------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 14 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: SURVEY: Idiomatic Expressions In Your ConLang Or ConCulture
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: SURVEY: Idiomatic Expressions In Your ConLang Or ConCulture
From: Jonathan Knibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. On the subject of idioms ...
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Going nomail for a while
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: And I'm back
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Amerinds (was: Gallopavo (was: Re: fruitbats))
From: tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: On the subject of idioms ...
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: SURVEY: Idiomatic Expressions In Your ConLang Or ConCulture
From: tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: On the subject of idioms ...
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: Amerinds (was: Gallopavo (was: Re: fruitbats))
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Amerinds (was: Gallopavo (was: Re: fruitbats))
From: Patrick Littell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: McD - I'm lovin' it (again)
From: # 1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Amerinds (was: Gallopavo (was: Re: fruitbats))
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: McD - I'm lovin' it (again)
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:06:02 -0500
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SURVEY: Idiomatic Expressions In Your ConLang Or ConCulture
Correction!!
I wrote:
> ObConlang!! Kash avoids the problem by using a serial verb construction--
> e.g. maçasa(to) manahan... 'he (will) try to eat...'
As everyone will immediately know, that means "I (will) try to eat..."
ma-çasa-(to) ma-nahan...
I-try-(fut) I-eat
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:56:44 +0000
From: Jonathan Knibb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SURVEY: Idiomatic Expressions In Your ConLang Or ConCulture
Jim Henry wrote (re: 'I guess I better had.'):
>"I better had" wouldn't work in my 'lect either; it would
>be "I had better" or more likely "I'd better".
>[snip]
>It doesn't work with any other tense or mood of "to have"
>in English, either; *"I will have better", *"I would have
>had better", *"I have better".... So definitely an idiom.
All true for my 'lect also, though the tense of the dependent
verb can be modified - cf. "I'd better have finished before
the boss gets back.", with future perfect meaning.
It seems to me that the construction is syntactically
parallel to modal auxiliaries - cf.:
"I should go." / "I'd better go."
"I should have gone." / "I'd better have gone."
"My father said there'd be trouble if I didn't mow the lawn,
so I guess I should." / "...so I guess I better had."
"Should" may occur, as in the last example, without (or *as*?)
a main verb, when it's stressed for focus - this can also
occur in a main clause:
"My father said I *should*, but I won't."
"My father said I better *had*, but I won't."
Is it perhaps the case that "better had" is the allo-, er,
-morph? -lex??, well, the form that "had better" takes when
it's stressed and/or acting as a main verb?
Jonathan.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:11:47 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: On the subject of idioms ...
In Meghean it's considered nifty and sophisticated to refer to abstract concepts
by mentioning two related concrete things instead. So, one might say _conich oa
teoa_ "spear and fire" for "war", or _inde oa mañha_ "coin and ship" for trade.
Is there a name for this sort of idiom? It's a case of pars pro toto (partes pro
toto?), but is there something more specific?
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 21:50:09 +0100
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Going nomail for a while
Hallo!
I am going nomail for a few days because I'm going to do a software
update on my home box.
Greetings,
Jörg.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:44:20 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: And I'm back
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 03:47:21 -0500, Fabian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi guys
>
> Miss me?
Welcome back! It's a very long time.
How're you doing? I take it from your Tokyo question you moved to Japan?
Me, I'm in America now.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 21:33:08 -0000
From: tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Amerinds (was: Gallopavo (was: Re: fruitbats))
--- In [email protected], Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> I've always found it rather infuriating that English use "Indian"
> both of the Subcontinent and of the peoples of the Americas. Most
> other European languages use different derivatives of "India", eg
> German _Inder_ "(subcontinental) Indians", _Indianer_ "(American)
> Indians".
>
> One of the English words should be changed to "Indish" or something.
>
> Andreas
>
For some time the accepted academic designation was "Amerind". You
can see this in linguists' articles from that time.
Nowadays our own autonym, and therefore politically correct ethnonym,
is "Native American". In my view this is insufficiently
specific; "Native American" means "born in America", and so would
include anyone who is not himself or herself an immigrant. To
me, "Indigenous American", "Aboriginal American" or "American
Aborigine", or "Autochthonous American" would be better -- though I
don't really see what was so bad with "Amerind".
(The views just expressed are my own, and not necessarily shared by
even a single other Cherokee.)
Tom H.C. in MI
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:45:02 -0500
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: On the subject of idioms ...
Andreas Johansson wrote:
> In Meghean it's considered nifty and sophisticated to refer to abstract
> concepts
> by mentioning two related concrete things instead. So, one might say
> _conich oa
> teoa_ "spear and fire" for "war", or _inde oa mañha_ "coin and ship" for
> trade.
Very nice!! I wish I'd thought of that.........
>
> Is there a name for this sort of idiom? It's a case of pars pro toto
> (partes pro
> toto?), but is there something more specific?
>
I know it has a name, but... I thought it was _antonomasia_ or
_paronomasia_; the first is possible though not quite... according to AHD it
means the use of a title, or name, to describe a person or class of people
(e.g. "Your/His/Her Majesty", or calling a traitor a "Benedict Arnold"); but
other sources suggest it might be the use of attributes to refer to a
whole-- so yours would count. (Paronomasia refers to punning...........)
Oh never mind. It's metonymy; see--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy
Well, OTOH...scroll down a bit in that entry; it might also be synecdoche
Hope this helps :-}
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 21:45:59 -0000
From: tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SURVEY: Idiomatic Expressions In Your ConLang Or ConCulture
--- In [email protected], "Ph.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> I'm sure many people will also consider these to be "idioms,"
> but to me they are simply "expressions." To me, an "idiom" is
> some set phrase which does not quite follow the normal rules
> of grammar...
> [snip]
I think you probably have a good point: and clearly, many others on
this list would make the same point.
In that case, go by my title, rather than my original content;
give me _either_ your favorite "(idiomatic) _expressions_" _or_ your
favorite "_idiomatic_ (expressions)", or both, as you see fit.
--------------------
Middle age is that time of life when, given the choice between two
vices in which to indulge, you will choose the one after which you
can still make it home by 9:00 P.M.
-----
Never insult a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes. That
way, you have a one-mile lead, and he must run without shoes.
----------
Tom H.C. in MI
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:22:12 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: On the subject of idioms ...
Quoting Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > In Meghean it's considered nifty and sophisticated to refer to abstract
> > concepts
> > by mentioning two related concrete things instead. So, one might say
> > _conich oa
> > teoa_ "spear and fire" for "war", or _inde oa mañha_ "coin and ship" for
> > trade.
>
> Very nice!! I wish I'd thought of that.........
> >
> > Is there a name for this sort of idiom? It's a case of pars pro toto
> > (partes pro
> > toto?), but is there something more specific?
> >
> I know it has a name, but... I thought it was _antonomasia_ or
> _paronomasia_; the first is possible though not quite... according to AHD it
> means the use of a title, or name, to describe a person or class of people
> (e.g. "Your/His/Her Majesty", or calling a traitor a "Benedict Arnold"); but
> other sources suggest it might be the use of attributes to refer to a
> whole-- so yours would count. (Paronomasia refers to punning...........)
>
> Oh never mind. It's metonymy; see--
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy
>
> Well, OTOH...scroll down a bit in that entry; it might also be synecdoche
>
> Hope this helps :-}
Yes, it does. My thanks.
I don't, however, think it fits the definition of synecdoche - tho a spear may
be used in war, it's hardly a _part_ of the abstract concept "war".
I suppose that one could call it "dual metonymy" to specify this particular kind
of expression.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:31:05 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Amerinds (was: Gallopavo (was: Re: fruitbats))
Quoting tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> --- In [email protected], Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > I've always found it rather infuriating that English use "Indian"
> > both of the Subcontinent and of the peoples of the Americas. Most
> > other European languages use different derivatives of "India", eg
> > German _Inder_ "(subcontinental) Indians", _Indianer_ "(American)
> > Indians".
> >
> > One of the English words should be changed to "Indish" or something.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
>
> For some time the accepted academic designation was "Amerind". You
> can see this in linguists' articles from that time.
It was the term used in a (American) textbook I had back in high school in the
late '90s, but if I try and use it these days, people accuse me of accepting
Greenberg's linguistic macrofamilies.
> Nowadays our own autonym, and therefore politically correct ethnonym,
> is "Native American". In my view this is insufficiently
> specific; "Native American" means "born in America", and so would
> include anyone who is not himself or herself an immigrant. To
> me, "Indigenous American", "Aboriginal American" or "American
> Aborigine", or "Autochthonous American" would be better -- though I
> don't really see what was so bad with "Amerind".
I dislike all of these due to the double meaning of "American" - are we refering
to the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas, or just to those of what now is
the USA?
Also, these terms should logically include Eskimos and Aleutians, which, or so I
was thought in geography class, aren't considered Indians of any sort or
description.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:54:51 -0500
From: Patrick Littell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Amerinds (was: Gallopavo (was: Re: fruitbats))
My favorite of these is Autochthonous American, although I suppose in some
people's mind it might imply that these are, oh, like Americans with face
tentacles :{{
The reason Amerind isn't much used today is because it's associated with a
specific hypothesis by Greenberg that nearly all of the languages of the
Americas are part of a single genetic family called "Amerind". If I were to
say "Language Momomomo is an Amerind language" today, this would have the
connotation that either I accept Greenberg's hypothesis and/or methods or
that (regardless of my views on Greenberg) Momomomo one of the languages
held by Greenberg to be in the Amerind family.
You'll get plenty of different opinions on whether Greenberg was *correct*
or not, but most specialists are in agreement that Greenberg's methods do
not provide *evidence* of genetic relatedness. (Believing that, say, human
language developed once and that all languages are its descendents and
believing that we can find *evidence* for it are very, very different
beliefs.) I find Greenbergian sorts of analyses useful, but just doing a
Greenbergian analysis doesn't mean the question is closed. What this sort of
analysis is most useful for is developing "leads"; it provides a sort of
roadmap for promising relationships that deserve greater study.
Anyway, that's why you rarely hear "Amerind" anymore.
On 11/14/05, tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > I've always found it rather infuriating that English use "Indian"
> > both of the Subcontinent and of the peoples of the Americas. Most
> > other European languages use different derivatives of "India", eg
> > German _Inder_ "(subcontinental) Indians", _Indianer_ "(American)
> > Indians".
> >
> > One of the English words should be changed to "Indish" or something.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
>
> For some time the accepted academic designation was "Amerind". You
> can see this in linguists' articles from that time.
>
> Nowadays our own autonym, and therefore politically correct ethnonym,
> is "Native American". In my view this is insufficiently
> specific; "Native American" means "born in America", and so would
> include anyone who is not himself or herself an immigrant. To
> me, "Indigenous American", "Aboriginal American" or "American
> Aborigine", or "Autochthonous American" would be better -- though I
> don't really see what was so bad with "Amerind".
>
> (The views just expressed are my own, and not necessarily shared by
> even a single other Cherokee.)
>
> Tom H.C. in MI
>
--
Patrick Littell
University of Pittsburgh
Fall 05 Office Hours: Friday, 1:00-2:00 by appointment
G17, Cathedral of Learning
CCBC
Voice Mail: ext 744
Fall 05 Office Hours: W 5:00-6:00, by appointment
Building 9, room 102
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:16:02 -0500
From: # 1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: McD - I'm lovin' it (again)
Carsten Becker wrote:
>Hey all,
>
>We've had something about McD's slogan some time ago, but
>I've got another question not related to the original one:
>
>As you probably know, McDonalds has their current (?) slogan
>"I'm lovin' it" on their beakers and paper bags. Apart from
>the meaning and the ability to read it there is English (I'm
>lovin' it), French (C'est tout ce que j'aime), German (Ich
>liebe es), Arabian (???), Chinese (???), Turkish (Is,te bunu
>serviyorum) -- and one that I cannot identify. It reads
>"Love ko 'to". Which language is this? What do the Arabian
>and Chinese bits say transcribed into Latin?
>
>Thanks,
>Carsten
>
I've searched Wikipedia and found
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_lovin%27_it
It first explained why the French slogan "C'est tout ce que j'aime" is
different from the one I am used to, "C'est ça que j'm", which seems to be
used only in Quebec.
>From this article, it seems that "Love ko 'to" is in Tagalog.
You may see the translations in Arabic and Chinese on the Wikipedia page
with the Portuguese, Spanish and Russian ones.
- Max
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 09:25:47 +0000
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Amerinds (was: Gallopavo (was: Re: fruitbats))
Staving Tom Chappell:
>For some time the accepted academic designation was "Amerind". You
>can see this in linguists' articles from that time.
>
>Nowadays our own autonym, and therefore politically correct ethnonym,
>is "Native American". In my view this is insufficiently
>specific; "Native American" means "born in America", and so would
>include anyone who is not himself or herself an immigrant. To
>me, "Indigenous American", "Aboriginal American" or "American
>Aborigine", or "Autochthonous American" would be better -- though I
>don't really see what was so bad with "Amerind".
>
>(The views just expressed are my own, and not necessarily shared by
>even a single other Cherokee.)
>
I have heard that some "Native Americans" prefer to self-designate as "Red"
- for example, there is a lobbying group called WARN, which stands for
"Women of All Red Nations".
I don't know if this proves anything, other than that self-designation is a
matter of personal taste.
Pete (who self-designates as "English").
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:44:18 +0000
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: McD - I'm lovin' it (again)
I recognise the bits after love as Tagalog, but what puzzles me is..
isn't there a native word for love in the language? Surely there must
be... I'm going to go check my Tagalog dictionary now.
>
>> From this article, it seems that "Love ko 'to" is in Tagalog.
>
>
> You may see the translations in Arabic and Chinese on the Wikipedia
> page with the Portuguese, Spanish and Russian ones.
>
>
> - Max
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
