------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: THEORY: Connections Between Word-Order and Typology
From: Doug Dee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: Ignorant people & diacritics
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. marking descent in Carthage?
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: Ignorant people & diacritics
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: marking descent in Carthage?
From: Stephen Mulraney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. German style orthography
From: bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: THEORY: Connections Between Word-Order and Typology
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Help Needed: Scripts and Fonts
From: Nicolas Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
From: Shaul Vardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Ignorant people & diacritics
From: "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: THEORY: Connections Between Word-Order and Typology
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Editiones Vulgatae & Aliae (was: Pater Noster (purely
linguistically))
From: Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
From: Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: OT, and religeous
From: Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Kabir Pax (was: Pater Noster (purely linguistically))
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: Kabir Pax (was: Pater Noster (purely linguistically))
From: Shaul Vardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Leopard vs. puma
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: Nasalized fricatives ...
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: AEsir (was: OT, and religeous>
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Left- & Rightbranching languages? (was: THEORY: Connections ...)
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: Leopard vs. puma
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: ?? Re: a "natural language" ?
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: OT, and religeous
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: German style orthography
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 20:23:40 EST
From: Doug Dee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: THEORY: Connections Between Word-Order and Typology
In a message dated 12/4/2004 5:25:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>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?
I don't think I've run across anyone proposing such a correlation. The only
related thing I remember reading is that ergativity is said to be rare among
verb-medial languages. Among VSO, VOS and SOV, I don't think any order has
been established as more ergativity-friendly than the others, so far as I know.
Doug
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 21:10:57 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ignorant people & diacritics
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 11:33:00AM -0800, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Right-wingedness and the Bible have nothing to do with each other.
With all respect, they most certainly do. I do not wish to paint
all Bible-believers with the same brush, as you do later with
scientists, but the politics of the right in the United States
are currently dominated by fundamentalist Christians. More moderate
conservatives variously regret and decry this dominance; some go so far
as to deny its existence. Nevertheless, it is clearly the case.
It is, of course, only a one-way implication, and a rather weak one at
that; it would be absurd to claim the inverse, that most Christians were
right wingers, even in the US. But to say that the concepts have
nothing to do with each other is an overstatement.
> 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.
I know this was directed at Mr. Kramm in particular, but now you are the
one being inflammatory. The phrase "science-priests" draws a false
equivalence between science and faith. The claims of faith are not
testable; after all, if they were, no faith would be required. I
thought this very lack of proof was considered a virtue by the faithful,
in fact.
The claims of science are testable, and while I don't feel the need to
personally repeat every experiment, the fact that I can in principle do
so is highly significant. I certainly don't believe what I read in
science journals just because somebody in a white coat says it; I
believe it because I have learned how the scientific method works, and
repeated *enough* experiments to know that said method produces results
which are an accurate reflection of reality.
I also don't necessarily agree that one needs to have read the Bible in
order to doubt its validity. I feel no need to read a book on the
details of tarot-reading, astrological prediction, or any of the various
"magickal" systems, in order to be quite thoroughly convinced that they
are 100% malarky. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in reading them;
in fact, such things fascinate me for some reason. But I'm not about to
assign any credence to them. The key point, and please note that I
mean no offense here, is that *to many people who were not raised
religiously*, the Bible is in precisely the same category as the above.
A brief detour into full disclosure: Now, I was raised a Christian, and
I have read the Bible directly and studied many exegeses thereof, and
theology is one of the topics I find fascinating, probably due to its
deep connections to linguistic and cultural issues. But I stopped
believing in God back in high school. And this not due to any tragedy
or anything; I had simply learned enough that I no longer felt the need
to resort to a God to explain the universe's existence. For a time
thereafter, I was insufferably anti-religious and quite rude, much like
Mr. Kramm. Of course, I was a teenager. (I was banned from reciting
the blessing at Christmas dinner after addressing it "To whom it may
concern" one memorable year.)
I have since moderated my beliefs somewhat. For instance, although I
don't see any requirement that a god exist, I don't find it
inconceivable that one does. Perhaps our universe is actually a
simulation being run by a higher being to some experimental purpose. Or
maybe it's just a video game like "The Sims". In any case, if there is
any god, I would be quite surprised to find out that it had any
resemblance to the Judeo-Christian God, or even any awareness of what
humans were up to at an individual level. And regardless, I certainly
don't believe in any sort of life after death.
I've also come to realize that religion in general, and even
Christianity in particular, has done some good in the world along with
the bad. I'm still not convinced that it's a net negative, but it's
kinda too late to worry about that. "They're here, God they fear, get
used to it."
The main thing, though, is this: many of my closest friends and
colleagues are Christian, some even of the fundamentalist variety (I am
in Georgia, after all), and while we have had some, er, lively
discussions on theological topics, none of us holds those who disagree
with him or her in any sort of contempt. I mean, it is the ultimate topic on
which "reasonable people can reasonably disagree". And they do!
A lot!
So please, be nice. Heck, take a page from the book in question and be
nice even when folks are non-nice to you first; the list will be better off
that way.
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 21:15:26 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 10:28:33PM +0200, Steg Belsky wrote:
> It may well have been pronounced something like [a'men] back around the
> non-year 0, though :) .
Non-year? Year 0 of the Christian Era was a perfectly good year. The
fact that it happens to be more commonly known as the year 1 BC(E)
should not detract from its fundamental identity. It was a leap year
(as you'd expect from the 0 designation, not so much from the BC one),
and it was, according to Denis the Little's calcultions, the very year
in which Jesus was born. (And again, the fact that we now know that
those calculations couldn't be correct should not detract from our
recognition of the year).
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 04:46:52 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: marking descent in Carthage?
okay, from what I've learned in this group thus far, the people of Carthage
spoke a Semitic language.
so, how did they mark lines of descent?
ie, in Hebrew we have _ben_ (son of) and _bat_ (daughter of)...and in
Arabic, we have _bin_ (son of) and _bint_ (daughter of).
in Carthage, what would we have? *curious*
thanks.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 21:30:45 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ignorant people & diacritics
Mark J. Reed scripsit:
> I also don't necessarily agree that one needs to have read the Bible in
> order to doubt its validity. I feel no need to read a book on the
> details of tarot-reading, astrological prediction, or any of the various
> "magickal" systems, in order to be quite thoroughly convinced that they
> are 100% malarky.
FWIW, I think they're quite powerful tools for focusing the intuition,
especially for people whose intuitive faculty isn't that strong (like me).
John the agnostic
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com
"Not to know The Smiths is not to know K.X.U." --K.X.U.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 02:49:33 +0000
From: Stephen Mulraney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: marking descent in Carthage?
Rodlox wrote:
> okay, from what I've learned in this group thus far, the people of Carthage
> spoke a Semitic language.
>
> so, how did they mark lines of descent?
>
> ie, in Hebrew we have _ben_ (son of) and _bat_ (daughter of)...and in
> Arabic, we have _bin_ (son of) and _bint_ (daughter of).
>
> in Carthage, what would we have? *curious*
>
> thanks.
>
>
Well, _bn_ for "son of", as you can see from the sample of Punic (Carthaginian)
I posted earlier on in this thread. The Punic script was (like Arabic anc
Hebrew)
a consonantal one, hence the apparant lack of vowel in _bn_.
s.
--
To be sure, to be sure
Stephen Mulraney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:15:53 -0800
From: bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: German style orthography
I am making a language supposedly discovered in the
late 1800's by Germans on an island south of the
island Mafia on the coast of Tanzania. It includes
"whistlized" consonants, where labialization was taken
to such a degree that the w-sound is now a whistle, a
voiced whistle in the case of a voiced "whistlized"
consonant.
The phonemes are:
(plosives)
/p/
/b/
/t/
/d/
/k/
/g/
/q/
(nasals)
/m/
/n/
/N/
(fricatives)
/P/
/B/
/T/
/D/
/s/
/s_m/
/z/
/z_m/
/C/
/j\/
/x/
/X/
/h/
(laterals)
/l/
/L/
(approximate)
/j/
(rhotic)
/rR\)/ (This is a simultaneous r and R\... it is fun
to pronounce.)
(affricatives)
/tT)/
/dD)/
/ts)/
/dz)/
/tC)/
/dj\)/
/kx)/
/qX)/
("whistlized")
/s_m_W/ (_W represents "whistlization")
/z_m_W/
/C_W/
/j\_W/
/x_W/
/t_W/
/d_W/
/k_W/
/g_W/
Vowels are:
/i/
/I/
/e/
/&/
/@/
/u/
/O/
/A/
So, is there any possible way I could fit this into a
German style orthography without so much ambiguity
arising that I couldn't understand a single word of
it?
Er, the name of the language is, by the by, /[EMAIL PROTECTED]@/
=====
-The Sock
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 21:16:04 -0600
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: THEORY: Connections Between Word-Order and Typology
Rob wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone knows whether a relationship exists between word-
> order and basic typology in languages.
Yes, there are in fact a number of interesting and theoretically
and descriptively important generalizations concerning wordorder
crosslinguistically. The most important and most obvious were
those that had to do with branchedness among constituents -- that
languages will tend to have all constituents have an overt head
whose dependents branch off consistently into one direction, left
or right. (There are exceptions to this: English is a mostly
right-branching language, but it has adjectives and genitives
preceding NPs as the unmarked choice.) As a result of the interaction
of prosodic and syntactic markedness, left-branching languages will
weakly tend to favor the development of case systems from postpositions
and complex verb forms.
Sally was right in directing you to Greenberg, who might well
be called the father of linguistic typology. However, many of
the particular typological generalizations have been greatly
refined since the 1960s. Now Bernard Comrie's and, better, Johanna
Nichols' work has reached an unprecedent level of statistical
sophistication. After reading Comrie's text on typology and
universals, I'd suggest Nichols somewhat more technical _Linguistic
Diversity through Space and Time_, which won a major book award
some years back.
> 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 ).
If there is any connection between alignment and branchedness, it
would be very tenuous, but it would be connected to the above
comment about left-branching languages and complexity. Nichols
found that ergative languages are the most consistently morphologically
complex of any alignment type, with neutral alignment unsurprisingly
being the least complex. Ergativity also favors dependent marking
(e.g., ergative case rather than ergative head agreement), and,
apparently independently, common on nouns rather than verbs.
> 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.
Except that, in an SVO language, both arguments are equally "close"
to the verb. Locality does have an affect on various kinds of
agreement and case-marking, but not in the sense that you describe.
==========================================================================
Thomas Wier "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally,
Dept. of Linguistics because our secret police don't get it right
University of Chicago half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of
1010 E. 59th Street Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter.
Chicago, IL 60637
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:09:32 -0500
From: Nicolas Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Help Needed: Scripts and Fonts
Dear All,
I have tried unsucessfully to create an attractive, professional font for
my conlangs. I was hoping that someone interested in that challenge of
creating a unique and interesting fonts with a sound knowledge of such
programs as Fontmaker would be able to help me FREE of charge.
I am looking to create a font for two of my most recent languages:
Firstly, an as yet unnamed, germanic style language (and its offshoots)
that I have been slowly developing over the last two or three years. In
this case I have already half developed a writing system and I need help
taking it from the page to the screen.
Secondly, a more recent, more sophistocated, partially isolating language
(still in its infancy!) whose writing system I have not yet even thought
about - except that I would perhaps like it to resemble Arabic. I'm hoping
that someone would even be able to work with me to create the WHOLE writing
system, bringing in their own work and ideas.
I would be only to happy to provide more details about the languages
themselves, or even submit a copy of the entire grammar in Word or Acrobat
formats.
I'm aware that I'm being hopelessly naive, but it never hurts to ask! :)
Regards,
Nic
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 07:57:35 +0200
From: Shaul Vardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
I don't want to say anything about the religious wars that have broken out
here, except that:
a) They are making me regret my recent decision to rejoin the group (albeit
in an essentially lurking capacity).
b) To continue to use the heading "Pater Noster (purely linguistically)"
long after pure linguistics (or anything pure) have been thrown in the
garbage seems... well, slightly disingenuous.
Kabi� pax mix qyts�t
[Great peace from Jerusalem]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 00:00:50 -0800
From: "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ignorant people & diacritics
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 09:10:57PM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 11:33:00AM -0800, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > Right-wingedness and the Bible have nothing to do with each other.
>
> With all respect, they most certainly do. I do not wish to paint
> all Bible-believers with the same brush, as you do later with
> scientists, but the politics of the right in the United States
> are currently dominated by fundamentalist Christians. More moderate
> conservatives variously regret and decry this dominance; some go so far
> as to deny its existence. Nevertheless, it is clearly the case.
The Bible itself has nothing to do with right-wingedness. Perhaps most
people who believe the Bible happen to take a right-wing stance, but
the Bible itself says nothing about it and has nothing to do with it.
[...]
> It is, of course, only a one-way implication, and a rather weak one at
> that; it would be absurd to claim the inverse, that most Christians were
> right wingers, even in the US. But to say that the concepts have
> nothing to do with each other is an overstatement.
Perhaps it is so, that most people who hold right-wing views also
believe the Bible (or vice versa). But in my view, to believe the
Bible does not imply right-wingedness or non-right-wingedness, and to
be right-wing does not imply one believes or not believes the Bible.
Many people who believe the Bible may also take right-wing views, but
the two are unrelated in themselves.
[...]
> > 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.
>
> I know this was directed at Mr. Kramm in particular, but now you are the
> one being inflammatory.
I'm sorry, that statement was meant as a parody of what Kramm posted.
My intention was to show by way of a ridiculous parallel the illogic
of what he posted. But alas, sarcasm is a dangerous thing on the Net,
and is often lost in the process of transmission.
> The phrase "science-priests" draws a false equivalence between
> science and faith. The claims of faith are not testable; after all,
> if they were, no faith would be required. I thought this very lack
> of proof was considered a virtue by the faithful, in fact.
I do not, in fact, conflate the two. But just as Kramm was implying
that believers in the Bible are illogical people who blindly believe
things, I played alongside with a ridiculous parody to show the
fallacy in such a stereotype.
[...]
> I also don't necessarily agree that one needs to have read the Bible in
> order to doubt its validity. I feel no need to read a book on the
> details of tarot-reading, astrological prediction, or any of the various
> "magickal" systems, in order to be quite thoroughly convinced that they
> are 100% malarky. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in reading them;
> in fact, such things fascinate me for some reason. But I'm not about to
> assign any credence to them. The key point, and please note that I
> mean no offense here, is that *to many people who were not raised
> religiously*, the Bible is in precisely the same category as the above.
And my point is that, having not examined the thing for yourself,
while it is perfectly fair to look at it with distrust based on
peripheral observations, one ought not to be so confident as to state
as a fact that the thing is a fabrication. It is one thing to be
skeptical---we have not enough time in our lives to examine in detail
everything that may come our way, so to be practical we have to make
heuristic judgments. But it is totally another thing to confidently
state, as though one knew it for a fact, that something is false, when
one has in fact not established it directly, and has not even looked
at the matter closely. This latter is what I'm reacting to.
Even though I am convinced otherwise, I fully understand why some
people may be skeptical about the Bible. That is OK with me; I do not
insist that everyone in the world must agree with me. But when someone
who hasn't even bothered to examine the matter at all comes and
vehemently pronounces it false, as though he has actually examined all
the evidence (but it is clear that he hasn't), then it strikes me as
blatantly ignorant and inflammatory. Wouldn't your reaction be the
same, if I came along and imposed upon you in no uncertain terms that
everything you believe is false even though I can't prove it, and I
haven't bothered to look into your beliefs because I don't care, but
it is absolutely false anyway because I think so, and you're an idiot
to think otherwise?
> A brief detour into full disclosure: Now, I was raised a Christian, and
[...]
> I have since moderated my beliefs somewhat. For instance, although I
> don't see any requirement that a god exist, I don't find it
> inconceivable that one does. Perhaps our universe is actually a
> simulation being run by a higher being to some experimental purpose. Or
> maybe it's just a video game like "The Sims". In any case, if there is
> any god, I would be quite surprised to find out that it had any
> resemblance to the Judeo-Christian God, or even any awareness of what
> humans were up to at an individual level. And regardless, I certainly
> don't believe in any sort of life after death.
Your belief is up to you. I cannot, and have no wish to, dictate what
your belief should be. I am very willing for frank, courteous
discussion on the matter, but if you choose to disagree, that's your
choice. I could present you with what I think is compelling or
suggestive evidence for the existence of God, but this list is
obviously the wrong place to do it, as this particular topic has
nothing to do with conlanging.
In any case, if you choose to disagree, I won't flame you. What ticked
me off was that some people appears to think that it's their job in
life to impose their beliefs on everyone else, and to deride whoever
disagrees as an illogical fool. Is it really too much to expect basic
human respect from fellow human beings? And is it not the pot calling
the kettle black, if one vehemently accuses others of blindly
following their beliefs when it is clear that he only has respect for
his own?
> I've also come to realize that religion in general, and even
> Christianity in particular, has done some good in the world along with
> the bad. I'm still not convinced that it's a net negative, but it's
> kinda too late to worry about that. "They're here, God they fear, get
> used to it."
My personal stance is that what the Bible actually reveals is not
quite the same as what many people practice. Having studied it myself,
I have come to conclude that its message constitutes a very compelling
case for the existence of a God whose purpose involves human beings in
a very deep way---and I have also observed that parts of its actual
message differs from how people practice Christianity. (And there are
many diverse ways Christianity is being practiced.) I am actually a
very skeptical person myself. It is very easy for anyone to claim to
be acting on God's behalf, but are they really? I mean, Osama bin
Laden claims to be acting on Allah's behalf by killing Americans. Is
this what the Quran actually says? I am not convinced that the actions
of people represent what they claim they represent, unless they can
prove to me that everything they do has a solid basis in a balanced
interpretation of the text in question---be it the Bible or the Quran
or anything else. They could claim that their interpretation is the
right one, but I remain unconvinced until I see it for myself in the
actual text.
Because of this attitude of mine, I have come to realize that the
message conveyed by the Bible is very potent and very much bears the
mark of a being beyond human intellect and existence. What is actually
practiced, sadly to say, is not always in sync with this; hence I
fully sympathize with the deep skepticism of people, esp. those who
saw the actions of some who claim to represent the Bible and the
consequences of such actions.
But anyway, this is very, very off-topic, and I write this without any
intention to impose my views on anyone else. It is just a frank
disclosure of my point of view. Further discussion should be continued
in private email, should anyone feel compelled to do so.
[...]
> The main thing, though, is this: many of my closest friends and
> colleagues are Christian, some even of the fundamentalist variety (I am
> in Georgia, after all), and while we have had some, er, lively
> discussions on theological topics, none of us holds those who disagree
> with him or her in any sort of contempt. I mean, it is the ultimate topic on
> which "reasonable people can reasonably disagree". And they do!
> A lot!
Exactly. I think contempt is what set me off. I had abstained from
this thread for a while, but the blatant disrespect and contempt being
shown just got to me this morning.
> So please, be nice. Heck, take a page from the book in question and be
> nice even when folks are non-nice to you first; the list will be better off
> that way.
I apologize if my parody in the last message was misunderstood, or
stepped over the line. It was not intended to be dogmatic or
offensive, but just my way of holding up a mirror so that one may,
hopefully, see the unfounded contempt for what it is. I hope people
won't take it at its literal value, as that does not represent my
actual stance.
T
--
Never wrestle a pig. You both get covered in mud, and the pig likes it.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 08:19:07 +0000
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: THEORY: Connections Between Word-Order and Typology
> Nichols
>found that ergative languages are the most consistently morphologically
>complex of any alignment type, with neutral alignment unsurprisingly
>being the least complex. Ergativity also favors dependent marking
>(e.g., ergative case rather than ergative head agreement), and,
>apparently independently, common on nouns rather than verbs.
>
>
From memory, according to Describing Morphosyntax there is at least one
language which displays ergative behavoir with regards to word order
(and without explicit case marking). The verb is in the middle, and S
occurs in the same position as P always, not A. He then says however
that it would be "presumptuous" to label a language (or part of a
language anyway) Ergative based solely on word order. Perhaps this is
why there are few morphologically simple ergative languages? Because
linguists are reluctant to classify them as such?
I'm not sure I agree with this argument anyway: there's a guy who works
at the supermarket where I have a part time job whose dialect of English
(possibly Jamaican, I'm not sure) seems to always use the accusative
form of pronouns where we'd use the nominative forms, and seems also to
have demolished a lot of the verb agreement. For example, he would say
"him go" instead of "he goes". I find it extremely difficult to
understand him. But anyway, about the only difference displayed between
subject and object in nouns or pronouns in his dialect of English is
word order. Does this mean that his dialect can't be classified as
accusative because only word order marks the difference, and there are
no morphological markers of case in the nouns or pronouns? Of course
not. It just seems to me that some linguists are sometimes reluctant to
declare a system in a language Ergative if they can force the square peg
of accusative into a round hole. :) Similar to the declarations by early
studies of Basque etc that "the verb is always passive", to force their
grammars into patterns familiar from the European branch of the
Indo-European languages.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 21:34:24 +1300
From: Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Editiones Vulgatae & Aliae (was: Pater Noster (purely
linguistically))
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 06:02, Ray Brown wrote:
> On Saturday, December 4, 2004, at 08:20 , Wesley Parish wrote:
> > As a Latinist
>
> great - another one the list :)
>
> Salve!
Salve!
>
> > and labeled as the U of Canterbury's Classics Dept's scholar in
> > the early 1990s, I was wondering if anyone could help me with this
> > question:
> > how many Latin translations of the Bible are there? I'm well aware of
> > the Vetus Latina translation, though I don't have a copy of it,
>
> AFAIK there were several different 'Vetus Latina' versions. I do not know
> if any survive in any complete form. It was because there were different
> versions that Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome to correct, edit existing
> texts and to compile a single complete text of all the books of the Bible.
> This was the first 'Edito Vulgata' "(officially) Published Version" or
> 'Vulgate'. As knowledge of ancient texts increased and/or errors crept
> into current copies, there have been official revisions of the Vulgate
> from time to time. IIRC John Cowan enumerated a listing about a year or so
> back. (If I've remembered incorrectly - my apologies, John :)
>
> The version commonly used today is the Clementine version - a revision
> issued by Clement VIII in 1592. In 1908 Pius X commissioned a new edition.
> The revised edition of Genesis was published in 1926 and the work on the
> whole Bible is still in progress AFAIK.
>
> > and I've got a copy of the Vulgate,
>
> Almost certainly the Clementine version.
Vulgata (C) 1969 Wurttemburgische Bibelanstalt Stuttgart
"Our text is a new textm established from the evidence of the manuscripts with
the help of the two big modren editions ..."
>
> > and a copy of the Psalms in English and Latin, the
> > latter being one of these latter-day translations, because it is rather
> > more
> > literate than the Vulgate.
>
> ..by which I assume you mean "More like Classical Latin: :)
Ps Unus, Vulgata
Beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum
et in via peccatorum non stetit
et in cathedra pestilentiae non sedit
The Book of Psalms in Latin and English
Ps Unus
Beatus vir, qui non sequitur
consilium impiorum,
Et viam paccatorum non ingreditur,
et in conventu protervorum non sedet;
Neo-Classical Latin.
>
> I would hazard a guess that it is in fact the Psalms in the new revision
> still in progress.
PUBLISHERS' NOTE
In this edition of the book of Pslams the Latin text is taken from the new
translation published by the Pontifical Biblical Institute and approved by
"Motu Proprio" of H.H. Pius X, 24th March, 1945.
>
> > I'm aware that there were a relatively large number of Latin translations
> > during the time of the Renaissance and Reformation, because the
> > translations
> > of key words were of theological importance, ergo everybody had to get
> > their
> > theological ammo ready ... I just don't know how many translations there
> > actually were,
>
> I suspect there were quite a few revival versions, particularly during the
> Reformation. We quite possibility do not know how many precisely.
John Calvin published one, which I've seen fragments of.
I'm certain other people published competing translations, the object being to
trample the oppositions' interpretations.
>
> > and how many are available to the general public via means
> > such as the ever-present pdf files.
>
> Interesting question - IIRC the Clementine Vulgate is available on-line -
> I don't know about other versions.
Sounds interesting. I'll have to check that against the Wurttemberg Bible
Society edition. Maybe if enough of us agitate enough we might get the
Calvin translation etc, online as well.
>
> 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" ]
--
Wesley Parish
* * *
Clinersterton beademung - in all of love. RIP James Blish
* * *
Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 21:44:48 +1300
From: Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:57, Shaul Vardi wrote:
> I don't want to say anything about the religious wars that have broken out
> here, except that:
> a) They are making me regret my recent decision to rejoin the group (albeit
> in an essentially lurking capacity).
I'm sorry if you feel you have to leave us.
> b) To continue to use the heading "Pater Noster (purely linguistically)"
> long after pure linguistics (or anything pure) have been thrown in the
> garbage seems... well, slightly disingenuous.
I agree. On the other hand, or paw, or hoof, I'm an opinionated [EMAIL
PROTECTED] who's
only too happy to spout off on my conculture and conworld. I don't intend to
offend you, so if I have done so, I apologize.
>
> Kabi� pax mix qyts�t
> [Great peace from Jerusalem]
--
Wesley Parish
* * *
Clinersterton beademung - in all of love. RIP James Blish
* * *
Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 21:47:57 +1300
From: Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT, and religeous
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 06:04, Steg Belsky wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2004, at 2:32 AM, Pascal A. Kramm wrote:
> > Many parts of the Old Testament existed already way before the advent
> > of
> > Jesus and stuff, and were only slightly modified for inclusion.
> >
> > The original bible texts were changed uncounted times by whoever was
> > currently in power at the church to express just what what they wanted
> > it to
> > express, going along with intentional misinterpretation.
>
> What's this obsession with the church? The texts commonly referred to
> as the "Old Testament" had their own milieu, religion, and significance
> before Christianity ever came along.
>
> > Possibly just done to have some fun with the stupid humans.
>
> What, you've never heard of a Trickster Divinity? ;-)
He's usually the most interesting character in the pantheon - what would life
be like without Maui's slowing the sun, or Loki's taking vengeance on that
best-looking Aesir god Baldr, etc. ;)
What would Ursula Le Guin's world be like without Coyote?
>
>
> -Stephen (Steg)
> "refa'einu..."
--
Wesley Parish
* * *
Clinersterton beademung - in all of love. RIP James Blish
* * *
Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 11:11:32 +0200
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Kabir Pax (was: Pater Noster (purely linguistically))
On Dec 5, 2004, at 7:57 AM, Shaul Vardi wrote:
> I don't want to say anything about the religious wars that have broken
> out
> here, except that:
> a) They are making me regret my recent decision to rejoin the group
> (albeit
> in an essentially lurking capacity).
> b) To continue to use the heading "Pater Noster (purely
> linguistically)"
> long after pure linguistics (or anything pure) have been thrown in the
> garbage seems... well, slightly disingenuous.
> Kabiř pax mix qytsút
> [Great peace from Jerusalem]
How is that pronounced?
And is it actually an R-hacek at the end of "kabir"?
-Stephen (Steg)
"the main purpose of the pyramid is to say
'my unique pyramid is sky high and made of white marble.
i do not share it with anyone'."
~ andrew nowicki
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 11:42:04 +0200
From: Shaul Vardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kabir Pax (was: Pater Noster (purely linguistically))
Hi Steg,
> Kabiř pax mix qytsút
> [Great peace from Jerusalem]
How is that pronounced?
And is it actually an R-hacek at the end of "kabir"?
Yes, it is an R-hacek, hope that's how it comes out. Pronuonced trilled r +
zh, both very short. It's the mutation of "r" in Tesk (mutation in Tesk
occurs a) on adjectives immediately before nouns, in place of an older
inflexion system; b) in VCV combinations where C is one of the consonants
that mutate (most do, a few don't).
Pax is a loan word and pronounced as in Latin; x is almost always pronounced
kh = כ = خ.
So the next word mix is pronounced mikh, the "i" has pretty much the value
in German "mich" (so the word sounds like that word, but with a kard kh at
the end). I tried to describe what "mi[x]" is in a recent reply to Yitzik:
Mix = I don't even know the word for this, grammatically (I'm not a trained
linguist). In Tagalog there is the word "si" used before names (si Juan =
Juan), and in Tesk I adopted that, and also some analogous terms, including
mi before place names. And here it's mix because it's in the "casal" (i.e.
non-nominative).
If you or anyone else can tell me the linguistic term for "si' in Tagalog,
I'd be grateful. In addition to si [name marker] and mi [place marker]
there are also ki [language marker] and kiwa [marker or an object or person
using or appearing in a given language].
Qyts = "y" is equivalent to u + umlaut, but short. This word, which means
Jerusalem, is of course taken from Arabic, hence the "q" at the beginning.
A regular Tesk speaker like me would pronounce the "q" k, but pedants and
radio announcers would doubtless give it its proper Arabic prononciation
(uvular plosive, right?) The postposition -ut means from, out of; the u is
poronounced oo, but very short. The accent is that Tesk marker of
postpositions and doesn't have phonetic value.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:04:26 -0000
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Leopard vs. puma
I happened upon an illustration of a recent thread in the readings
for this Sunday in Spanish, the thread being using certain words in a
translation to better convey the meaning. The passage in question
is Isaiah 11:6, "the leopard will lie down with the kid."
In the lectionary approved for use in the USA, the translation is
from the Biblia Hispanoamerica and uses the word "puma" to
translate "leopard." None of my Spanish dictionaries gives that as a
correct translation.
When I checked with the Biblia Sagrada, a translation for use in
Spain, I discover that the word "tigre" has been used. I know
that "tigre" is used in Latin America for the jaguar, but how would
that help folks in Spain. I should think tigers would be more
familiar than jaguars, but they would also know about leopards.
As far as I know, there are two Spanish words for leopard: leopardo
and pardal. Thus the words actually used seem to be an attempt to
make the concept more familiar to those who might not know what a
leopard is.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:24:54 +0100
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nasalized fricatives ...
Andreas Johansson wrote:
> 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. V�rml�ndska.
>
>
> I don't have that either; [ju:d`].
It's the same form as I have when speaking rixsvenska.
When speaking bohusl�ndska it becomes the third possibility
/jur/, and in g�teborgska [ju:d]. Of course /jur/ is the
standard pronunciation in Norwegian.
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
(Tacitus)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 15:02:56 +0100
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: AEsir (was: OT, and religeous>
Wesley Parish wrote:
> that
> best-looking Aesir god Baldr, etc. ;)
<nitpick>
�sir is plural. The singular is �ss,
and the word you are looking for is
�sago� -- reasonably the English forms
are Ose (<OE �s) plural Oses, Ose-god.
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
(Tacitus)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 15:04:34 +0100
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Left- & Rightbranching languages? (was: THEORY: Connections ...)
Hey!
On Saturday 04 December 2004 23:24, Rob Haden wrote:
> It seems to me that left-branching languages
> would tend to prefer ergative-absolutive, while
> right-branching languages would tend to prefer
> nominative-accusative.
What does "leftbranching" and "rightbranching" mean? Has it
to do with whether a languages puts words after or in front
of their heads? I mean, e.g. if you put an adjective in
front of the word it refers to or after it, or if you use
rather prepositions than postpositions?
Thanks,
Carsten
--
Eri silvev�ng aibannama padangin.
Nivaie evaenain eri ming silvoiev�ng caparei.
- Antoine de Saint-Exup�ry, Le Petit Prince
-> http://www.beckerscarsten.de/?conlang=ayeri
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 09:16:00 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Leopard vs. puma
Well, when it comes to big cats, I knew we often have several names for
the same species. So I looked up the English words, just in case this
may help:
You didn't mention "panther", but it is the most general term in this
area. Technically, it refers to any member of the genus Panthera,
including jaguars, leopards and tigers; most stereotypically, it refers
specifically to a black leopard; and in general English usage, it can also
encompass cougars (Felis concolor), which are not part of Panthera.
Meanwhile, the word "puma" is an exact synonym for "cougar".
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 08:21:47 -0600
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ?? Re: a "natural language" ?
Ray wrote, in response to Rodlox:
> >>>> [ablauts] sometimes intersecting
> >>>> one another but sometimes not,
> >
> > how does something intersect?
>
> Not a grammatical or linguistic term.
Well, in linguistics one does talk about intersecting distributions.
> It's meaning will depend upon context, of which very little is given.
Yeah... well, if I'd given too much more context, it'd'a driven the
thread way far afield! :)
> But if it follows on from the
> above, I would guess that the language has more than one type of ablaut
> patterning and that some nouns and verbs exhibits mixes where some forms
> show, say, pattern A and other parts pattern B
That's correct. In Georgian some nouns and some verbs show
e.g. zero-grade ablauting (although it's not usually characterized as
such for nouns), but their origins are completely different.
==========================================================================
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: 24
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 08:22:01 -0600
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT, and religeous
Pascal wrote:
> > Many parts of the Old Testament existed already way before the advent
> > of Jesus and stuff, and were only slightly modified for inclusion.
> > [...] The original bible texts were changed uncounted times by whoever
> > was currently in power at the church to express just what what they wanted
> > it to express, going along with intentional misinterpretation.
Actually, all the evidence suggests that in the 900 years or so
separating the Dead Sea Scrolls and the first available Medieval
codices, the actual texts changed almost not at all -- so little,
that most of the changes are explainable in terms of occasional
and slight spelling errors. So, if you mean 'church' in its normal
sense, then you're flatly wrong on this point. (I just came back
from seeing the real Dead Sea Scrolls at an exhibit in Houston,
so I'm up on the facts.)
Steg wrote:
> What's this obsession with the church? The texts commonly referred to
> as the "Old Testament" had their own milieu, religion, and significance
> before Christianity ever came along.
This is true. There are many people who speculate about huge changes
that occurred to the documents around the time of the Babylonian
Captivity, but these can be no more than speculations until someone
actually unearths a codex with Bible fragments on it from the sixth
or seventh centuries BC.
==========================================================================
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: 25
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 09:29:00 -0500
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: German style orthography
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:15:53 -0800, bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am making a language supposedly discovered in the
>late 1800's by Germans on an island south of the
>island Mafia on the coast of Tanzania. It includes
>"whistlized" consonants, where labialization was taken
>to such a degree that the w-sound is now a whistle, a
>voiced whistle in the case of a voiced "whistlized"
>consonant.
Here's my try for a German-style orthography of the language Tüësë:
(plosives)
/p/ p
/b/ b
/t/ t
/d/ d
/k/ k
/g/ g
/q/ q
(nasals)
/m/ m
/n/ n
/N/ ng
(fricatives)
/P/ f
/B/ w
/T/ þ
/D/ đ
/s/ s
/s_m/ sh
/z/ ſ
/z_m/ ſh
/C/ ch
/j\/ jh
/x/ χ
/X/ ħ
/h/ h
(laterals)
/l/ l
/L/ ł
(approximate)
/j/ j
(rhotic)
/rR\)/ (This is a simultaneous r and R\... it is fun
to pronounce.) r
(affricatives)
/tT)/ tþ
/dD)/ dđ
/ts)/ z
/dz)/ ds
/tC)/ tch
/dj\)/ dj
/kx)/ kχ
/qX)/ qħ
("whistlized")
/s_m_W/ (_W represents "whistlization") schü
/z_m_W/ shü
/C_W/ chü
/j\_W/ jü
/x_W/ chü
/t_W/ tü
/d_W/ dü
/k_W/ kü
/g_W/ gü
Vowels are:
/i/ ie
/I/ i
/e/ e
/&/ ä
/@/ ë
/u/ u
/O/ o
/A/ a
gryəsː
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
