------------------------ 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 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: The Glyphica Arcana
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: The Glyphica Arcana
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: The Glyphica Arcana
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: The Glyphica Arcana
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: PIE past time (was: isolating is equivalent to inflected)
From: Rob Haden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: The Glyphica Arcana
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: The Glyphica Arcana
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: The Glyphica Arcana
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: The Glyphica Arcana
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Sidaan Verbal System
From: "David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Thomas Hart Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: The Glyphica Arcana
From: Thomas Hart Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: "David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: The Glyphica Arcana
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: The Glyphica Arcana: Distinction
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: "David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:06:29 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Glyphica Arcana
Hi!
Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My current conlang project is The Glyphica Arcana
> (http://www.meanspc.com/~jeff_wilson63/myths/BabelTarot.html). This is
> a completely written (no verbal form) ideographic language intended
> for decorations, ceremonial and magical inscriptions, and the like.
Looks wild! :-)
It says:
> (This translation was written as a magical formula and adds
> decorative blocks in each corner. The fourfold symmetry of the poem
> is matched by a fourfold symmetry in the glyphs. Notice how "them"
> is completely cut off by the surrounding glyphs while the verbs are
> free to attach elsewhere. Also note the two different meanings for
> "ring.")
It would be nice to give a hint where 'them' and the verbs are encoded.
I'm totally lost. :-/
> ... Since the language marks whether an element is subject, direct
> object, or indirect object, I've dispensed with
> active/passive/etc. voice. Any opinions on this?
No problem.
But note that German also marks arguments but still has voices and
many other langs alike. Voices are used to select what argument
becomes the subject. Anyway, many langs whether nat- or con- lack
voices.
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:14:30 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
Hi!
Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> Regardless of a person's L1 they _should_ be able to
> start at lesson one and learn enough Elomi to pass the
> test on page 7 of the site.
>
> If anyone is willing to try, I'd love to hear feedback
> about any problems people encounter, or words that are
> not understood from the illustrations, etc.
>
> lessons start at http://fiziwig.com/pix/imupix01.html
> Page 7 is the quiz. (Fear not: answers are provided
> for each question.)
>...
Very nice, very funny! :-)
But note that you use implicit cultural background information for
teaching by showing stereotypical western closing! :-P
Further, I cannot interpret the pictures well. E.g. what does the
circle on the floor suggest?
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:24:31 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Glyphica Arcana
On 12/14/05, Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My current conlang project is The Glyphica Arcana
> (http://www.meanspc.com/~jeff_wilson63/myths/BabelTarot.html).
> This is a completely written (no verbal form) ideographic
> language ....
Neat. Have you looked at other ideographic
conlangs, such as Harpelan and Pinuyo?
http://www.ewoudnet.nl/ruittenb/pinuyo/
http://www.geocities.com/noktakanto/index.html
> out how to distinguish elements in phrases from elements in the
> main sentence. Since the language marks whether an element is
> subject, direct object, or indirect object, I've dispensed with
> active/passive/etc. voice. Any opinions on this?
OK, so if subject always corresponds to agent
and direct object always corresponds to patient
and indirect object always corresponds to recipient,
you don't need voice. But how do you mark non-agent
experiencers and topics? As subject or direct object,
or with another case?
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/gzb/gzb.htm
...Mind the gmail Reply-to: field
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:20:30 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
--- Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >...
> > Regardless of a person's L1 they _should_ be able
> to
> > start at lesson one and learn enough Elomi to pass
> the
> > test on page 7 of the site.
<snip>
>
> Very nice, very funny! :-)
>
Thank you. The pictures originated with Dr. I.A.
Richard's book "English Through Pictures", and were
adapted for "German Through Pictures" (Washington
Square Press 1960) which is where I am scanning them
from.
> But note that you use implicit cultural background
> information for
> teaching by showing stereotypical western closing!
> :-P
That's true. But even so, I think there are few people
in the world who would fail to recognize a
western-style hat as being a hat. The stylized dress
to indicate "woman" could be a problem, however. But a
more "anatomically correct" woman could be offensive
in some cultures too.
> Further, I cannot interpret the pictures well. E.g.
> what does the
> circle on the floor suggest?
The near circle with the speaking figures is
contrasted with the far circle to suggest "here" and
"there". It's hard for me to judge since I'm familiar
with both of the languages that I've seen the pictures
used with (English and German)
> **Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:12:58 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Glyphica Arcana
Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>My current conlang project is The Glyphica Arcana
>>(http://www.meanspc.com/~jeff_wilson63/myths/BabelTarot.html). This is
>>a completely written (no verbal form) ideographic language intended
>>for decorations, ceremonial and magical inscriptions, and the like.
>
> Looks wild! :-)
>
> It says:
>
>>(This translation was written as a magical formula and adds
>>decorative blocks in each corner. The fourfold symmetry of the poem
>>is matched by a fourfold symmetry in the glyphs. Notice how "them"
>>is completely cut off by the surrounding glyphs while the verbs are
>>free to attach elsewhere. Also note the two different meanings for
>>"ring.")
>
> It would be nice to give a hint where 'them' and the verbs are encoded.
> I'm totally lost. :-/
There is an imagemap which links the individual symbols to the
vocabulary page. Hovering over a component glyph with your mouse
should also pop up a tooltip label. The tooltip may not work in
all browsers, but the vocabulary links should work in any visual
browser.
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:42:07 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Glyphica Arcana
Jim Henry wrote:
> On 12/14/05, Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>My current conlang project is The Glyphica Arcana
>>(http://www.meanspc.com/~jeff_wilson63/myths/BabelTarot.html).
>>This is a completely written (no verbal form) ideographic
>>language ....
>
> Neat. Have you looked at other ideographic
> conlangs, such as Harpelan and Pinuyo?
>
> http://www.ewoudnet.nl/ruittenb/pinuyo/
> http://www.geocities.com/noktakanto/index.html
No I hadn't. Right now the Glyphica Arcana seems to be more
developed than either of these, or the other written languages
they link to. It's also (IMO) more attractive, though _much_
more difficult to master for English speakers.
>>out how to distinguish elements in phrases from elements in the
>>main sentence. Since the language marks whether an element is
>>subject, direct object, or indirect object, I've dispensed with
>>active/passive/etc. voice. Any opinions on this?
>
> OK, so if subject always corresponds to agent
> and direct object always corresponds to patient
> and indirect object always corresponds to recipient,
> you don't need voice. But how do you mark non-agent
> experiencers and topics? As subject or direct object,
> or with another case?
Could you provide me with an example?
One thing the Glyphica Arcana does is provide a wide variety of
moods: Indicative, Contrary, Imperative, Interrogative,
Conditional, Possible, and I'd be willing to add others. The
different moods can often be used to emulate the purposes for
which English uses voice.
While we're on the subject of verb modifiers, the Glyphica Arcana
only distinguishes three verb forms: Perfective, Progressive,
and Directive. Are there any similar forms people have played
around with?
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:45:16 -0500
From: Rob Haden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PIE past time (was: isolating is equivalent to inflected)
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:10:24 +0000, R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> It is also (generally, at least) passive. That is, _lauda:tus_
>> meant 'having been praised', not 'having praised'.
>
>Yes, I know - but the question was about _tense_, which often gets mixed
>up with aspect, so I didn't see much point in mentioning voice. But,
>generally, they were passive, it is true; tho there are some notable
>active forms such as 'cenatus' = "having dined, having had supper".
>Also, of course, the perfect participles of deponent verbs were always
>active in meaning.
>
>But the point I was making is that the participle denotes perfect
>aspect, not past time.
Yes, you're right. Thanks for the correction. :)
>> Current speculation has the Latin imperfect and future tenses arising
>> from forms of the IE verb *bheux- 'be(come)' (here I use <x> for 'h2').
>> Corroborating evidence for this hypothesis comes from related Italic
>> languages, such as the closely related Faliscan: cf. Faliscan _carefo_ 'I
>> will be without' vs. Latin _care:bo:_ (here Faliscan has */bh/ > /f/ in
>> medial position, while Latin does not).
>
>Correct - tho this only applies to the futures of the 1st & 2nd
>conjugations, and to the alternative 'non-standard' 4th conj, forms such
>as _audibo_ "I shall hear". The futures of the 3rd conj. and the
>standard 4th conj. forms seems to have been derived from earlier
>subjunctive forms.
Right, although there's the question of why the 1sg ending has a different
vowel from the others (e.g. _tegam_ 'I will cover' vs. _teges_ 'you will
cover'). Do you have any thoughts about this?
>However, yes, all imperfect indicatives are though to have originated
>from the IE verb *bheux- with the sole exceptions of 'eram' "I was" and
>'poteram' "I could".
Something else interesting -- why are _eram_ etc. past forms?
[snip]
>> What's interesting about the IE verb system is that it must have been a
>> system in flux. Namely, at the time of "breakup" (i.e. earliest
>> dialectal divergence to interfere with intelligibility), IE's verb
>> system was shifting from a primarily aspect-based scheme to a tense-
>> based one.
>
>I am sure you right. Indeed PIE must always have been in a state of flux
>as there was no authority for standardizing language at the time. The
>idea, which sometimes seems to be given, that at some time in the past
>there was a standard, monolithic PIE is surely incorrect.
>
>The rest snipped - but read with great interest. Thanks, Rob, for the
>info. I found it very informative.
You're very welcome. :)
I have a hypothesis about IE, namely that it (or its immediate ancestor)
was originally an active language, specifically fluid-S. There were two
sets of endings for verbs, one for "active" (or transitive) and another
for "stative" (or intransitive). Although I'm not sure exactly what
categories the two sets distinguished, the first set gave rise to the
eventive verbs in the active voice, and the second set gave rise to the
stative verbs and the middle voice of eventives. Furthermore, I'll venture
to guess that the first set consisted of subject pronouns, while the second
set consisted of oblique pronouns.
- Rob
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:22:51 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Glyphica Arcana
Hi!
Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> There is an imagemap which links the individual symbols to the
> vocabulary page. Hovering over a component glyph with your mouse
> should also pop up a tooltip label. The tooltip may not work in all
> browsers, but the vocabulary links should work in any visual browser.
Ah, that helps!
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:52:46 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Glyphica Arcana
On 12/15/05, Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Henry wrote:
> > On 12/14/05, Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>main sentence. Since the language marks whether an element is
> >>subject, direct object, or indirect object, I've dispensed with
> >>active/passive/etc. voice. Any opinions on this?
> > OK, so if subject always corresponds to agent
> > and direct object always corresponds to patient
> > and indirect object always corresponds to recipient,
> > you don't need voice. But how do you mark non-agent
> > experiencers and topics? As subject or direct object,
> > or with another case?
> Could you provide me with an example?
Cecil eats noodles.
Cecil = agent,
noodles = patient
Cecil sleeps.
Cecil = experiencer
Ithkuil, gjâ-zym-byn and some other languages
mark all those roles (and several others)
distinctly.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:59:08 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Glyphica Arcana
Jim Henry wrote:
> On 12/15/05, Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Jim Henry wrote:
>>
>>>OK, so if subject always corresponds to agent
>>>and direct object always corresponds to patient
>>>and indirect object always corresponds to recipient,
>>>you don't need voice. But how do you mark non-agent
>>>experiencers and topics? As subject or direct object,
>>>or with another case?
>
>>Could you provide me with an example?
>
> Cecil eats noodles.
> Cecil = agent,
> noodles = patient
>
> Cecil sleeps.
> Cecil = experiencer
If the intent of the sentence is to show that Cecil is
experiencing sleep, then the name "Cecil" would be marked as an
indirect object with "sleep" as a verb. (At one point I called
this 'indirect voice.' That is, a verb and indirect object making
a complete sentence.) However, if the intent of the sentence is
to show that Cecil is performing the activity of sleep, "Cecil"
would be marked as subject. "Cecil" might also be marked as a
direct object, indicating that "sleep" is being imposed.
("Taking the medication, Cecil sleeps.")
So the indirect object can mark either recipient or experiencer.
Other non-agent topics would require further examples.
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:00:16 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Glyphica Arcana
On 12/15/05, Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Henry wrote:
> > On 12/15/05, Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Jim Henry wrote:
> > Cecil eats noodles.
> > Cecil = agent,
> > noodles = patient
> >
> > Cecil sleeps.
> > Cecil = experiencer
>
> If the intent of the sentence is to show that Cecil is
> experiencing sleep, then the name "Cecil" would be marked as an
> indirect object with "sleep" as a verb. (At one point I called
_Indirect_ object! Interesting. A number of languages
use the same case for at least some objects
of transitive verbs and subjects of intransitive verbs,
but I don't know if there are any natlangs that
use the indirect object case for subjects
of intransitive verbs. Neat.
> this 'indirect voice.' That is, a verb and indirect object making
> a complete sentence.) However, if the intent of the sentence is
> to show that Cecil is performing the activity of sleep, "Cecil"
> would be marked as subject. "Cecil" might also be marked as a
> direct object, indicating that "sleep" is being imposed.
> ("Taking the medication, Cecil sleeps.")
So the "subject" is always some entity taking
deliberate action? Maybe it should be called
the "agent" case instead.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/gzb/gzb.htm
...Mind the gmail Reply-to: field
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:50:55 -0800
From: "David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Sidaan Verbal System
It's been awhile since I actually posted any actual data on anything,
so I thought I'd post on this verbal system I've been toying with.
Sidaan a new revamp of an old language that didn't go anywhere
that's changed quite a bit. Before going into the verbal system, a
quick word on the phonology.
In Sidaan, there's a bilabial, alveolar, palatal, velar and uvular
series, each featuring a [+/-voice] stop and fricative, plus a nasal.
The voiced segments from medial V_V singletons, and the entire
palatal series comes from palatalization. The vowels are as follows:
High: i, 1, u
Mid: e, E, o
Low: a
The vowels [i] and [e] cause a previous alveolar or velar consonant
to palatalize. Thus, you get a merger:
*tela > cela
*kela > cela
I wanted to have a uvular series, and what makes it distinct is that
palatal vowels lower after uvulars:
*qela > qEla
This way engma and the uvular nasal remain reasonably distinct,
though they can contrast before vowels other than palatals.
Okay, now for the verbs. I've always found the idea of dependent
marking rather fascinating. So instead of marking case, Sidaan
arguments agree with the other present arguments. Each non-direct
object is marked with /-s/ if a direct object is present, and each
non-indirect object is marked with /-t/ if an indirect object is
present. Here are some examples:
(1)
(a) tox cLeho.
/I cry-PERF./
"I cried."
(b) lEmba cLeho.
/girl cry-PERF./
"The girl cried."
(c) toxs maza loN\quno.
/I-DO apple eat-PERF./
"I ate the apple."
(d) lEmbas maza loN\quno.
/girl-DO apple eat-PERF./
"The girl ate the apple."
(e) lEmba loN\quno.
/girl eat-PERF./
"The girl ate."
(f) toxCit mazat lEmbas paJevo.
/I-DO-IO apple-IO girl-DO give-PERF./
"I gave the girl an apple."
(g) toxs maza paJevo.
/I-DO apple give-PERF./
"I gave an apple (to someone)."
(h) toxt lEmba paJevo.
/I-IO girl give-PERF./
'I gave to the girl (something)."
There's also a passive and an applicative marker, which will come
into play later.
So this is the system as it was in the past. The word order was
strict SOV, and the marking worked as shown. However, there
was a different type of construction that arose after awhile through
the use of the genitive. The genitive has three forms:
(2)
(a) N + N = NG
maza klEmba /apple GEN.-girl/ "the girl's apple".
(b) Pro + N = GN
stox maza /my apple/ "my apple"
(c) N + N/Pro = NG
mazat (tox) /apple-1sg. (I)/ "my apple"
mazas lEmba /apple-3sg. girl/ "the girl's apple"
The difference between (2a) and (2c) is that (2c) is always used for
inalienable possession. The same is true for pronoun + N with
(2b) and (2c).
The new construction that arose was a use of a verbal noun in
conjunction with topicalization. So any could be dragged to the
front of the sentence in order to topicalize it. Verbs could be
nominalized by adding /san-/ to the front without adding a
tense marker. Arguments were then added in two ways: (1)
the subject was added using strategy (2c), and all other arguments
were added using (2a). (Because the verbs are now nouns, they
no longer take real arguments, and so there's no longer any
dependent agreement.) Here's an example:
(3) sanloN\qut (tox) cimaza ano.
/NOM.-eat-1sg. (I) GEN.-apple COP.-PERF./
"My eating of the apple (existed)."
And you could even do so with ditransitives, the order being
V S DO IO:
(4) sampaJeft (tox) cimaza klEmba ano.
/NOM.-give-1sg. (I) GEN.-apple GEN.-girl COP.PERF./
"My giving of the apple to the girl (existed)."
Since this is a topicalizing construction, the passive, the applicative,
and the passive plus the applicative is used to make different
subjects: [Note: I haven't come up with phonological forms for
the passive or applicative yet, or a strategy for reintroducing an
agent so I'll just make some up for these examples.]
(5) Passive
sampaJefLis (maza) klEmba (pa tox) ano.
/NOM.-give-PASS.-3sg. (apple) GEN.-girl (OBL. I) COP.PERF./
"The apple's giving to the girl (by me) existed."
(6) Applicative
sanloN\quxt (tox) klEmba cimaza ano.
/NOM.-eat-APP.-1sg. (I) GEN.-girl GEN.-apple COP.-PERF./
"My eating for the girl of the apple (existed)."
(7) Applicative Passive
sanloN\quxLis (lEmba) cimaza (pa tox) ano.
/NOM.-eat-APP.-PASS.-3sg. (girl) GEN.-apple (OBL. I) COP.-PERF./
"The girl's eating-for of the apple (by me) (existed)."
(7)'s kind of tough to find a translation for, but I guess that'd do it.
Anyway, so over time, this became reanalyzed as the actual verbal
system (with some reflexes of the old system still present).
Now here's what I want to do.
In the new system, you have the structure V-S-DO-IO-T. That last
tense element is a copula, but in theory, it could be any other verb.
Why not? So I want to make that role functional. So, for example,
that slot could easily be made into a verb like "to be good", or "to be
bad", etc. (The girl's eating of the apple was good.) But also, what
you have there is a verb that's taking one argument: a subject,
occupied by the entire CP (the girl's eating of the apple). Why not
make it a transitive verb? Why not "The girl's eating of the apple
shocked me"? That'd look (schematically) like this:
(8) eat girl apple me shock
Now the verb (or CP) would be marked as agreeing with the direct
object of the matrix clause (me). Or let's pretend the expression
"gave me chills" translated word-for-word:
(9) eat girl apple chills me gave
Now the CP agrees with the object *and* direct object, "the chills"
agrees with the direct object, and "me" agrees with the indirect
object.
Then, these could be passivized:
(10) chills me (by eat girl apple) gave-PASS.
Or maybe even topicalized:
(11) give (eat girl apple) chills me existed
So, assuming I could actually construct a sentence like that in
Sidaan, is that processable (or -ible)? Is this system supportable?
Oh, and one more question: In pro-drop languages with an overt
passive marker, can you drop the subject of a passive verb? I
always assumed the answer was "yes", but then you could have a
verb with no overt arguments (assuming the demoted object
could also be dropped).
Oh, and if you read this far, thanks for reading. :)
-David
*******************************************************************
"A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
-Jim Morrison
http://dedalvs.free.fr/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:05:11 -0500
From: Thomas Hart Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:00:28 -0800, Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>OK, if anyone is game to give this a try, I've
>completed the first round of lessons and the first
>review quiz for a pictures-only learning site for the
>conlang Elomi.
>
>Regardless of a person's L1 they _should_ be able to
>start at lesson one and learn enough Elomi to pass the
>test on page 7 of the site.
>
>If anyone is willing to try, I'd love to hear feedback
>about any problems people encounter, or words that are
>not understood from the illustrations, etc.
>
>lessons start at http://fiziwig.com/pix/imupix01.html
>Page 7 is the quiz. (Fear not: answers are provided
>for each question.)
I had an easy time of lessons 1-3; then, about halfway through Lesson 4, I
started having trouble. My performance on lessons 5 and 6 was mixed, as
well.
I couldn't figure out what the adverbs/adpositions/particles meant.
I didn't figure at "awa" and "inye" until I started the quiz and checked my
first "inye" answer.
At quiz-time, I couldn't remember most of the vocabulary words. Sometimes
I would forget the whole thing; sometimes I would remember the whole thing;
but as often as not, I would remember most of or all of the consonants, and
forget most of or all of the vowels.
The lesson, as a whole, looks very good.
---
Tom H.C. in MI
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:45:11 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
--- Thomas Hart Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:00:28 -0800, Gary Shannon
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
<snip>
> At quiz-time, I couldn't remember most of the
> vocabulary words. Sometimes
> I would forget the whole thing; sometimes I would
> remember the whole thing;
> but as often as not, I would remember most of or all
> of the consonants, and
> forget most of or all of the vowels.
>
> The lesson, as a whole, looks very good.
Thanks for the feedback. It's interesting about the
consonants. Personally, I've always believed that the
identity of vowels is very nearly irrelevant. m-st
w-rds c-n b- r-c-gn-z-d w-th--t th-m, so I think we
don't pay that much attention to them as a rule. That
makes "vowely" language really tough to learn. That's
true for me anyway.
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:53:43 -0500
From: Thomas Hart Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Glyphica Arcana
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:00:16 -0500, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 12/15/05, Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jim Henry wrote:
>>> On 12/15/05, Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Jim Henry wrote:
>
>>> Cecil eats noodles.
>>> Cecil = agent,
>>> noodles = patient
>>>
>>> Cecil sleeps.
>>> Cecil = experiencer
I don't think Jim's is what's usually considered the best example of what's
usually considered the Experiencer vs. the Agent; although it turned out to
be worth talking about.
So, I think I should stick this in for Jefferson, just in case;
Experiencer/Stimulus bivalent verbs are often treated differently from
Agent/Patient bivalent verbs. The difference may be marked by Case, by
Voice or by both.
According to Blake's "Case", there are four sets of
roles, of which each set usually gets handled by the same case in each
particular language, but different languages may handle differently,
although many of them handle them all the same as Agents.
They are:
Agent in Agent/Patient
Perceiver in Perceiver/Stimulus (Sense verbs; see, hear, smell)
Experiencer in Experiencer/Target (Emotion verbs; love, fear)
and I forget the fourth one; it may be Exister or Sitter or Stander or
something -- but don't rely on that guess.
I'm about to time out, or I'd look up the messages about these roles, and
the conlangs that handle them, for this messsage.
>> If the intent of the sentence is to show that Cecil is
>> experiencing sleep, then the name "Cecil" would be marked as an
>> indirect object with "sleep" as a verb. (At one point I called
>
>_Indirect_ object! Interesting. A number of languages
>use the same case for at least some objects
>of transitive verbs and subjects of intransitive verbs,
>but I don't know if there are any natlangs that
>use the indirect object case for subjects
>of intransitive verbs. Neat.
Yes. Take a look at Message 134110
(From: tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:48 pm
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Tarsyanian verbs
)
It contains the following paragraph:
"
If an Active/Stative or Split-S or Fluid-S language, in which the
nominals of intransitive verbs are case-marked as A or P differently
depending on whether the verb is considered Active or Stative, is
also a Basic Voice language, this makes Klaiman's points easier to
make. He points this out with several Native American languages.
One of them, a Muskogean language called Alabaman, actually has a
three-way split in intransitive monovalent clauses; the nominal can
be ergative, or accusative, or dative. At least one verb, whose
gloss is "to be high up", can take its argument in all three cases.
"It-ERG is-high-up" means roughly "Wow! Look at that thing shoot up
there!"; "It-ACC is-high-up" means roughly "Gosh, is that thing
sitting at the top of that tree, or what?" while "It-DAT is-high-up"
means roughly "Well, /I/ sure can't reach it; can /you/?"
"
I was very interested in this because of wondering why a language with
Split-S (split-intransitive) alignment of monotransitive-to-intransitive,
and "Split-O" alignment of ditransitive-to-monotransitive, wouldn't allow
the dative or dechticaetieative case in intransitive sentences; it turns
out some of them do.
> this 'indirect voice.' That is, a verb and indirect object making
>> a complete sentence.) However, if the intent of the sentence is
>> to show that Cecil is performing the activity of sleep, "Cecil"
>> would be marked as subject. "Cecil" might also be marked as a
>> direct object, indicating that "sleep" is being imposed.
>> ("Taking the medication, Cecil sleeps.")
>
>So the "subject" is always some entity taking
>deliberate action? Maybe it should be called
>the "agent" case instead.
I think Jim is right about this, Jeff.
Look through our recent archives for discussions about "semantic
roles", "thematic roles", and "grammatical relations".
Tom H.C. in MI
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:55:54 -0800
From: "David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
Gary wrote:
<<
It's interesting about the
consonants. Personally, I've always believed that the
identity of vowels is very nearly irrelevant. m-st
w-rds c-n b- r-c-gn-z-d w-th--t th-m, so I think we
don't pay that much attention to them as a rule.
>>
If "we" means "English speakers", I think that's right. This would
be tough for other languages--even non-vowely ones:
Spanish (not using silent characters)
-bl- = ?
c-nt- = what tense/person?
--r-t- -scr-b- -n -sp-ñ-l.
P-rqu- n- m- -nt--nd-? = present or preterite?
Then again, there are no reduced vowels in Spanish. Perhaps the
correlation is between languages with reduced vowels. Oh, and
another question: Is there a language with tone that has reduced
vowels?
-David
*******************************************************************
"A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
-Jim Morrison
http://dedalvs.free.fr/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:56:46 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Glyphica Arcana
Jim Henry wrote:
> On 12/15/05, Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>If the intent of the sentence is to show that Cecil is
>>experiencing sleep, then the name "Cecil" would be marked as an
>>indirect object with "sleep" as a verb. (At one point I called
>
> _Indirect_ object! Interesting. A number of languages
> use the same case for at least some objects
> of transitive verbs and subjects of intransitive verbs,
> but I don't know if there are any natlangs that
> use the indirect object case for subjects
> of intransitive verbs. Neat.
>
>>this 'indirect voice.' That is, a verb and indirect object making
>>a complete sentence.) However, if the intent of the sentence is
>>to show that Cecil is performing the activity of sleep, "Cecil"
>>would be marked as subject. "Cecil" might also be marked as a
>>direct object, indicating that "sleep" is being imposed.
>>("Taking the medication, Cecil sleeps.")
>
> So the "subject" is always some entity taking
> deliberate action?
Hmmm, no. In "net catches fish" "net" is still the subject.
> Maybe it should be called
> the "agent" case instead.
Well, strictly speaking, the GA doesn't have case. I use the
term 'distinction' for the markers for subject, verb, object,
descriptor, and subordinator. Secondary markers distinguish past
and future verbs, indirect and direct objects, and the like.
(See: http://www.meanspc.com/~jeff_wilson63/myths/ArcanaRef.html)
It might be appropriate to change it to "source" instead of
subject, but I don't know if that's clearer, and am reluctant to
change all my documentation at this point.
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/myths/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:48:54 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Glyphica Arcana: Distinction
Thomas Hart Chappell wrote:
> I don't think Jim's is what's usually considered the best example of what's
> usually considered the Experiencer vs. the Agent; although it turned out to
> be worth talking about.
>
> So, I think I should stick this in for Jefferson, just in case;
> Experiencer/Stimulus bivalent verbs are often treated differently from
> Agent/Patient bivalent verbs. The difference may be marked by Case, by
> Voice or by both.
> According to Blake's "Case", there are four sets of
> roles, of which each set usually gets handled by the same case in each
> particular language, but different languages may handle differently,
> although many of them handle them all the same as Agents.
> They are:
> Agent in Agent/Patient
> Perceiver in Perceiver/Stimulus (Sense verbs; see, hear, smell)
> Experiencer in Experiencer/Target (Emotion verbs; love, fear)
> and I forget the fourth one; it may be Exister or Sitter or Stander or
> something -- but don't rely on that guess.
Take the following two sentences:
"I look at the flower."
"I see the flower."
In the GA the glyphs for "look at" and "see" are identical in
these sentences (base meaning: relating to the perception of
light). However, in the first case "I" uses the subject
distinction, while in the second case "I" uses the indirect
object distinction. The verb could even be interpreted as "show"
with the second sentence being translated, "The world shows me
the flower."
I'm pretty sure the GA doesn't distinguish between emotion and
perception in the manner your third case seems to indicate,
though there would be connotations in using the subject
distinction that the entity is choosing to feel that way.
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/myths/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:07:03 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
--- "David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gary wrote:
> <<
> It's interesting about the
> consonants. Personally, I've always believed that
> the
> identity of vowels is very nearly irrelevant. m-st
> w-rds c-n b- r-c-gn-z-d w-th--t th-m, so I think we
> don't pay that much attention to them as a rule.
> >>
>
> If "we" means "English speakers", I think that's
> right.
Yes, my mistake. I did mean English speakers. English
seems much more consonant-oriented than many other
languages. I'm a very poor speller, and my errors are
always vowel errors. I'm nearly blind to vowels, it
seems.
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:37:22 -0800
From: "David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
Gary wrote:
<<
Yes, my mistake. I did mean English speakers. English
seems much more consonant-oriented than many other
languages. I'm a very poor speller, and my errors are
always vowel errors. I'm nearly blind to vowels, it
seems.
>>
I'm still interested, though, in languages like English: reduced
vowels, alphabetic spelling systems. I'm thinking Russian and
German. Any native speakers that cn rprdc sntncs lk ths nd
stll gt th mnng n thr lnggs?
-David
*******************************************************************
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
-Jim Morrison
http://dedalvs.free.fr/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:37:10 +0100
From: taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
* David J. Peterson said on 2005-12-16 07:37:22 +0100
> I'm still interested, though, in languages like English: reduced
> vowels, alphabetic spelling systems. I'm thinking Russian and
> German. Any native speakers that cn rprdc sntncs lk ths nd
> stll gt th mnng n thr lnggs?
Works in Norwegian: kn nn skjnn dtt?
Norwegian does have a form of tone that's visible on stressed words
only. 'skjnn' above, an infinitive, have toneme two, while 'skjnnr' is
either the present of 'skjnn' if in toneme one -or- it is a noun
'skjnnr' if in toneme two :)
It might help that the various dialects crunch and munge the vowels
every which way, or in case of final vowels, drop them completely.
t.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:44:28 +0200
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
David J. Peterson wrote:
> I'm still interested, though, in languages like English: reduced
> vowels, alphabetic spelling systems. I'm thinking Russian and
> German. Any native speakers that cn rprdc sntncs lk ths nd
> stll gt th mnng n thr lnggs?
Russian? More or less. On one hand, it has only 5 (some count 6) vowel
phonemes, like Spanish, but on the other hand, it has much more consonants
per word, so it hepls to distinguish them, at least by guessing. |V nchl
stvrl Bg nb y zml| is pretty obvious.
-- Yitzik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:00:25 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
Hi!
"David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> I'm still interested, though, in languages like English: reduced
> vowels, alphabetic spelling systems. I'm thinking Russian and
> German. Any native speakers that cn rprdc sntncs lk ths nd
> stll gt th mnng n thr lnggs?
No problem in English. German also works quite well, I think.
Ds hr st n Tststz. ch dnke, mn knn ds rltv mhls vrsthn, dr?
'Dies' = 'das', unfortunately, so you don't know. But since Modern
German uses 'das da' and 'das hier' instead, the above is parsable.
Endings are mostly consonants and -e- in German (reduces vowels),
so there's no big problem either, even though -e- is probably the
most frequent letter in German.
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:34:09 -0500
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
Early Konya (my previous effort) featured only one distinguishing
vowel per root; all vowels other than the first one were reduced, and
spelled simply as "a". (But it still had a CV syllable structure, so
no consonant cluster patterns to help with deciphering.)
Unfortunately, this phonotactic scheme gave the language a rather
'flat', unmusical sound.
--larry
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 07:37:24 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
--- Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>
> No problem in English. German also works quite
> well, I think.
>
> Ds hr st n Tststz. ch dnke, mn knn ds rltv mhls
> vrsthn, dr?
It might help to indicate the presence, if not the
identity, of an initial vowel: *ch wrd *hn shn.
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
