------------------------ 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. Collective nouns
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: Collective nouns
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Types of Possession
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: Transitivity marking on verbs.
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. OT: IPA Transcriptions of Modems
From: Arthaey Angosii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Jon Anderson a conlanger?
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Tree-Adjoining Grammars and Cross-Serial Dependencies in Dutch
Embedded Clauses (was: Re: Unsupervised learning of natural languages)
From: Thomas Hart Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: Collective nouns
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Collective nouns
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: Arabic and BACK TO Self-segregating morphology
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Tree-Adjoining Grammars and Cross-Serial Dependencies in Dutch
Embedded Clauses (was: Re: Unsupervised learning of natural languages)
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Types of Possession
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Arabic and BACK TO Self-segregating morphology
From: Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Arabic and BACK TO Self-segregating morphology
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: Collective nouns
From: John Quijada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: Types of Possession
From: John Quijada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: Jon Anderson a conlanger?
From: Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: Jon Anderson a conlanger?
From: John Schlembach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: Arabic and BACK TO Self-segregating morphology
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:25:49 -0000
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Collective nouns
I can't find the message to which I was going to attach this, so
I'll just start a new thread.
Senjecan has a suffix, -îjos, for making collective nouns out of
count nouns. A few examples:
alûn-es (dove) + îjos = álunîjos, flock of doves.
âr-os (nut) + îjos = arîjos, mast.
câq-a (bind) + vââl-os (leaf = book) + -îjos = cáqvaalîjos, library.
côl-os (cup) + -ß- (augmentative = pot) + -îjos = colßîjos, pottery.
epêr-es (wild pig) + -îjos = éperîjos, sounder.
mênð-a (learn) + dêm-os (building = school) + -îjos = ménðëdemîjos,
university.
µerðêr-os (step) + -îjos = µérderîjos, staircase.
çîl-a (lean) + µerðêr-os (step) + -îjos = çilµérderîjos, ladder.
nâc-os (pelt) + -îjos = nacîjos, peltry.
nêêt-os (thread) + -îjos = neetîjos, harl.
oût-os (garment) + -îjos = óutîjos, suit.
pêrcü-is (oak) + -îjos = percüîjos, oak forest.
pîsd-os (coin) + -îjos = pisdîjos, money.
rêð-a (ride) + pîsd-os (coin) + -îjos = réðpisdîjos, fare.
pûls-os (feather) + îjos = pulsîjos, plumage.
rûûn-os (letter) + -îjos = ruunîjos, alphabet.
vênc-os (message, letter) + -îjos = vencîjos, mail.
If others have nouns of this type, I would appreciate seeing them.
Charlie
http://wiki.frath.net/user:caeruleancentaur
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:39:33 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
On 12/19/05, Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 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.
> Yes, that's it. Except for the inflections. My
> intention was to create an isolating language where
> the parts of speech and basic meaning of the word were
> changed by switching the vowels, but there would be no
> inflections for tense, person, case, etc. These would
> be handled, where absolutely necessary, by particles.
It sounds like a neat project. But I'm not sure "isolating"
is the right word for a language that has derivational
morphology but not inflectional morphology; you would,
I think, have typically at least two morphemes per word
(consonant pattern + vowel pattern) so "isolating"
doesn't seem quite the right term.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang.htm
...Mind the gmail Reply-to: field
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:46:47 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Collective nouns
On 12/19/05, caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Senjecan has a suffix, -îjos, for making collective nouns out of
> count nouns. A few examples:
>
> alûn-es (dove) + îjos = álunîjos, flock of doves.
gjâ-zym-byn has no plural inflection, but it does
have some derivational affixes for collectives:
-daj collection or mass of X in one place
-zla the whole set of X everywhere
-cu a system in which many X work together as parts
-kwi an ordered series of X
E.g.,
pwim "water"
-> pwim-daj "body of water"
mâ "person"
-> mâ-zla "humanity, the human race" (cf. Esperanto "homaro")
-> mâ-daj "crowd of people"
-> mâ-cu "company, club, church, etc"
-> mâ-kwi "queue, group of people standing in line"
(If Unicode doesn't come through, i is supposed to be i-breve.)
I think Ithkuil has an even larger set of distinct plural/collective
derivations.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/gzb/gzb.htm
...Mind the gmail Reply-to: field
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:40:11 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Types of Possession
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":
gjâ-zym-byn can distinguish many though not all
of these:
> the man's chair = the chair belonging to him [alienable but conventionally
> recognized/sanctioned possession]
> the man's house = the house he legally owns [proprietary responsibility]
Both "wunx-i" - ownership-at.
> the man's chair = the one he's currently sitting in [circumstantial]
Perhaps sxâj-i - possession-at; or more likely "txin" (under-in.contact.with)
> the man's arm = part of his body [inalienable component/part-whole
> relationship]
im
> the man's happiness = he feels happy [affective experience]
sxu-i -- quality-at
> the man's rescue = he is the one rescued [target of others' purpose]
I think this would be rendered with the man in the patient case,
hxy-i.
max hxy-i kxuj-rq-fwa-toqj miq-i wlax-fwa nxiqn-i.
man PAT-at danger-out.of-CAUS-NMZ TOP-at surprise-CAUS CMT-at
The man's rescue was surprising.
> the man's rescue = he's the one performing the rescue [act one performs]
rynq-i (doing-at; like Esperanto "fare de" but doesn't include
authorship of artistic works)
> the man's gift = the gift is for him [benefaction]
> the man's gift = the gift is from him [source]
wunx-rq (ownership-from) and wunx-o (ownership-to); or
perhaps sxâj-rq and sxâj-o.
> the man's brother = the brother related to him [genetic relationship]
> the man's team = the team he is associated with [interactive mutual
> association]
Both these would be "liw-i" -- all personal relationships
whether genetic or adoptive or voluntarily contracted
can be denoted that way, though gzb has a way to
turn specific relationship words into postpositions too:
kq liw-i tâ sqej brajeqn-ram
- me relation-at sibling that.is Brian-NAME
kq tâ-i brajeqn-ram
- me sibling-at Brian
> the man's team = the team he manages/coaches [oversight, responsibility]
gym-i [leadership-at]
> the man's story = the story about him [topical reference]
miq-i (literally "topic-at"; "about"; also the topic case postposition;
very overloaded)
> the man's story = the one he wrote[creation/authorship]
dâm-rq -- authorship-from
> the man's story = the one he told/related [could be authored by another]
Hm. I need a way to distinguish performance from authorship.
Time to coin another morpheme...
> the man's command = his being a commander [role or function]
Perhaps "sxu-i" (quality-at) but more likely "jâ-i" (role-at).
> the man's world = the world in which he lives [inherent subjective
> association]
This one stumps me. I would be more likely to speak
about
mu im mâ
world part.of man
I don't have a postposition signifying "of which X is part"
but I guess I could derive it from "im" with the complement
suffix, so
mâ im-txaj mu
man part.of-OPP world
the world of which the man is part
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/gzb/gzb.htm
...Mind the gmail Reply-to: field
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:57:07 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Transitivity marking on verbs.
Quoting Thomas Hart Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> *(BTW I would have included "perfect" as a mood, rather than a tense; but
> at any rate Bybee agrees with me that it is not an aspect.)
This surprises me, since I tend to think of perfect as the prototypical aspect.
Would you care to summarize why you feel it should be considered a mood?
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:54:57 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Self-segregating morphology (was: Guinea pigs invited)
Quoting Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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.
Maltese is normally written in the Latin alphabet.
The Ethiopian languages are generally written in the Ethiopian abugida - whether
that qualifies as "vowelless" is debatable.
Andreas
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:39:36 -0600
From: Arthaey Angosii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT: IPA Transcriptions of Modems
Anyone feel up to the challenge of transcribing that modem dialing sound? :)
--
AA
http://conlang.arthaey.com/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:38:34 +0100
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Jon Anderson a conlanger?
Hallo!
Those who say that Freddie Mercury was the best rock singer
of all times probably don't know who Jon Anderson is.
I have never ever heard another voice like his.
In the lyrics of Jon Anderson's solo album _Olias of Sunhillow_
(1976) I found the following:
DO GA DO RIYTAN SHA TOO RAYTAN
GAN MATTA SHA PA
MUTTO MATTO
RADAN ATTO RADDAN ATTO
STOU TO MUTTO SHA GO TEKA
SHA GO TEKA DEI
Does anyone have an idea what language that is, or did Jon
make it all up? A conlang would make perfect sense, since
it's a tale of refugees from a doomed planet.
Greetings,
Jörg.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:35:49 -0500
From: Thomas Hart Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Tree-Adjoining Grammars and Cross-Serial Dependencies in Dutch
Embedded Clauses (was: Re: Unsupervised learning of natural languages)
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 22:05:46 +0100, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[snip]
> ... I never doubted they perform well in the given six languages.
>What I said was not about the number of languages they handle, but the
>structure of the languages. The six given languages have a relatively
>context-free syntax structure with nicely embedded sub-phrases. I
>merely said I would have been more surprised of a working algorithm if
>they had tested a more interesting language. E.g. Dutch, which has a
>very funny verb order in embedded phrases:
>
> ... dat ik jou zag lezen.
> that I you saw read
> 'that I saw you read.'
My library finally borrowed "Tree Adjoining Grammars: Formalisms,
Linguistic Analysis, and Processing", edited by Anne Abeille' and Owen
Rambow, CSLI Publlications (Center for the Study of Language and
Information, Stanford, California), P151.T75 2000, from the Indiana State
University Library for me. (This is CSLI Lecture Notes #107; ISBN 1-57586-
252-2).
In their overview, the editors mention the Dutch sentence fragment:
"... omdat Wim Jan Marie de kinderen zag helpen leren zwemmen"
>The interesting part is that 'I saw' is one sub-phrase and 'you read'
>is another and that the final structure contains the subjects in a row
>followed by the verbs in the same order. For arbitrarily deep
>nesting, this cannot be generated with a context-free grammar.
>Further, with a given context length, you can only generate a fixed
>number of reversals, so I think the grammar structure they are
>generating is just not suited for Dutch und thus for natural language
>in general.
They show how it can be handled by just one rule of a T.A.G., (_with_ _no_
_subsequent_ _transformations_, btw), and, like you, say it can't be
generated by context-free grammar.
> In Dutch you can have:
>
> dat ik jou haar hem hoor vragen helpen koken.
> A B C D a b c d
>
> that I hear you ask her help him cook.
> A a B b C c D d
>
>This *is* quite an artificial example, but it illustrates the
>algorithmical problems I suspect.
Dang, I'm about to get timed out.
More later, maybe.
Tom H.C. in MI
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:27:43 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Collective nouns
--- caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I can't find the message to which I was going to
> attach this, so
> I'll just start a new thread.
>
> Senjecan has a suffix, -îjos, for making collective
> nouns out of
> count nouns. A few examples:
>
> alûn-es (dove) + îjos = álunîjos, flock of doves.
>
> âr-os (nut) + îjos = arîjos, mast.
>
> câq-a (bind) + vââl-os (leaf = book) + -îjos =
> cáqvaalîjos, library.
elomi ( http://fiziwig.com/lexicon.html ) has:
apiti (word) -> ale'napiti (vocabulary, lexicon)
apuka (book) -> ale'napuka (library)
apoli (tree) -> ale'napoli (forest)
apunta (button, key) -> ale'napunta (keyboard)
...
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:01:40 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Collective nouns
caeruleancentaur wrote:
> If others have nouns of this type, I would appreciate seeing them.
Not exactly the same thing but in my Erae language (which I lost
the files in a hard drive crash):
To the standard singular and plural Erae adds an Extended
Individual (extended) pluralization. Extended is intermediate
between singular and plural, and is used to refer to separate
bodies of a single individual. It's used most often to refer to
Altara themselves, but is also used to refer to plants growing
from the same runner system, parent/child units, or herd members.
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/myths/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:44:11 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Arabic and BACK TO Self-segregating morphology
On 12/19/05, Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There would be no inflections, and any change of vowel
> would mean a change in the meaning, not in case,
> tense, plurality, etc. Those would be marked by
> particles.
>
> The vowel changes would be uniform and and consistent.
> Thus if -a-i-a was the primary noun and a-a-in-a was
> the negative of the primary noun the with "nlj" we
> have "nalija" = knowledge and "analinja" = ignorance;
> with "wlt" we have "walita" = wealth and "awalinta" =
> poverty. Thus knowing the roots and patterns one can
> coin a new word or recognize a word not encountered
> before. So if we know that "sakisa" is success then
Good.
> Also, since every base word is three consonants long
> when we encountered a four-consonant word we would
> know that a prefix or suffix had been added, and by
> the vowel patterns we would know which. And likewise,
> five-consonant and longer words would, by their vowel
> patterns be easily broken down into their roots and
> affixes according to vowel patterns, thus retaining
> the self-segregating property.
If compounds of two or more words are allowed,
and your derivational patterns include both prefixes
and suffixes, it seems that a word of seven syllables
might be ambiguous, e.g.:
(prefix + word1) + word2
or
(word1 + suffix) + word2
or
word1 + (prefix + word2)
or
word1 + (word2 + suffix)
This might also be an ambiguity re:
the word boundary in a two-word phrase.
You could avoid that by setting aside certain
consonants for use only in suffixes,
others only in prefixes, some only in roots;
or by selecting certain vowels to occur in
prefixes, others in suffixes, and others as
the first or last vowel of a tri-vowel pattern.
Either way, no prefix or suffix could ever
look like the first or last syllable of any actual root with
any possible vowel pattern. E.g., if "pe-"
is a prefix or suffix, then you could:
1. make sure no roots begin or end with p-, or
2. make sure no vowel patterns begin or end with -e-.
Either would ensure that a phrase like "kulaji pe-nalija"
could only be parsed as KLJ + u-a-i ... pe- + NLJ + --a-i-a,
and not ku- LJP + a-i-e ... NLJ + a-i-a = ku-lajipe nalija, or
or KLJ + u-a-i ... PNL + -e-a-i + -ja = kulaji penali-ja.
In this example you would also want to
ensure either that K, J, and N never occur
in prefixes or suffixes, or that u, i, and a never
occur in prefixes or suffixes.
Also, unless you want phonemic gemination, you need
to exclude /n/ from the set of consonants that
can form roots -- else the /n/ in a root
and the /n/ in a derivational vowel pattern
could end up adjacent.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:06:00 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tree-Adjoining Grammars and Cross-Serial Dependencies in Dutch
Embedded Clauses (was: Re: Unsupervised learning of natural languages)
Hi!
Thomas Hart Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> My library finally borrowed "Tree Adjoining Grammars: Formalisms,
> Linguistic Analysis, and Processing", ...
Nice! I had a seminar on TAGs at uni and TAGs are quite interesting
since they are parsable in O(n^6) (IIRC) instead of the O(e^n) for,
e.g., HPSG. I found they are much more the way to go in analysing
language than the more linguistically inspired grammars like HPSG. It
tries to solve the parsability problem for a certain class of langs
that cannot be handled with CFGs, while still being polynomial.
Obviously, I'm a programmer so I want to approach the problem from the
implementational point of view all the time. O(n^6) is awfully
complex to me!
>...
> In their overview, the editors mention the Dutch sentence fragment:
>
> "... omdat Wim Jan Marie de kinderen zag helpen leren zwemmen"
That's just like the sentence that I made up! :-) Only the proper
names seem to make it parsable more easily. That one's quite easy!
>...
> They show how it can be handled by just one rule of a T.A.G., (_with_ _no_
> _subsequent_ _transformations_, btw), and, like you, say it can't be
> generated by context-free grammar.
>...
Exactly. :-)
Please tell us what you think when you've read the article.
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:39:48 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Types of Possession
John Quijada wrote:
> I guess I'm too late to add to the fray,
Not at all. While I've defined the basic types of possession, I
haven't worked on the more complex forms, and this list will be
very useful.
> but for what it's worth, Ithkuil
> distinguishes all of the following "possessives":
In the Glyphica Arcana system these are physical possession:
> the mans arm = part of his body [inalienable component/part-whole
> relationship]
> the mans brother = the brother related to him [genetic relationship]
> the mans story = the one he wrote[creation/authorship]
> the man's story = the one he told/related [could be authored by another]
Social Possession:
> the mans chair = the chair belonging to him [alienable but conventionally
> recognized/sanctioned possession]
> the mans house = the house he legally owns [proprietary responsibility]
> the mans gift = the gift is for him [benefaction]
> the mans gift = the gift is from him [source]
> the mans team = the team he is associated with [interactive mutual
> association]
> the mans team = the team he manages/coaches [oversight, responsibility]
> the mans rescue = he is the one rescued [target of others purpose]
> the mans command = his being a commander [role or function]
(Note, however, that role or function when used with inanimate
objects will almost always be physical possession.)
Spiritual Possession:
> the mans happiness = he feels happy [affective experience]
> the mans world = the world in which he lives [inherent subjective
> association]
Rational Possession:
> the man's chair = the one he's currently sitting in [circumstantial]
> the man's rescue = he's the one performing the rescue [act one performs]
> the mans story = the story about him [topical reference]
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/myths/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:19:07 +1300
From: Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Arabic and BACK TO Self-segregating morphology
Quoting Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 12/19/05, Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There would be no inflections, and any change of vowel
> > would mean a change in the meaning, not in case,
> > tense, plurality, etc. Those would be marked by
> > particles.
<snip>
> You could avoid that by setting aside certain
> consonants for use only in suffixes,
> others only in prefixes, some only in roots;
> or by selecting certain vowels to occur in
> prefixes, others in suffixes, and others as
> the first or last vowel of a tri-vowel pattern.
> Either way, no prefix or suffix could ever
> look like the first or last syllable of any actual root with
> any possible vowel pattern. E.g., if "pe-"
> is a prefix or suffix, then you could:
> 1. make sure no roots begin or end with p-, or
> 2. make sure no vowel patterns begin or end with -e-.
>
> Either would ensure that a phrase like "kulaji pe-nalija"
> could only be parsed as KLJ + u-a-i ... pe- + NLJ + --a-i-a,
> and not ku- LJP + a-i-e ... NLJ + a-i-a = ku-lajipe nalija, or
> or KLJ + u-a-i ... PNL + -e-a-i + -ja = kulaji penali-ja.
> In this example you would also want to
> ensure either that K, J, and N never occur
> in prefixes or suffixes, or that u, i, and a never
> occur in prefixes or suffixes.
Which looks quite like the hithpoel, qatal, etc, conjugations currently in
Semitic languages. The major difference being that the Semitic conjugations
also include person and aspect - qatal, yiqtal, etc.
Wesley Parish
>
> Also, unless you want phonemic gemination, you need
> to exclude /n/ from the set of consonants that
> can form roots -- else the /n/ in a root
> and the /n/ in a derivational vowel pattern
> could end up adjacent.
>
> --
> Jim Henry
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry
>
"Sharpened hands are happy hands.
"Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"
- A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge
"I me. Shape middled me. I would come out into hot!"
I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the
other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:17:30 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Arabic and BACK TO Self-segregating morphology
--- Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> If compounds of two or more words are allowed,
> and your derivational patterns include both prefixes
> and suffixes, it seems that a word of seven
> syllables
> might be ambiguous, e.g.:
>
> (prefix + word1) + word2
> or
> (word1 + suffix) + word2
> or
> word1 + (prefix + word2)
> or
> word1 + (word2 + suffix)
>
> This might also be an ambiguity re:
> the word boundary in a two-word phrase.
Maybe I could use dipthongs in prefixes and suffixes,
but nowhere else. Thus kianalija could only be
kia+nalija and kulajipenalijua can only be
kulaji+penali+jua.
<snip>
>
> Also, unless you want phonemic gemination, you need
> to exclude /n/ from the set of consonants that
> can form roots -- else the /n/ in a root
> and the /n/ in a derivational vowel pattern
> could end up adjacent.
>
Good point. The other alternative would be to have an
alternative, like substituting 'L' for 'N' if two
consecutive Ns would result. Thus:
nalija -> analinja
--but--
patina -> apatilna
--gary
> --
> Jim Henry
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:05:25 -0500
From: John Quijada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Collective nouns
Ithkuil has three related categories that cover the range of
plural/collective in natlangs, usually requiring lexical changes when
translating into other languages:
Nine Configurations, by which individual noun referents are identified as
random groupings, assortments, sets, collections, fuzzy sets, segmented
wholes, wholes based on differentiated component parts, etc., as per
similarity/dissimilarity of shape or physical configuration, e.g., tree -->
grove --> woods/forest
Four Affiliations, by which such sets, assortments, collections, etc. are
distinguished by whether they exist for a functional purpose, a purposeless
mish-mash, or a synergistic/emergent whole greater than the sum of the
parts, e.g., tree --> orchard --> jungle --> forest-"realm"
Four Perspectives, the closest equivalent to natlang "number" categories, by
which one can designate whether a referent constitutes a single subjective
entity (even if made up of numerous component-referents, as in a "grove"),
more than one such entity, a collective reference referring to all such
referents in general, and an category by which the entity is considered in
an abstract sense, somewhat like English -hood, -ness suffixes.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:09:51 -0500
From: John Quijada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Types of Possession
veritosproject wrote:
>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?
>=========================================================================
I don't know about anyone else, but given how little time I have had to even
go near Ithkuil since I posted it two years ago, I know I certainly need to
look at the grammar/lexicon if I want to try to read any of it. The only
aspect of it I am "fluent" in is knowledge of the morphology. I don't even
have the script memorized.
--John Q.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:45:12 +1300
From: Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Jon Anderson a conlanger?
I think it's probably Gibberish, the language spoken by the Gibbers, an
alas-not-yet-extinct human subspecies. ;)
Rock singers seem to do a lot of this, making up words for their sounds.
Perhaps we should collect the lot and try to regularize them into some form
of morphology/syntax, etc? (Publish a book on Gibberish, the language spoken
by the Gibbers, with all the appropriate scholarly apparatus, etc? ;)
Wesley Parish
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:38, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> Those who say that Freddie Mercury was the best rock singer
> of all times probably don't know who Jon Anderson is.
> I have never ever heard another voice like his.
>
> In the lyrics of Jon Anderson's solo album _Olias of Sunhillow_
> (1976) I found the following:
>
> DO GA DO RIYTAN SHA TOO RAYTAN
>
> GAN MATTA SHA PA
> MUTTO MATTO
>
> RADAN ATTO RADDAN ATTO
> STOU TO MUTTO SHA GO TEKA
> SHA GO TEKA DEI
>
> Does anyone have an idea what language that is, or did Jon
> make it all up? A conlang would make perfect sense, since
> it's a tale of refugees from a doomed planet.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Jörg.
--
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: 20
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:58:27 -0600
From: John Schlembach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Jon Anderson a conlanger?
If you're interested in conlangs in music, there's a French band called
Magma that sang in a conlang about the chronicles of an alien race.
To a much lesser degree, there's a Japanese drum 'n' bass duo called the
Ruins that cite Magma as a large influence (though their singing is just
nonsense).
Good stuff.
On 12/20/05, Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think it's probably Gibberish, the language spoken by the Gibbers, an
> alas-not-yet-extinct human subspecies. ;)
>
> Rock singers seem to do a lot of this, making up words for their sounds.
> Perhaps we should collect the lot and try to regularize them into some
> form
> of morphology/syntax, etc? (Publish a book on Gibberish, the language
> spoken
> by the Gibbers, with all the appropriate scholarly apparatus, etc? ;)
>
> Wesley Parish
>
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:38, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> > Hallo!
> >
> > Those who say that Freddie Mercury was the best rock singer
> > of all times probably don't know who Jon Anderson is.
> > I have never ever heard another voice like his.
> >
> > In the lyrics of Jon Anderson's solo album _Olias of Sunhillow_
> > (1976) I found the following:
> >
> > DO GA DO RIYTAN SHA TOO RAYTAN
> >
> > GAN MATTA SHA PA
> > MUTTO MATTO
> >
> > RADAN ATTO RADDAN ATTO
> > STOU TO MUTTO SHA GO TEKA
> > SHA GO TEKA DEI
> >
> > Does anyone have an idea what language that is, or did Jon
> > make it all up? A conlang would make perfect sense, since
> > it's a tale of refugees from a doomed planet.
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Jörg.
>
> --
> 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.
>
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:16:40 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Arabic and BACK TO Self-segregating morphology
On 12/19/05, Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If compounds of two or more words are allowed,
> > and your derivational patterns include both prefixes
> > and suffixes, it seems that a word of seven
> > syllables
> > might be ambiguous, e.g.:
> >
> > (prefix + word1) + word2
> > or
> > (word1 + suffix) + word2
> > or
> > word1 + (prefix + word2)
> > or
> > word1 + (word2 + suffix)
> >
> > This might also be an ambiguity re:
> > the word boundary in a two-word phrase.
>
> Maybe I could use dipthongs in prefixes and suffixes,
> but nowhere else. Thus kianalija could only be
> kia+nalija and kulajipenalijua can only be
> kulaji+penali+jua.
This would work if certain diphthongs are used
only in prefixes and other sonly in suffixes. If
any diphthongs maybe used in either kind of affix,
then something like
penalijuakulaji
could be parsed as
(penali + (jua + kulaji))
or
((penali + jua )+ kulaji)
But perhaps the set of affixes is small and manageable
enough you don't have to restrict them that way
-- once you've been studying the language for a little
while, you would know all the affixes and would know
at a glance that jua- is a prefix rather than a suffix.
> > Also, unless you want phonemic gemination, you need
> > to exclude /n/ from the set of consonants that
> > can form roots -- else the /n/ in a root
> > and the /n/ in a derivational vowel pattern
> > could end up adjacent.
> Good point. The other alternative would be to have an
> alternative, like substituting 'L' for 'N' if two
> consecutive Ns would result. Thus:
You would need to select your vowel patterns
so these would not be ambiguous:
> nalija -> analinja
NLJ + a-a-in-a
or
NLN + a-a-i-na
> patina -> apatilna
PTN + a-a-in-a
or
PTL + a-a-i-na
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/gzb/gzb.htm
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
