------------------------ 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 21 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Types of Possession
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Types of Possession
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: Types of Possession
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Types of Possession
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Types of Possession
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Types of Possession
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: Types of Possession
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: Types of Possession
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: The Glyphica Arcana: Distinction
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:13:28 -0500
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
On 12/16/05, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
---SNIP---
>
> Sounds quite like German, I think. Most inflectional endings only use
> _e_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] and most roots are only one syllable, so you get
> unreduced
> vowels in one word mostly from derivation and compounding and even
> many derivational affixes are reduced. However, there are two schmas
> in German, since [6] sometimes arises from /@r/. So you get phrases
> like:
>
> der sicherere Belagerer
> der sicher-er-e belager-er
> the.DEF.M.SG.NOM safe-SUP-WEAK.M.SG.NOM besiege-AGT
> [de:6 sIC6R6R@ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:g6R6]
>
> SUP - superlative
> WEAK - weak form (here due to preceding def. article)
> AGT - derivational ending for agent
Wow. I've got learn how to do that. And yes, I felt that it did have a
kind of German, 'falling off at the end' sound. A word like "kumalata"
(I'm just making that up) would come out as [EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and trail off
and down in tone.
>
> > Unfortunately, this phonotactic scheme gave the language a rather
> > 'flat', unmusical sound.
>
> Does German sound like this, too? I'm native, I don't hear that.
Err...well, um...yes, actually.
When spoken softly, German actually sounds quite pretty to my ear, but
a bit melancholy and not musical. Or rather, more like the music of
water and trees in the wind, as opposed to melodic.
---Larry
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 08:20:46 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
--- Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>
How about this for a self-segregating morphology with
a non-flat sound: (self-segregating at the word
boundry, but not at the root+root boundry withi8n a
word.)
First vowel determines the length of the word in
syllables. Remaining vowels can be anything.
If you hear "ki" then you know that's the complete
word because "i" is the vowel of a one-syllable word
like "ki", "mi", "xi", etc. ("xi" pronounced like
English "she")
If you hear "ka" then you know to expect a second
syllable, e.g.: "kanu", or "kapo" because "a" is the
initial vowel of a two syllable word: "hali", "baxo",
"daku", etc.
If you hear "ke" then expect two more syllables, (e.g.
"kedoxi", "kenatu"). or with other consonants:
"yenitu", "hezula", etc.
If you hear "ko" (or "go" or "mo"...) expect three
more syllables: "kotanemu", "gomaxusi", "mogadixu".
If you hear "ku" ("hu", "tu", "pu" ...) expect four
more syllables: "kunamaxito", hulapanuxi",
"guwanakoso", etc.
To cover very long words, when the first and second
syllable both have the same vowel expect the word to
be double the normal length:
"komotegulimaxusu", or "kakadaso".
Vowels are irrelevant to the identity of the word, so
when words are compounded the first vowel is changed
to match the new word length: "galo" + "haki" =
"golohaki"; "ki" + "kedaso" = "kokedaso", OR
"kakadaso".
With a few other rules about which vowels may follow
which consonants in which contexts it would not even
be necessary to write the vowels down at all. Thus
"mgdx" could only be "Mogadixu", or possibly
"magadixu". But such a subtle difference wouldn't be
important to the meaning of the word. While not
visually self-segregating when written without vowels,
it would still be audibly self-segregating.
With perhaps a few dozen "standard" vowel sequence
patterns, possibly choosen based on intial consonant,
the language could have a very melodic and varied
cadence. For example, suppose that two-syllable words
beginning in "k" use the pattern "au", four-syllable
words beginning with "d" always used the pattern
"oaiu" while four-syllable words beginning with "n"
always used the pattern "aaui". Thus "g dxtk kn ntpt"
could only possibly be "gi doxatiku kanu nataputi",
which is not at all flat and monotonous, yet remains
audibly self-segregating and completely determined
even without writing down the vowels.
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:39:11 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
On 12/16/05, Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about this for a self-segregating morphology with
> a non-flat sound: (self-segregating at the word
> boundry, but not at the root+root boundry withi8n a
> word.)
>
> First vowel determines the length of the word in
> syllables. Remaining vowels can be anything.
This is similar to Jeff Prothero's "Plan B"
and the projects discussed by Ray Brown
and Jörg Rhiemeier in the thread "brz, or Plan B revisited"
back in September -- except there, it was
the initial consonant that determines the
number of phonemes the listener is
to expect in the word.
.....
> To cover very long words, when the first and second
> syllable both have the same vowel expect the word to
> be double the normal length:
>
> "komotegulimaxusu", or "kakadaso".
Nice. I suspect this might be a little easier
for the human brain to parse in real-time
than the schemes Messrs Prothero,
Brown and Rhiemeier came up with, but
one would need to experiment to make
sure.
> Vowels are irrelevant to the identity of the word, so
> when words are compounded the first vowel is changed
> to match the new word length: "galo" + "haki" =
> "golohaki"; "ki" + "kedaso" = "kokedaso", OR
> "kakadaso".
Hm... So if you have a word "kanu" you
could not also have a word "kani"?
> With a few other rules about which vowels may follow
> which consonants in which contexts it would not even
> be necessary to write the vowels down at all. Thus
....
> With perhaps a few dozen "standard" vowel sequence
> patterns, possibly choosen based on intial consonant,
> the language could have a very melodic and varied
> cadence. For example, suppose that two-syllable words
> beginning in "k" use the pattern "au", four-syllable
> words beginning with "d" always used the pattern
> "oaiu" while four-syllable words beginning with "n"
> always used the pattern "aaui". Thus "g dxtk kn ntpt"
> could only possibly be "gi doxatiku kanu nataputi",
> which is not at all flat and monotonous, yet remains
> audibly self-segregating and completely determined
> even without writing down the vowels.
Alternatively, you might (allowing free choice of vowels
in morphemes after the first syllable) set a
_default_ vowel to follow each consonant, which
would save space while writing but still give you
a lot more potential morphemes at any
given length than your original scheme.
So a word like /nataputi/ following the default
vowel pattern could be written "ntpt" but you
are still free to have morphemes like /natapote/
written "ntpote", etc.
I'm not sure, but I suspect that self-segregation
at the morpheme level is more important than
self-segregation at the word level. Word boundaries
are clear from spacing in writing, and usually
clear from stress accent in speech (for the languages
I'm most familiar with); but morpheme boundaries
within compound words are more likely to be
tricky, at least for students of a language
if not for fluent speakers. I've had problems
due to uncertainty about morpheme boundaries
in learning Esperanto and Volapük and to
a lesser extent Greek, but rarely if ever with
word boundaries.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang.htm
...Mind the gmail Reply-to: field
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:55:00 -0500
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
Gary Shannon wrote:
> --- Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
Well, yes, but there's a difference between [not writing the vowels] and
[not writing the vowels but showing where they are]. :-))
I can't tell about Indonesian, since I'm not a native speaker. In some
cases, because of the basic CVCVC structure, if you could initially figure
out the context, identifying words might be easy. For ex., in a text about
knm, or -k-n-m- (ekonomi) you might have kmbng, prkmbngn, (per/kembang/an)
'develop/ment' or pmrnth pemerintah 'government'. OTOH kmbng could also be
kumbang 'bee' or kambing 'goat'.....
s-mp-t could be sempat 'opportunity', sempit 'narrow', sumpit 'blow-gun',
and maybe others
d could be dia 'he,she', dua 'two' or ada 'there is'. Pronouns aren't much
used, but -- would have to be ia 'he/she', otherwise there'd be nothing. bk
could be baik 'good' or buku 'book; joint' or bak 'tub'
And then again, some words are frequently abbreviated without their vowels:
jln jalan 'street', tdk tidak 'not', yth yang terhormat 'honored' (usual in
letter salutations)
Hawaiian might be a nightmare: h Oahu, lh aloha, klk Kalakaua; mk mauka
(toward inland) or makai (toward the sea) would produce total confusion--
they're used in giving directions, and even in the legal language of land
titles/deeds IIRC.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:23:40 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
--- Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> This is similar to Jeff Prothero's "Plan B"
> and the projects discussed by Ray Brown
> and Jörg Rhiemeier in the thread "brz, or Plan B
> revisited"
> back in September -- except there, it was
> the initial consonant that determines the
> number of phonemes the listener is
> to expect in the word.
I missed that. I was no-mail status in August and
September.
<snip>
> > Vowels are irrelevant to the identity of the word,
<snip>
> Hm... So if you have a word "kanu" you
> could not also have a word "kani"?
Given 20 consonants (using "C" for "CH" and "X" for
"SH", and discarding "Q") and vowels treated as
irrelevant, there are 8,000 3-consonant words and
160,000 4-consonant words. Longer than that and the
words number in the millions and billions. That should
be adequate so that if, for example, "kanu" were used
it would not be necessary (or even desirable) to have
a word as similar as "kani".
<snip>
> Alternatively, you might (allowing free choice of
> vowels
> in morphemes after the first syllable) set a
> _default_ vowel to follow each consonant, which
> would save space while writing but still give you
> a lot more potential morphemes at any
> given length than your original scheme.
That could be done, or some decoration placed above
the consonant to indicate a different vowel (as in
Devanagari, for example). But with so many possible
words to choose from that might only be necessary in
transcribing proper names or foreign words. Another
mark, perhaps under the consonant, might indicate
"-l", "-n", "-r", or "-s" suffixed to the vowel so
that PKT would be "pekato", but with a certain
decoration under the "K" might become "pekanto", or
with a different decoration, "pekalto", "pekarto", or
"pekasto".
That would provide for a huge increase in number of
possible words. The inventory of symbols would consist
of 20 consonant symbols, 4 vowel marks, any one of
which could optionally be placed above any consonant
and 4 modifier marks that could be placed below. That
would make for 25 written forms of each consonant,
generating 500 single syllables, 250,000 words of 2
syllables, 125 million words of 3 syllables, and
billions and billions of words 4 syllables long.
That's probably WAY overkill!
(That system could almost be a syllabry for English.
E.G. "BY" with appropriate modifier marks could be
pronounced "BilYon", a good approximation of the
English "billion". Or "HPX" with the right marks would
be "HaP'Xun", not a bad approximation of "option". )
<snip>
> I'm not sure, but I suspect that self-segregation
> at the morpheme level is more important than
> self-segregation at the word level.
That certainly applies to inflected and agglutinating
languages, but I had a "pure" isolating language in
mind when I dreamt this up. In that case each word is
learned as an unvarying unit which has only one form
and does not need to be parsed internally. While
knowing the derivation of a word from its roots might
be an interesting sidebar, it would not hinder
comprehension for a speaker of the language to be
completely unaware of a word's roots. How many
ordinary English speakers would think to parse
"excavate" into its Latin roots? They know the word,
but as a unique unit in its own right, not as the
compound it actually is.
In practise I suspect word boundries are seledom a
problem, and so the self-segregating feature of the
system is probably superfluous, but it's an
interesting theoretical consideration.
--gary
<snip>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:30:19 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
--- Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gary Shannon wrote:
>
> > --- Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> Well, yes, but there's a difference between [not
> writing the vowels] and
> [not writing the vowels but showing where they are].
> :-))
<snip>
Of course, but words with initial vowels are a unique
exception to the otherwise implied CV structure, so
need to be flagged in some way, or simply excluded
from the language. Thus either "ihn" becomes "N" with
some mark on or before the consonant, OR it mutates in
the spoken language to perhaps "ni", written "N" and
loses its initial vowel entirely.
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:02:34 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
Quoting Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Gary Shannon wrote:
>
> > --- Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> Well, yes, but there's a difference between [not writing the vowels] and
> [not writing the vowels but showing where they are]. :-))
Just say the asterisk indicates the initial glottal stop rather than the vowel
per se. :p
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:38:20 +0000
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
Andreas Johansson wrote at 2005-12-16 20:02:34 (+0100)
> Quoting Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Gary Shannon wrote:
> >
> > > --- Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > Well, yes, but there's a difference between [not writing the vowels] and
> > [not writing the vowels but showing where they are]. :-))
>
> Just say the asterisk indicates the initial glottal stop rather than the
> vowel
> per se. :p
Or simply as a null consonant. Like the independent "a" in Tibetan,
which functions as a base to which vowel diacritics can be applied,
like the other consonant letters.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:53:33 +0100
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
Tim May skrev:
> > Just say the asterisk indicates the initial glottal stop rather than the
> vowel
> > per se. :p
>
> Or simply as a null consonant. Like the independent "a" in Tibetan,
> which functions as a base to which vowel diacritics can be applied,
> like the other consonant letters.
Tibetan is a bad example, since it has two independent "a"s, one of
which indicated a glottal stop in Classical Tibetan, while the other
indicated smooth onset (absence of a glottal stop). In modern
Lhasa Tibetan they indicate glottal stop with the following vowel
in high or low tone respectively.
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
"Maybe" is a strange word. When mum or dad says it
it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
means "no"!
(Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:19:11 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Types of Possession
The Glyphica Arcana has no inflection for possession. Instead,
possession is shown through subordinate phrases ("of . . ."). My
current problem is defining the types of possession used by the
GA. (Though I haven't checked the archives yet, I will be doing
that soon.)
Now, "hand of mine," "house of mine," and "wife of mine" are all
going to be different possessives. What should I call them and
what other forms of possession should I define? The GA can also
define more specific forms of possession which fit inside the
lexical space of less specific forms, so the field for
definitions is currently wide open.
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/myths/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:46:53 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Types of Possession
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:19:11 -0500, Jefferson Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Glyphica Arcana has no inflection for possession. Instead,
> possession is shown through subordinate phrases ("of . . ."). My
> current problem is defining the types of possession used by the GA.
> (Though I haven't checked the archives yet, I will be doing that soon.)
>
> Now, "hand of mine," "house of mine," and "wife of mine" are all going
> to be different possessives. What should I call them and what other
> forms of possession should I define?
I'd go with the partitive, possessive and associative genetives,
respectively.
Question for the group: Where would you classify "the king of England"? It
flits between possessive and associative in my mind.
"Should" is a very broad term when it comes to the design of conlangs. You
should define as many as make you happy. I don't know of a book that deals
at great length with possession alone. You could check Payne[1] and
Comrie[2] for the best treatments I know of.
[1]Thomas E Payne, _Describing Morphosyntax_, Cambridge University Press
[2]Bernard Comrie, _Language Universals And Linguistic Typology_,
University of Chicago Press
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:05:39 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Types of Possession
Jefferson Wilson wrote:
> The Glyphica Arcana has no inflection for possession. Instead,
> possession is shown through subordinate phrases ("of . . ."). My
> current problem is defining the types of possession used by the GA.
> (Though I haven't checked the archives yet, I will be doing that soon.)
>
> Now, "hand of mine," "house of mine," and "wife of mine" are all going
> to be different possessives. What should I call them and what other
> forms of possession should I define? The GA can also define more
> specific forms of possession which fit inside the lexical space of less
> specific forms, so the field for definitions is currently wide open.
Well, I've just finished verse 7 of the Babel text (see
http://www.meanspc.com/~jeff_wilson63/myths/BabelTarot.html#Babel7)
and it turns out that the GA _does_ have a generic form of
possession. It turns out the indirect object can be used to
indicate possession so that "their speech" (for example) can be
rendered THEY (IndObj) SPEECH (DirObj). I don't know how common
this formation is, or if combining it with what I've said
previously about indirect objects may confuse certain cases. It
seems to work right now.
Most cases of possession will not work this way, so I do still
need info. on types of possession.
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/myths/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:11:54 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Types of Possession
On 12/16/05, Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, "hand of mine," "house of mine," and "wife of mine" are all
> going to be different possessives. What should I call them and
> what other forms of possession should I define? The GA can also
I think Tolkien had separate genitive and relative cases
in one of his languages -- the former for hand or house etc,
the latter for wife etc.
gjâ-zym-byn has a variety of postpositions corresponding
to the possessive or genitive, including:
sxâj-i - in the possession of (but not necessarily belonging to)
wunx-i - belonging to (but not necessarily in possession of)
sxu-i - of (property, quality) (his height)
im - part, faculty (my hand, her imagination)
daxm-rq - of, from, by (authorship, origin, source)
liqw-i - of (personal relationship)
Some of their fields overlap, e.g. there are many
situations where sxâj-i and wunx-i are equally
applicable; for parents and other ancestors
daxm-rq and liqw-i may both be suitable; for
intangible properties/faculties sxu-i and im are
equally fitting, etc.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/gzb/gzb.htm
...Mind the gmail Reply-to: field
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 01:31:20 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
Hi!
Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12/16/05, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ---SNIP---
> >
> > Sounds quite like German, I think. Most inflectional endings only use
> > _e_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] and most roots are only one syllable, so you get
> > unreduced
> > vowels in one word mostly from derivation and compounding and even
> > many derivational affixes are reduced. However, there are two schmas
FYI: a 'schma' is a typo on a Dvorak keyboard...
>...
> > [de:6 sIC6R6R@ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:g6R6]
>...
And its [EMAIL PROTECTED], sorry. (Mixed up orthography with CXS, obviously.)
>...
> Wow. I've got learn how to do that. And yes, I felt that it did have a
> kind of German, 'falling off at the end' sound. A word like "kumalata"
> (I'm just making that up) would come out as [EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL
> PROTECTED] and trail off
> and down in tone.
Indeed, sounds familiar. :-) Would be written 'kummelete', but does
not actually mean anything in German, even though by brain tries hard
to interpret the pattern... It comes up with 'kummelte' or
'gekummelte', but there's no verb 'kummeln' (but 'kungeln' [kUNl=n]
does exist) or whatever. But there's 'kungelte' [EMAIL PROTECTED]@] and
'vergammelte' [EMAIL PROTECTED]@] just to name two that are vaguely similar.
Funny! :-)
> > Does German sound like this, too? I'm native, I don't hear that.
>
> Err...well, um...yes, actually.
Haha! No problem. It's actually fun to read how German is perceived
by you, since, as I said, as a native I'm too much into it, so I
cannot judge the sound from the outside.
> When spoken softly, German actually sounds quite pretty to my ear, but
> a bit melancholy and not musical. Or rather, more like the music of
> water and trees in the wind, as opposed to melodic.
This is a very nice description, actually. :-)
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 01:44:56 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Types of Possession
Hi!
Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> Now, "hand of mine," "house of mine," and "wife of mine" are all going
> to be different possessives. What should I call them and what other
> forms of possession should I define? The GA can also define more
> specific forms of possession which fit inside the lexical space of
> less specific forms, so the field for definitions is currently wide
> open.
When doing Tyl Sjok, I gathered a few:
http://www.theiling.de/conlang/s2/node5.html#SECTION00520000000000000000
Maybe this helps. But note that for Tyl Sjok, I had a rather broad
view on what I call 'genitive'. At least it might be some input for
working out your system.
Qthyn|gai also has some more and distinguishes:
my book - the book I own - possessive
my book - the book I created/wrote - ablative/initiative
This 'initiative', however, is different to what it means under the
above link, where it's 'driver of the car'. Sorry for the mess of
naming...
Have you thought about alienable (my car) vs. inalienable (my leg)
possessives?
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:40:13 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Types of Possession
Henrik Theiling wrote:
> When doing Tyl Sjok, I gathered a few:
>
> http://www.theiling.de/conlang/s2/node5.html#SECTION00520000000000000000
Thanks, this will be very useful.
[snip]
> Have you thought about alienable (my car) vs. inalienable (my leg)
> possessives?
Only enough to realize that I consider the distinction confusing.
Take a heart transplant subject. Which heart is inalienable,
the one that used to be in his chest or the one that's there now?
Or a magical barrier that causes certain people to have no will
to cross it; is their will inalienable? Suppose a person's motor
home is extremely well armed and armored; is it inalienable?
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/myths/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:45:36 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Types of Possession
Paul Bennett wrote:
> "Should" is a very broad term when it comes to the design of conlangs.
> You should define as many as make you happy.
[shrug] I get better results from saying 'should' in statements
like this than the more grammatically correct 'shall.' (The sort
of statement that I usually send off list, but which is fully
on-topic for this one.)
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/myths/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 02:46:30 +0000
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
Benct Philip Jonsson wrote at 2005-12-16 21:53:33 (+0100)
> Tim May skrev:
>
> > > Just say the asterisk indicates the initial glottal stop
> > > rather than the vowel per se. :p
> >
> > Or simply as a null consonant. Like the independent "a" in
> > Tibetan, which functions as a base to which vowel diacritics can
> > be applied, like the other consonant letters.
>
> Tibetan is a bad example, since it has two independent "a"s, one of
> which indicated a glottal stop in Classical Tibetan, while the
> other indicated smooth onset (absence of a glottal stop). In
> modern Lhasa Tibetan they indicate glottal stop with the following
> vowel in high or low tone respectively.
>
I'm aware of the two "a"s, but I'm not sure they particularly make it
a bad example. At least in Classical Tibetan. A character indicating
smooth breathing which behaves like a consonant is exactly what
I'm talking about, and the fact that one of the other consonants is a
glottal stop doesn't change this.
Anyway, there are a number of things about the Tibetan writing system
which make it a less than ideal example, but I can't think of a better
one.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:38:50 +0100
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guinea pigs invited to try this
Tim May skrev:
> Benct Philip Jonsson wrote at 2005-12-16 21:53:33 (+0100)
> > Tim May skrev:
> >
> > > > Just say the asterisk indicates the initial glottal stop
> > > > rather than the vowel per se. :p
> > >
> > > Or simply as a null consonant. Like the independent "a" in
> > > Tibetan, which functions as a base to which vowel diacritics can
> > > be applied, like the other consonant letters.
> >
> > Tibetan is a bad example, since it has two independent "a"s, one of
> > which indicated a glottal stop in Classical Tibetan, while the
> > other indicated smooth onset (absence of a glottal stop). In
> > modern Lhasa Tibetan they indicate glottal stop with the following
> > vowel in high or low tone respectively.
> >
>
> I'm aware of the two "a"s, but I'm not sure they particularly make it
> a bad example. At least in Classical Tibetan. A character indicating
> smooth breathing which behaves like a consonant is exactly what
> I'm talking about, and the fact that one of the other consonants is a
> glottal stop doesn't change this.
>
> Anyway, there are a number of things about the Tibetan writing system
> which make it a less than ideal example, but I can't think of a better
> one.
I'll grant that. I'm afraid I was thinking too much in terms of the
traditional habit of using the /?a/ letter to name the vowels.
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
"Maybe" is a strange word. When mum or dad says it
it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
means "no"!
(Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:21:48 +0100
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Types of Possession
Hallo!
Jefferson Wilson wrote:
> Now, "hand of mine," "house of mine," and "wife of mine" are all
> going to be different possessives. What should I call them and
> what other forms of possession should I define?
Many languages distinguish between "alienable" and "inalienable"
possession. Alienable possessions are things than can be acquired
and given (or taken) away. Inalienable possessions cannot.
Typical examples of inalienable possession are body parts and
kinship terms.
Of your examples, "house of mine" is alienable possession, while
the other two are inalienable. (I know that a marriage can be
divorced, of course, but in most cultures, marriages are more or
less thought of as permanent.)
In languages which distinguish alienable and inalienable possession,
inalienable possession often uses a more "tight" construction than
alienable possession. In Old Albic (my conlang), for example,
alienable possession is expressed by means of the genitive case,
while inalienable possession is expressed either by means of the
locative case or (more commonly) by compounding.
Greetings,
Jörg.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:34:47 +0100
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Glyphica Arcana: Distinction
Hallo!
Jefferson Wilson wrote:
> [...]
>
> 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."
Interesting - it is basically the same as in my conlang Old Albic:
Teráma ma am lastal.
see-PRES-3SG:P-1SG:A 1SG:AGT 3SG:I:OBJ flower:OBJ
`I look at the flower.'
Teráma man am lastal.
see-PRES-3SG:P-1SG:A 1SG-DAT 3SG:I:OBJ flower:OBJ
`I see the flower.'
This works the same with all verbs of perception: subject in
agentive case indicates deliberate observation, subject in dative
indicates more-or-less cursory perception.
This mechanism is part of a more general system marking degrees
of volition by the case of the subject. A subject acting
volitionally is marked with the agentive case, one acting
accidentally is marked with the dative case, one made to act by
an external force is marked with the instrumental case and the
verb doesn't agree with it. The latter is the only degree of
volition possible with an inanimate subject (as in the sentence
`The stone smashed the window').
This degree-of-volition marking applies only to verbs denoting,
rather broadly, actions; stative verbs have subjects in the
objective case. (Old Albic is a fluid-S language.)
Greetings,
Jörg.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
