------------------------ 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: Sidaan Verbal System
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: Sidaan Verbal System
From: "David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: Sidaan Verbal System
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Sidaan Verbal System
From: Thomas Hart Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Origin of prepositions/postpositions
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: Origin of prepositions/postpositions
From: Nik Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
From: Chris Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Origin of prepositions/postpositions
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Transitivity marking on verbs.
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Transitivity marking on verbs.
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Transitivity marking on verbs.
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Types of Possession
From: John Quijada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
From: Patrick Littell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: Types of Possession
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
18. Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: Types of Possession
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
From: Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. OT: Happy Holidays
From: "David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: OT: Happy Holidays
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:11:02 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sidaan Verbal System
Hi!
"David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
And it took a while to read your post -- I was busy cooking the whole
week and particularly Thu-Sat (=yesterday). :-)
>...
>...{a lot of interesting stuff}...
>...
> 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."
You have a very interesting system here.
However, I had always understood 'dependent marking' differently,
namely that the dependents (here: arguments) are marked for agreement
instead of the head (here: verb). So case would be dependent marking
while a verb marking for transitivity would be head marking.
You system definitely is dependent marking in this sense, and seems to
use a 'reverse' agreement system similar to Classical Nahuatl (which
is head-marking). There was a thread on this list:
http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0503D&L=CONLANG&D=0&I=-3&P=2220
>...
> (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)?
Sure, I don't see why not.
>...
> Oh, and one more question: In pro-drop languages with an overt
> passive marker, can you drop the subject of a passive verb?
What exactly is allowed depends on the given language, of course, but
principally, yes, you can.
> 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).
Hmm, I see no problem. In Mandarin and Japanese (both pro-drop
langs), you often have sentences consisting of only the verb. I'm not
able of giving passive sentences, however, but maybe someone else can
give examples.
> Oh, and if you read this far, thanks for reading. :)
And thanks for sharing! I always love to read stuff like this. :-)
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:23:55 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
--- Patrick Littell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>
> So long as we have separate consonant and vowel
> "tiers", why not
> assign meaning to the various vowel melodies, to
> give us a "binyamin"
> root-and-pattern system?
<snip>
Those are some very fascinating ideas! I had never
hear of "binyamin" before so I had to look it up and
do some studying. Wow! There's a huge range of complex
possibilities there.
Assuming a non-inflected isolating language (so we
don't have to waste vowel melodies on inflections),
how about having 8,000 roots of 3 consonants each (20
unique consonants) and letting the vowel pattern
determine part of speech and shades of meanings. For
example, let the root "nlj" represent things having to
do with knowledge and learning. ('j' pronounced as in
"judge") Then we might have these non-inflected words:
nlj - knowledge
-- vowel changes only (including -n on the vowel) --
nalija n knowledge
nulajo adj known
nuliajo adj knowable
naleji v to know (as in knowing a fact)
analenji v to not know, to be ignorant of
niloja n aquaintenceship
niloji v to know (as being aquinted with a person)
anilonji v be unaquainted with, as to not know a
certain person
inalijo adj. knowledgeable
onolaju adv. knowledgeably
analinja n ignorance
analinjo adj unknown
analianjo adj unknowable
vowel melodies:
a/i/a = primary noun (knowledge)
u/a/o = primary adj (known)
u/ia/o = primary adj of ability (knowable)
a/e/i = primary verb (to know)
a~a/en/i = negative primary verb (to not know)
i/o/a = secondary noun (acquaintanceship)
i/o/i = secondary verb (to be acquainted with a
person)
a~i/on/i = negative secondary verb (to be unacquainted
with)
o~o/a/u = primary adverb (knowledgeably)
...
a~a/ian/o = negative primary adjective of ability
(unknowable)
...etc...
-- compounds --
finaliji v to aquire knowledge
genaliji v to teach (hard "g")
kanalija n lesson, chapter, unit of knowledge
nalijuma n scholar, knowledgeable person
nalijubo adj knowledgeable
nalijuli adv knowledgeably
finalijuma n pupil, student, learning person
genalijuma n teacher, teaching person
analinjuma n ignoramus, dunce, ignorant person
geniloji v to introduce (as one person to another)
kianaleji v to discover, invent, create knowledge
nilojama n an acquaintence, a person you know
etc.
A few affixes:
~bu adjective ending
~li adverb ending
~ma person who does or has a thing
~ia~ possible, able to be done
a~(~n~) non-, lacking
fi~ to aquire, take, search for
ge~ to give, impart, donate
ka~ unit or quantum of
kia~ to cause, to create, to originate
And I'm sure that only scratches the surface of
derivational possibilities from one root: "nlj".
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:35:17 -0500
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
Y'all are inventing Arabic, right? :-)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:11:14 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
--- Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Y'all are inventing Arabic, right? :-)
>
hehe. I guess so , if you say so. But I really don't
know anything about Arabic. :-) Nothing new under the
sun, I guess.
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:51:34 -0800
From: "David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sidaan Verbal System
Henrik wrote:
<<
I was busy cooking the whole
week and particularly Thu-Sat (=yesterday). :-)
>>
Shall I send you my snail mail address, or will the food spoil by
then? ;)
<<
You system definitely is dependent marking in this sense, and seems to
use a 'reverse' agreement system similar to Classical Nahuatl (which
is head-marking). There was a thread on this list:
>>
Funny. The message you link to is a response to a system that
wasn't quoted. But now I'm caught up. And I think what I was
thinking of initially was not what I ended up doing. What initially
inspired me was this bizarre language where the verb agrees with
all of its arguments, and all of its arguments agree with the verb,
so you get sentences that look like this:
Girl-NOM-ACC-DAT 3sbj.-3obj.-3i.obj.-give ball-ACC.-NOM.-DAT
Boy-DAT.-NOM.-ACC.
Something like that. I have the actual example somewhere... However,
verbs in Sidaan don't agree with any argument of the verb, so it's
not really similar... Instead, I guess it's just a bizarre case-marking
system, as you pointed out.
<<
Hmm, I see no problem. In Mandarin and Japanese (both pro-drop
langs), you often have sentences consisting of only the verb.
>>
Ah, okay. This was a case of my having not thought of a situation
which naturally presented itself in the data I presented. Kind of
caught me off-guard.
Thanks for reading and replying. :)
P.S.: That Nahuatl system is wild! But so useful! Imagine if you
had a language where the verb let you know just how many
arguments you were going to have by agreeing with the first
and last...
-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: 6
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:03:07 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sidaan Verbal System
Hi!
"David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Henrik wrote:
> <<
> I was busy cooking the whole
> week and particularly Thu-Sat (=yesterday). :-)
> >>
>
> Shall I send you my snail mail address, or will the food spoil by
> then? ;)
I'm pretty sure it will be eaten up by then. I am hungry again and
there's not much left! :-)
>...
> Girl-NOM-ACC-DAT 3sbj.-3obj.-3i.obj.-give ball-ACC.-NOM.-DAT
> Boy-DAT.-NOM.-ACC.
Well, yeah, that's kind of wild... Please share the name of the lang
when/if you remember.
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:44:08 -0500
From: Thomas Hart Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sidaan Verbal System
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:11:02 +0100, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> [snip]
>"David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [snip]
>> 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."
>
>You have a very interesting system here.
>
>However, I had always understood 'dependent marking' differently,
>namely that the dependents (here: arguments) are marked for agreement
>instead of the head (here: verb). So case would be dependent marking
>while a verb marking for transitivity would be head marking.
I thought what Henrik thought, David.
I still like your system.
(BTW I kind of toyed with a slightly-similar idea;
Comrie says some Tense systems have only Past and Non-Past,
others have only Future and Non-Future.
As far as he knew there isn't any that has only a Present and Non-Present,
but, what if a language had morphemes (short, single-segment morphemes) for
Non-Past, Non-Future, and if necessary, Non-Present?
Similarly Siewierska says some Person systems have First and Non-First, or
Second and Non-Second, or Third and Non-Third, person markers. Why not
have a conlang whose "person" morphemes basically told you what person the
marked nominal "_wasn't_", instead of what it "_was_"?)
>You system definitely is dependent marking in this sense, and seems to
>use a 'reverse' agreement system similar to Classical Nahuatl (which
>is head-marking). There was a thread on this list:
>
>http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0503D&L=CONLANG&D=0&I=-
3&P=2220
>
The system explained in that thread isn't all that unusual, actually, for
polypersonal verb-agreement.
If a verb with more than two participants is going to agree with only two
of them, the subject and another one, it will usually choose to agree with
a human other one, or, if there is no human other one, an animate other
one.
Transitive verbs with beneficiaries usually have human beneficiaries, or if
not, then animate beneficiaries, even when the direct object is not human
or even not animate.
Similarly, ditransitive verbs usually have human indirect objects, or at
least animate indirect objects, even when the direct object is not human,
or even not animate.
So it makes sense that if a Nahuatl tri-or-more-valent verb is going to
agree with its subject and just one other participant, it will more often
agree with a beneficiary or indirect object than with a direct object.
The fact that there is a hierarchy that this is contrary to, and that
Nahuatl is consistently contrary to it even when, say, both the direct and
indirect objects, or both the indirect object and the beneficiary, are
equally human or equally inhuman or equally animate or equally inanimate,
may be unusual, if indeed that is the case.
>> [snip interesting stuff from David]...
> [snip interesting stuff from Henrik]...
Thanks, David and Henrik and others.
Tom H.C. in MI
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:55:55 +0100
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Origin of prepositions/postpositions
I'd like some input on how prepositions/postpositions
may arise in a language. The scenario is essentially
a language that has had cases but lost them through
regular sound change. I'm aware that adpositions may
arise from nouns, adverbs or verbs, but am a little
hazy on how the latter in particular works. Also I'm
aware that some languages get along with basically three
prepositions ("to, from, in"), e.g. French.
--
/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: 9
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:15:21 -0600
From: Nik Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Origin of prepositions/postpositions
Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> I'd like some input on how prepositions/postpositions
> may arise in a language. The scenario is essentially
> a language that has had cases but lost them through
> regular sound change. I'm aware that adpositions may
> arise from nouns, adverbs or verbs, but am a little
> hazy on how the latter in particular works.
A good example of the latter is "concerning". Subordinate clauses are
another good origin. For example, in Japanese, to say "a man from
China" you'd say "Chuugoku kara kita otoko" literally "a man who came
from China". That could easily develop into a single postposition,
karakita.
Japanese uses lots of nouns in postpositional constructions. For
example, for "in", one often uses the form "no naka ni" literally "in
the interior of" (compare English "inside (of)" < "in the side of" or
"beside" < "by the side of")
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:56:54 -0600
From: Chris Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
>From: Gary Shannon Nothing new under the
>sun, I guess.
>
How right you are. For my on-again, off-again "Ricadh" project, I thought I
was being so creative by "inventing", all on my own, a first-person plural
exclusive pronoun: a "We" that includes the speaker, but not the listener.
Turns out that concept already exists in Quechua.
So I turned around and expanded that idea into a two-level plural system for
Ricadh nouns.
:Chris
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:22:03 +0000
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Origin of prepositions/postpositions
Benct Philip Jonsson wrote at 2005-12-18 21:55:55 (+0100)
> I'd like some input on how prepositions/postpositions may arise in
> a language. The scenario is essentially a language that has had
> cases but lost them through regular sound change. I'm aware that
> adpositions may arise from nouns, adverbs or verbs, but am a little
> hazy on how the latter in particular works.
There's some information on the development of adpositions through
grammaticalization of nouns, verbs &c. in this paper by Scott DeLancey:
http://www.uoregon.edu/~delancey/papers/glt.html
The following passage gives a suggestive example in the case of verbs.
| Grammaticalization theory provides an answer--they behave similarly
| because many adpositions were once verbs. Consider the status of
| the coverb ?aw 'take, take up, pick up' in Thai; a situation with
| parallels in other Southeast Asian and West African languages. This
| functions as an instrumental marker in sentences like:
|
| ?aw takiab kin kwaytiaw
| take chopstick eat noodles
| '[] eat noodles with chopsticks'
|
| Such a sentence is exactly parallel syntactically to a clause chain
| referring to a sequence of events, such as:
|
| ?aw nangsyy paj rongrian
| take book go school
| '[] pick up []'s books and go to school'
> Also I'm aware that some languages get along with basically three
> prepositions ("to, from, in"), e.g. French.
If you want to investigate languages with few adpositions, look at
Mayan. Many Mayan languages get by with only a single true
preposition.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:53:26 +0100
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Transitivity marking on verbs.
I'm musing on whether it would be out of character
for a natlang to mark the or n-transitivity of a
verb. This is of course related to my question on
the arising of prepositions.
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
(Tacitus)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:48:52 -0500
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Transitivity marking on verbs.
I'm told that there are a few that do so, by not marking intransitives
and explicitly marking all transitives, or vice versa, or something
like that. Anyway, no, it's not out of character.
--larry
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 00:27:54 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Transitivity marking on verbs.
Hi!
Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm musing on whether it would be out of character
> for a natlang to mark the or n-transitivity of a
> verb. This is of course related to my question on
> the arising of prepositions.
Tok Pisin marks transitivity with the suffix '-im' on the verb:
Mi rid.
I read.
Mi ridim buk.
I read book.
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:51:57 -0500
From: John Quijada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Types of Possession
I guess I'm too late to add to the fray, but for what it's worth, Ithkuil
distinguishes all of the following "possessives":
the mans chair = the chair belonging to him [alienable but conventionally
recognized/sanctioned possession]
the man's chair = the one he's currently sitting in [circumstantial]
the mans house = the house he legally owns [proprietary responsibility]
the mans arm = part of his body [inalienable component/part-whole relationship]
the mans brother = the brother related to him [genetic relationship]
the mans happiness = he feels happy [affective experience]
the mans rescue = he is the one rescued [target of others purpose]
the man's rescue = he's the one performing the rescue [act one performs]
the mans gift = the gift is for him [benefaction]
the mans gift = the gift is from him [source]
the mans world = the world in which he lives [inherent subjective association]
the mans team = the team he is associated with [interactive mutual association]
the mans team = the team he manages/coaches [oversight, responsibility]
the mans story = the story about him [topical reference]
the mans story = the one he wrote[creation/authorship]
the man's story = the one he told/related [could be authored by another]
the mans command = his being a commander [role or function]
--John Quijada
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:12:11 -0500
From: Patrick Littell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
On 12/18/05, Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Y'all are inventing Arabic, right? :-)
> >
>
> hehe. I guess so , if you say so. But I really don't
> know anything about Arabic. :-) Nothing new under the
> sun, I guess.
>
> --gary
>
Haha; how'd you look up binyamin and not run across Arabic? Anyway,
you were nearly there; I wish I hadn't used that word, and then you
could have invented Arabic ex nihilo.
Although, it looks like the wonders of root-and-pattern morphology
have distracted you from the ideas in your original post ;)... combine
the two and you've invented something really new under the sun: a
binyam system in which the vowels encode both meaning *and* the length
that a word is going to be.
On 12/18/05, Chris Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From: Gary Shannon Nothing new under the
> >sun, I guess.
> >
> How right you are. For my on-again, off-again "Ricadh" project, I thought I
> was being so creative by "inventing", all on my own, a first-person plural
> exclusive pronoun: a "We" that includes the speaker, but not the listener.
> Turns out that concept already exists in Quechua.
(And in a whole heap of other languages, too.)
This is one of the reasons why, unlike some (most?) people in the
field, I don't consider conlanging a frivolous activity. It can be an
unmatched learning activity, done right. (And it warms the cockles of
my heart to hear non-specialists discussing the intricacies of noun
incorporation and the like.)
My favorite moments are these -- when someone takes a sort of, oh,
"engineering" problem of "how will I express this" and comes up with,
on their own, a real-world solution. Because then they don't just
know about the construction... they really understand the motivation
for it.
Like, take the following conlanging problem. You're making up a
language that marks the agent and patient of a verb with case affixes,
but things are getting too long... you've got this thing for short
words, and it's taking too many syllables to say anything. So you
start looking around for things you can get rid of, and you say,
"Hey... For each noun root, I'll have the bare root be whatever case
that noun is most likely to be, and only use an affix when it gets the
less-likely case".
(go work it out if you want :)
So you go through and work out the details, and suddenly you've
"invented" animacy-split ergativity. And now you know it a lot better
than someone who just learnt about it in class or read about it in a
book. And what's more, you're probably not going to forget. It's
like sitting there an proving a mathematical theorem rather than just
reading it in a book. You only know *about* it until you've gone
through the process and derived it for yourself.
--
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
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:19:40 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Types of Possession
As an offtopic sidenote about Ithkuil, even though no one speaks it in
"real-time", can anyone get the gist of it at a slower pace? Or do
you even have to look in a dictionary/at the grammar to figure out
what each component meaning is?
On 12/18/05, John Quijada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess I'm too late to add to the fray, but for what it's worth, Ithkuil
> distinguishes all of the following "possessives":
>
> the man's chair = the chair belonging to him [alienable but conventionally
> recognized/sanctioned possession]
> the man's chair = the one he's currently sitting in [circumstantial]
> the man's house = the house he legally owns [proprietary responsibility]
> the man's arm = part of his body [inalienable component/part-whole
> relationship]
> the man's brother = the brother related to him [genetic relationship]
> the man's happiness = he feels happy [affective experience]
> the man's rescue = he is the one rescued [target of others' purpose]
> the man's rescue = he's the one performing the rescue [act one performs]
> the man's gift = the gift is for him [benefaction]
> the man's gift = the gift is from him [source]
> the man's world = the world in which he lives [inherent subjective
> association]
> the man's team = the team he is associated with [interactive mutual
> association]
> the man's team = the team he manages/coaches [oversight, responsibility]
> the man's story = the story about him [topical reference]
> the man's story = the one he wrote[creation/authorship]
> the man's story = the one he told/related [could be authored by another]
> the man's command = his being a commander [role or function]
>
> --John Quijada
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:30:42 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
--- Patrick Littell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/18/05, Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Y'all are inventing Arabic, right? :-)
> > >
> >
> > hehe. I guess so , if you say so. But I really
> don't
> > know anything about Arabic. :-) Nothing new under
> the
> > sun, I guess.
> >
> > --gary
> >
>
> Haha; how'd you look up binyamin and not run across
> Arabic? Anyway,
> you were nearly there; I wish I hadn't used that
> word, and then you
> could have invented Arabic ex nihilo.
I did run across mention of Arabic, but knowing of the
exitence of Arabic is a far cry from knowing anything
ABOUT Arabic. :-) Mostly I just found people named
"Binyamin", and only one short, and rather vague PDF
article on "binyamin", so I didn't have much to go on.
But the concept is an interesting one for sure.
But it was my understanding that the Arabic alphabet
didn't include vowels. Ot maybe it was that Arabic
words were spelled without vowels. Anyway, I didn't
think Arabic used vowels to alter the meaning of
roots. I'm probably wrong on all three of those
counts.
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:49:36 -0500
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Types of Possession
John Quijada wrote:
> I guess I'm too late to add to the fray, but for what it's worth, Ithkuil
> distinguishes all of the following "possessives":
>
(snip much of interesting and exhaustive list)
> the man's happiness = he feels happy [affective experience]
What about "quality/description"-- the man's height, the man's weight, the
man's age?? I see these as intrinsic, but since they are "temporary" in a
broad sense, not inalienable. Anyhow, these are the among the few
constructions in Kash that use the N+poss N with a [+hum]noun:--
vital/ni kaçut
tall-his man(nom.) = the man's height
The genitive case is simply not used in such cases--
*amital kaçuti (NOML-tall man-gen)
This is the usual way of indicating "possession" by inanimates--
aceç/ni laca [legs-its table(nom)] the table's legs
lus/ni etengi [end-its book] the end of the book
mevi/ni endak the price of the meat
(The genitive case is possible but disfavored when there is a clear
part/whole relation, as in a table's legs-- aceç lacayi is OK but rather
formal.
> the man's rescue = he is the one rescued [target of others' purpose]
Ah, the objective genitive. Not possible in Kash, would require paraphrase.
> the man's rescue = he's the one performing the rescue [act one performs]
Subjective genitive-- is possible, again the +ni construction:
sisa/ni kaçut (liri XXX)
love/his man (w.r.t. XXX) = the man's love (of XXX)
and the rather colloquial transformation of Subj - Vb to Vb+poss--
kaçut yakota...
man 3s/say 'the man says...' -->
kotani kaçut
what the man says is..., or in narrative simply, 'he says...'
All your other cases, AFAICT, would use the genitive in the case of a human.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:30:02 +0200
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
Gary Shannon wrote:
> "Binyamin", and only one short, and rather vague PDF
> article on "binyamin", so I didn't have much to go on.
> But the concept is an interesting one for sure.
Sorry to interfere, the thing you are talking about, is called "binyaNIM",
not "binyamin". This is plural for "binyan", and it is Hebrew for
"building". The same thing in Arabic is called "naw3", usually translated
into English as "stem".
> But it was my understanding that the Arabic alphabet
> didn't include vowels.
It does not. But certain consonants are used to indicate presence of long
vowels. They are called "matres lectionis" (mothers of reading) in this
function.
> Ot maybe it was that Arabic
> words were spelled without vowels.
Short vowels are not indicated in spelling. Long vowel usually are (see
above). Presence of /a:/ is indicated with letter |?| (alif), /i:/ - |y|,
/u:/ - |w|.
> Anyway, I didn't
> think Arabic used vowels to alter the meaning of
> roots.
They do use them extensively! _kataba_ 'he wrote', _yuktubu_ 'he writes',
_ka:tibu_ 'he who writes', _kati:bu_ 'written', _maktabu_ '(place) of
writing' that is 'school' (with prefix m-) etc.
-- Yitzik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:41:10 +1300
From: Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:30, Gary Shannon wrote:
> --- Patrick Littell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 12/18/05, Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > --- Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Y'all are inventing Arabic, right? :-)
<snip>
>
> But it was my understanding that the Arabic alphabet
> didn't include vowels. Ot maybe it was that Arabic
> words were spelled without vowels. Anyway, I didn't
> think Arabic used vowels to alter the meaning of
> roots. I'm probably wrong on all three of those
> counts.
All the Semitic languages apart from Akkadian and its descendants Assyrian and
Babylonian, used a vowelless writing system. Arabic uses a development of
the Aramaic script via Syriac.
All Semitic languages to the best of my knowledge, use a triconsonantal with
two vowels to express basic verbal ideas, adding complexity and additional
consonants and vowels to express more complex ideas.
My knowledge of Semitic doesn't extend much beyond a bit of Hebrew and a bit
of Arabic, but that's the way it goes.
Wesley Parish
>
> --gary
--
Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
-----
Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui?
You ask, what is the most important thing?
Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 03:16:00 -0800
From: "David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT: Happy Holidays
I'm about to go up visiting family, so I'm going to go no-mail
until...probably January. Best holiday wishes to everyone, and
a happy new year when we get there.
-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: 23
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:26:52 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Happy Holidays
Hi!
David J. Peterson writes:
> I'm about to go up visiting family, so I'm going to go no-mail
> until...probably January. Best holiday wishes to everyone, and
> a happy new year when we get there.
Have a nice stay and a happy new year to you, too! :-)
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:25:53 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
Hi!
Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> They do use them extensively! _kataba_ 'he wrote', _yuktubu_ 'he writes',
> _ka:tibu_ 'he who writes', _kati:bu_ 'written', _maktabu_ '(place) of
> writing' that is 'school' (with prefix m-) etc.
One more famous one: the word that made it into many, many other langs
as a loan and seems to be a prototype in such lists:
_kitab_ (pl. _kutub_) 'book'. (e.g. in Turkish, Suahili, ...).
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:23:50 +0200
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
Sala:m,
katab Henrik Theiling
> _kitab_ (pl. _kutub_) 'book'. (e.g. in Turkish, Suahili, ...).
To be more precise, _kita:b_ and _kutu:b_. The latter pattern CuCu:C is
pretty popular in forming plurals (that are, strictly speaking,
collectives), e.g. _dars_ > _duru:s_ 'lesson'.
ObConlang: I used these ready lexemes in my now abandoned Arabo-Romance
project "Ajami" in a Persian way, when the plural/collective gets additional
meaning:
_ketabo_ 'book' > _ketabos_ 'books' / _kotubo_ 'collection (of books)'
_darso_ 'lesson' > _darsos_ 'lessons' / _doruso_ 'classes'.
An interesting A.-R. hybrid _darseriya_ 'classroom'.
-- Yitzik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
