who it is that you ARE
addressing. As a woman, I have often felt left out of men's discussions or
unacknowledged. I too have a Ph.D. ;) For twenty one years, now. And I
have even taught "Classical and Scriptural Backgrounds." I am not to be
withered by someone telling me that I am wrong. I WANT to be corrected, but
please do it more directly and kindly. My investigation into the matter of
the definite article in the Vulgate and the responses it has received have
proved that you, Charlie, need to clarify your remarks a little better, and
maybe rethink them.
> Likewise to insert "a" is to paraphrase, and it most certainly adds a
> theological nuance not found in the text.
Well exactly. I agree with Ray here. But not below:
Ray writes:
> I am saddened that Charlie has chosen to use the list to
> make a not very subtle snipe at traditional trinitarian belief. I can make
> a reasonable guess which religious group he adheres to - but I have no
> wish to go down that path.
Now Ray, forgive me, but this was not only dogmatic and inflammatory, but an
ill-informed ad hominem attack. It has turned a relatively low-keyed
dispute about a linguistic matter into a true flame. You may not remember
Thursday, 30 of September, when Charlie Brickner introduced himself to the
list:
"I am a 63-year-old Catholic priest and the pastor of 3 small parishes in
the Blue Ridge Mtns. of VA. I have had a love of languages &
linguistics since I was a child. I can remember checking out grammar books
from the library as early as the fifth grade. My first formal
contact was with Latin in high school. I was an R.N. before entering the
seminary & "did time" in the army (Germany) and the Peace Corps
(Honduras). I now hold a B.A. in English, a B.A. in natural science, an
M.A. in comparative religions, & TONS of theology credits. I have
credits in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, German, French, Italian, & a minor in
Spanish. I can also read Portuguese. My serious dabblings
include Dutch, Japanese, Swahili, & Malay."
Never jump to conclusions, Ray. And if you don't wish to go down that path,
as you *say,* please don't make such incendiary statements about what you
perceive to be someone's theological backgrounds. Charlie's error was of a
linguistic nature, and had you left it at that, I wouldn't be writing. You
are perceiving "subtle snipes" where there are none.
> I have been on this list for many years and during that time have got to
> know the religious persuasion or otherwise of several members. Even tho I
> do not agree with all their views, I respect them and would never use this
> list to offend them.
I really don't think that's what Father Charlie was after. He simply didn't
remember who had mentioned the Holy Ghost to him in a thread about how to
translate a Biblical passage into a conlang and conculture that has no
animals.
> PS - Whatever has happened to our "no cross, no crown" convention in the
> past couple of weeks?
It was FINE, until certain people started letting ill-informed linguistic
information get them all het up.
It's a pity that such an interesting thread can become so volatile.
Sally
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:36:19 -0000
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Addendum: a holy spirit
Wow! I had no intention of starting yet another flame. My apologies
to all who took offense where none was intended. It seems as though
a discussion of the Scripture of any faith is taboo, since it always
leads to someone taking umbrage.
For the record, I am a Roman Catholic priest with an M.A. in theology
(with a concentration in Scripture) and an M.A. in comparative
religions. However, I am not a professional scholar or teacher, but
merely the pastor of three small parishes in the Blue Ridge Mountains
of the Diocese of Richmond, VA. The study of Sacred Scripture, like
that of linguistics, has its schools of thought. It is virtually
impossible, at least in the study of Scripture, for all the scholars
to have a concensus on the meaning of various passages.
Having said this, I will now cease and desist from responding to any
other messages that touch upon religion. It seems safest this way,
lest ire by raised again within the group.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:33:00 -0800
From: "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ignorant people & diacritics
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 02:22:04PM -0500, Pascal A. Kramm wrote:
[...]
> Moses, Noah... all the same ilk :)
Auxlangers, self-justified cracks, all the same ilk.
> So I'm not one of these bible-thumping right-wing dudes who know the bible
> by heart. Sue me. :D
[...]
Right-wingedness and the Bible have nothing to do with each other. Go
get a flaming clue. So I'm not one of those blatant ignorant
auxlangers who spout off personal vendetta against anything and anyone
that comes their way and deride the Bible without having even read it,
basing their accusations on faith in what their science-priests tell
them. Sue me. :-D
T
--
The early bird gets the worm. Moral: ewww...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:48:31 -0000
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: About perceiving flames. Was Addendum
Sally,
My apologies. I truly did not remember that it was you. Please
chalk the lapse of manners to my newness in the group. I was in the
middle of the message when I decided to add that remark. If I had
gone in search of the original, I would have lost the message I was
writing. I merely intended that Ph.D. know that I was not directing
it to him. No backhandedness intended. Hell, I'm all for the
ordination of women! And I will take your advice about giving my
responses more thought.
And I certainly meant no snipe at a traditional trinitarian belief.
It is a belief that I hold, too.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 15:46:23 -0000
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Ignorant people & diacritics
From: # 1
>Sorry but I think you are wrong. It's not Moses who had build the
>ark, it's Noah. Moses is the one who liberated the egyptian slaves.
Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Ancient Egypt didn't have slaves, it had the corvee system. that's
>>like saying that jury duty is slavery. (it might feel like it)
Speaking in an historical context you may be right about the
corv�e. But speaking in the Biblical context (which I believe we
are doing), "slave" is the word to use. The word "`ebed"
means "slave" pure and simple and that is the word used in the
Bible and so understood for several millennia. Under the Mosaic Law,
slaves had certain rights. As I read the story in Exodus the
Egyptian rulers didn't give any rights to their "day laborers." This
is only one example of many in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures of a
theological concept overriding an
historical fact.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 20:01:07 +0000
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ignorant people & diacritics
Pascal A. Kramm wrote:
>
>
>><html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
>><P>Sorry but I think you are wrong. It's not Moses who had build the ark,
>>it's Noah. Moses is the one who liberated the egyptian
>>slaves.</P></DIV></div></html>
>>
>>
>
>Moses, Noah... all the same ilk :)
>So I'm not one of these bible-thumping right-wing dudes who know the bible
>by heart. Sue me. :D
>
>
Don't you think you might be being just a little bit stereotypical
there? And quite possibly offensive, considering probably about a
quarter of the list's population (and quite possibly more) are Christians?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:13:26 +0200
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Addendum: a holy spirit
On Dec 4, 2004, at 7:01 PM, Ray Brown wrote:
> And a proper discussion of _pneuma hagion_, which seems consistently to
> preserve the Semitic order of noun+adjective, cannot be done without
> considering its Hebrew antecedent. We need to consider how the concept
> of
> God's "holy breath" is used in the Jewish scriptures, beginning with
> the
> the second verse of the very opening chapter of Genesis where we read
> of
> God's breath (_pneuma Theou_ in the Septuagint version - notice lack of
> articles before either noun!) hovered over the waters.
Could "Theou" and the other forms of it without a definite article be
being used as a name, like "God" in English or "E-lohim" in Hebrew?
"holy breath/spirit" in Hebrew is actually a noun+noun construct
compound, not a noun+adjective one - _ruahh haqodesh_, "(the)
wind/spirit of (the) holiness" - or, if you want to interpret it
theologically, "(the) wind/spirit of The Holiness", i.e. God.
It doesn't seem possible to distinguish based on the term whether it
means something like "God's non-corporeal existence" or just "a
wind/spirit that belongs to God".
-Stephen (Steg)
"verbing weirds language"
~ calvin (& hobbes)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:28:33 +0200
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
On Dec 2, 2004, at 10:26 PM, Henrik Theiling wrote:
>>> _Amen_, which means 'let it be so' but is usually untranslated.
>> Well, yes - the word is Hebrew, and it is left untranslated in Greek!
> I don't have initial vowels nor [m] or [E]/[e]. What was the precise
> pronunciation (if known) in Hebrew? Assuming /amEn/ or something
> similar, the closest would be /[EMAIL PROTECTED]@/ in Qthen|gai. Weird.
In the time of the Masoretes, who invented vowel diacritics for Hebrew
texts, "amen" seems to have been pronounced something like [O'men] -
one or both of the vowels might be long, though. This was around the
800's CE.
It may well have been pronounced something like [a'men] back around the
non-year 0, though :) .
-Stephen (Steg)
"verbing weirds language"
~ calvin (& hobbes)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 15:16:57 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Unhappiness
I had mentioned before that I had been tempted to ask John to lock the
list for a week or so, last time things got heated.
Well, here I am, officially asking that it be done. I'll miss the list
while it's gone, but I shan't miss the arguments.
Let's be stricter on the No Cross No Crown rule in future, please. Perhaps
we ought to start a Yahoo group for the discussions that venture into that
territory?
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 15:21:53 -0500
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Addendum: a holy spirit
----- Original Message -----
From: "caeruleancentaur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Wow! I had no intention of starting yet another flame. My apologies
> to all who took offense where none was intended.
Qualify that "all." I didn't take any kind of theological offense. :) And
thank you for your personal apology in your other letter. I consider my
"sensitivity" (the whole "woman" issue) to be a fault, and a paranoiac one,
and I struggle against it. To play the gender card never wins friends. I
retract it completely. I've made many many friends on this list, even
though I'm a "difficult" number. It's a great list, and a forgiving one.
> It seems as though
> a discussion of the Scripture of any faith is taboo, since it always
> leads to someone taking umbrage.
What a pity.
> For the record, I am a Roman Catholic priest with an M.A. in theology
> (with a concentration in Scripture) and an M.A. in comparative
> religions. However, I am not a professional scholar or teacher, but
> merely the pastor of three small parishes in the Blue Ridge Mountains
> of the Diocese of Richmond, VA. The study of Sacred Scripture, like
> that of linguistics, has its schools of thought. It is virtually
> impossible, at least in the study of Scripture, for all the scholars
> to have a concensus on the meaning of various passages.
That is so. I've encountered it in my feeble little dabblings in theology.
I can well imagine scholars throughout the ages arguing over whether this is
THE Holy Spirit or a Holy Spirit. Dispute has always been part of theology,
it seems.
> Having said this, I will now cease and desist from responding to any
> other messages that touch upon religion. It seems safest this way,
> lest ire by raised again within the group.
That seems a great shame. We should be able to talk intelligently about one
of the most important texts in human history without getting so angry about
it. Currently, there are others, I see, who are far more INTENTIONALLY
inflammatory than you have been, without, it seems, having even read the
texts in question. But Teoh and Joe have given some good, succinct
rejoinders on that front, so none of the rest of us need get involved. ;)
Pax,
Sally
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 15:23:33 -0500
From: azathoth500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unhappiness
I don't know much about yahoo groups, so personally I'd rather have a
message board, but I guess it's up to the owner.
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 15:16:57 -0500, Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had mentioned before that I had been tempted to ask John to lock the
> list for a week or so, last time things got heated.
>
> Well, here I am, officially asking that it be done. I'll miss the list
> while it's gone, but I shan't miss the arguments.
>
> Let's be stricter on the No Cross No Crown rule in future, please. Perhaps
> we ought to start a Yahoo group for the discussions that venture into that
> territory?
>
>
> Paul
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:36:07 +0200
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Ignorant people & diacritics
On Dec 4, 2004, at 5:46 PM, caeruleancentaur wrote:
> Speaking in an historical context you may be right about the
> corv�e. But speaking in the Biblical context (which I believe we
> are doing), "slave" is the word to use. The word "`ebed"
> means "slave" pure and simple and that is the word used in the
> Bible and so understood for several millennia. Under the Mosaic Law,
> slaves had certain rights. As I read the story in Exodus the
> Egyptian rulers didn't give any rights to their "day laborers." This
> is only one example of many in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures of a
> theological concept overriding an historical fact.
> Charlie
I respectfully disagree. In my experience, _`eved_ covers all of the
semantic range of the English terms "slave", "servant", and "indentured
servant". And in the compound _`eved hamelekh_, 'servant of the king',
it denotes a high government official.
-Stephen (Steg)
"verbing weirds language"
~ calvin (& hobbes)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 17:24:56 -0500
From: Rob Haden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: THEORY: Connections Between Word-Order and Typology
Hey everyone!
I was wondering if anyone knows whether a relationship exists between word-
order and basic typology in languages. It seems to me that left-branching
languages would tend to prefer ergative-absolutive, while right-branching
languages would tend to prefer nominative-accusative. That is, of course,
if all other things are equal (which is never the case :P ). I also think
this relationship is due to the core argument that is closest to the verb -
the object in left-branching languages and the subject in right-branching
ones. What do y'all think?
- Rob
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 09:28:57 +1100
From: Tristan Mc Leay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: About perceiving flames. Was Addendum
caeruleancentaur wrote:
> If I had
>gone in search of the original, I would have lost the message I was
>writing.
>
For future reference, you can right-click on the Inbox link and chose
'Open in new window' which does what it suggests, leaving you with your
old message and allowing you to find your new one. Alternatively,
there's a save as draft function, which you can use to return to your
message later.
--
Tristan.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 09:33:12 +1100
From: Tristan Mc Leay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unhappiness
azathoth500 wrote:
>I don't know much about yahoo groups, so personally I'd rather have a
>message board, but I guess it's up to the owner.
>
>
No, it's up to whoever creates it :) (I'd prefer a message board too,
because it'd die a much quicker death.)
--
Tristan.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 17:41:26 -0500
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: THEORY: Connections Between Word-Order and Typology
Yes, the famous Joseph Greenberg, and other linguists, have pointed out just
such connections, which include hypotheses about the branching structures of
VO and OV languages (among other things). I think Greenberg is responsible,
and I may be wrong, for the term "typology." These hypotheses are not
without some dispute. You might look at
http://greenberg-conference.stanford.edu/Kemmer_Abstract.htm.
Or the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_H._Greenberg
and go on from there.
cheers,
Sally
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Haden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 5:24 PM
Subject: THEORY: Connections Between Word-Order and Typology
> Hey everyone!
>
> I was wondering if anyone knows whether a relationship exists between
> word-
> order and basic typology in languages. It seems to me that left-branching
> languages would tend to prefer ergative-absolutive, while right-branching
> languages would tend to prefer nominative-accusative. That is, of course,
> if all other things are equal (which is never the case :P ). I also think
> this relationship is due to the core argument that is closest to the
> verb -
> the object in left-branching languages and the subject in right-branching
> ones. What do y'all think?
>
> - Rob
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 18:26:14 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Addendum: a holy spirit
Ray Brown scripsit:
> PS - Whatever has happened to our "no cross, no crown" convention in the
> past couple of weeks?
We are going through one of those periods where we discuss religion
and/or politics. This is always a risk, but so far we have negotiated
the hurdles quit successfully. I anticipate that we'll be able to do
so again.
--
There is / One art John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
No more / No less http://www.reutershealth.com
To do / All things http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
With art- / Lessness -- Piet Hein
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 18:50:57 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unhappiness
Paul Bennett scripsit:
> I had mentioned before that I had been tempted to ask John to lock the
> list for a week or so, last time things got heated.
>
> Well, here I am, officially asking that it be done. I'll miss the list
> while it's gone, but I shan't miss the arguments.
I'm not going to do that *yet*. Certain participants have been warned in
private. (Those who haven't been warned yet should consider whether
they would like to be.)
> Let's be stricter on the No Cross No Crown rule in future, please. Perhaps
> we ought to start a Yahoo group for the discussions that venture into that
> territory?
It's not a rule, in the sense of one I enforce. I encourage sensitive
and thoughtful discussions of touchy issues. I don't encourage rudeness
and pigheadedness.
John Cowan, Lord of the Instrumentality of Conlang
--
Mark Twain on Cecil Rhodes: John Cowan
"I admire him, I freely admit it, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and when his time comes I shall http://www.reutershealth.com
buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake." [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
