------------------------ 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: Conlang flag in actual cloth - bulk order?
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: OT: Re: Christmas/Holidays
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth - bulk order?
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Glyphica Arcana Distinctions (cases?)
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: What defines a conlang?
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: What defines a conlang?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
7. Re: What defines a conlang?
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Slightly OT: dreidel question
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: OT: Re: Christmas/Holidays
From: Rodlox R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: Person Marking On Nouns
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Slightly OT: dreidel question
From: Markus Miekk-oja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Imperative vs Jussive vs Hortative
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Slightly OT: dreidel question
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Person Marking On Nouns
From: "Ph.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Slightly OT: dreidel question
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: "Harald S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: Imperative vs Jussive vs Hortative
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
20. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Shreyas Sampat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: Person Marking On Nouns
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: Imperative vs Jussive vs Hortative
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:24:05 -0500
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth - bulk order?
I'd be interested. What kind of ballpark price are we talking about
(you can quote US dollars, that's fine)? --larry
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:15:35 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Christmas/Holidays
On 12/27/05, Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> \> I specifically said "astronomy" for that reason. In the Western
> > tradition of astronomy, the seasons begin on the equinoxes and
> > solstices; this is not an American thing but one that predates the
> > European settling of America. Other traditions, including Eastern
> > astronomy and Western non-astronomical usage, have other definitions.
>
> Okay, I think. I'm still a little confused though, because such official
> sources as the Australian Bureau of Meterology considers summer to begin
> the same day the rest of Oz does, and I can't really see what astronomy
> has to do with the seasons, what with them being weather things.
The seasons, equinoxes and solstices all exist because of the Earth's axial
tilt, hence the astronomical connection. If you extend the plane of the
equator and the plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun, they intersect in
a line. That line, in turn, intersects the Earth's orbit in two points, and
it is when the Earth passes through those points that we have the
equinoxes. 90 degrees out from the equinoxes are the solstices.
The point in the sky where the Sun appears to be when viewed from Earth
during the March equinox is the zero meridian of celestial longitude, used
for reckoning the positions of all objects in the sky (in Western
astronomy). Thus, the Sun is at 0º celestial longitude at the March
equinox, 90º at the June solstice, 180º at the September equinox, and 270º
at the December solstice. These are convenient points at which to quarter
the year, and the seasons are a convenient preexisting set of names for
quarters of a year. So in the northern hemisphere we call the 0-90º
quadrant "spring", the 90º-180º quadrant "summer", etc.
Now, actually using these astronomical divisions in civil reckoning, with
newscasters announcing the "first day of spring" on March 20th, etc., may
well be a Leftpondian quirk.
I specifically said "the Boxing Day public holiday" for that reason.
> Boxing Day was the 26th (the day before yesterday by now).
Ah, right. We say "observed" for that. Sunday was Christmas; Monday was
the Federal holiday "Christmas (Observed)"
(You do of course need to days for Christmas: One for the wife's side and
> one for
> the husband's; I have no idea how you Americans get by with only one.)
We don't all. Only Christmas Day itself (or the closest non-weekend day) is
a Federal holiday, but every private corporation for which I've worked has
also given its employees Christmas Eve off. Oddly, it has always been an
official half-day only, but there is a tradition of announcing that everyone
gets the other half off too. I guess they're just reserving the right to
keep people here if needed.
In America I think it's basically a religious festival that's significantly
> more important than most, hence "Happy Holidays!".
Not really. Christmas is a largely secular holiday in the USA, despite the
moanings and groanings of the religious right. For many, it is basically
"Thanksgiving with presents". Most religious non-Christians don't observe
it, but many non-religious types of varied backgrounds do. That category
includes my wife's family, who are Jewish by heritage but agnostic by
belief; they do not observe any Jewish religious holidays such as Hanukkah
or Passover, but instead celebrate Christmas and even Easter (which is also
somewhat secularized here, via the Easter Bunny and egg hunts and whatnot,
but not as much so as Christmas).
There's still plenty of Christ in Christmas, of course. Most Christmas
carols have some reference to the baby Jesus, for instance, and Nativity
scenes are ubiquitous. For some of the secular Christmas observers, the
Christmas Story is just that - a story, not history. However, most people
over here consider themselves Christians even if they aren't "religious" or
regular church-goers; such people usually make a point of attending
Christmas Eve or Christmas Day services every year. But it is the secular
aspect which permits Christmas to be a Federal holiday despite the
Establishment clause int he Constitution which prohibits a state religion.
Oh, and the traditional Christmas dinner over here is indeed not bbq.
Either turkey (again), ham, or duck would be comme il fait.
But if any public holiday falls on a non-working day,
> including one that is also a no-trade day, then the gazetted public
> holiday is the next working day.
The usual rule here is the *closest* working day. Thus if Christmas falls
on a Saturday, the holiday is the previous Friday, not the following Monday.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:01:33 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth - bulk order?
Depends heavily on quantity and method.
Screen print would be about $200-300 one-time setup, 30-70 per;
digital print is ~$100 setup, 78-225 per; applique is ~150-250 per.
But that's very ballpark & doesn't include hardware or shipping.
If we'd be getting into the dozens on order size, then the price drops
pretty significantly toward the bottom end of those ranges. Somewhat
less than usual, because of the distribution, but even so. I'd say
that screen printing is the most likely choice if we can get enough
orders to even out that setup fee.
(For that matter: cloisonne' pins can be made also - but the minimum
orders are usually in the 100-300 range, at ~$.75 per.)
- Sai
On 12/27/05, Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd be interested. What kind of ballpark price are we talking about
> (you can quote US dollars, that's fine)? --larry
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:14:04 +0100
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Glyphica Arcana Distinctions (cases?)
Hallo!
Jefferson Wilson wrote:
> [...]
>
> Anyway, based on some earlier comments I've been considering
> revising the subject/object distinction. I'd like to know what
> the difference is between subject/object and agent/patient.
"Subject" and "object" are syntactic notions which do not apply
well to some languages. In the examples:
(1) The child threw the ball.
(2) The child sang.
(3) The ball fell.
the subjects are "the child", "the child" and "the ball",
respectively.
"Agent" and "patient" are *semantic* roles. An agent is an
entity which performs an action, a patient is one which
undergoes an event. In (1) and (2), "the child" is the agent.
In (3), there is *no* agent - "the ball" is subject but not
agent. In (1) and (3), "the ball" is the patient; (2) does
not involve a patient.
> What
> other distinctions like this can people tell me about? One thing
> I'm considering in particular is a distinction between volitional
> (people) and non-volitional (rocks) subjects, though I'm not
> exactly sure where to draw the line between the two.
You may want to look at the degrees of volition in my conlang
Old Albic, a language which distinguishes between agent and
patient rather than subject and object. I posted the grammar
last year here, it can be easily accessed via the page
http://wiki.frath.net/Old_Albic
Look for "Case" under "Nominal Morphology" and for "Degrees of
volition" under "Syntax".
(Since then, I have changed some minor details, but these changes
only concern the phonetic shape of some morphemes; the structure
of the language has remained the same.)
Greetings,
Jörg.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:19:53 +0100
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What defines a conlang?
Hallo!
Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:07:05 -0500, Jörg Rhiemeier
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'd say that a conlang is a language deliberately designed by
> > an individual or a (small) group; a natlang is a language that
> > evolved from another language during centuries of usage by a
> > community.
>
> This overlooks the pidgin/creole situation, where a complete language can
> emerge more or less fully formed in a matter of a couple of generations
> over a reasonably small (depending on your domain) group of people,
> without much if any planning.
>
> Also, there are natlangs that consist of a very diverse set of dialects
> that are deliberately engineered, codified and koinized. Koine being the
> obvious example, but if my brain isn't playing tricks on me, I seem to
> recall Bahasa Indonesia kinda fits the bill, too.
>
> It's a hard set to define. I'm tempted to go with the "second-generation
> L1 speakers" thing, but that I suspect locks out dying or dead languages
> going through a resurgence.
You are right, there are borderline cases and a "gray area" between
natlangs and conlangs. It's rather like a spectrum than like a
black-and-white binary. The extremes are vernacular dialects on
one end and a priori conlangs on the other; many languages fall
somewhere between.
Greetings,
Jörg.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:02:23 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What defines a conlang?
Watch my reply-to!
Another consideration would be how the language is used. Natlangs are
mostly (obviously) used for real world uses--business, conversation,
and the like. But the grey area emerges when Trekkies have
conversations in Klingon, and Esperantists speak Esperanto for just
about anything.
On 12/27/05, Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> Paul Bennett wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:07:05 -0500, Jörg Rhiemeier
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I'd say that a conlang is a language deliberately designed by
> > > an individual or a (small) group; a natlang is a language that
> > > evolved from another language during centuries of usage by a
> > > community.
> >
> > This overlooks the pidgin/creole situation, where a complete language can
> > emerge more or less fully formed in a matter of a couple of generations
> > over a reasonably small (depending on your domain) group of people,
> > without much if any planning.
> >
> > Also, there are natlangs that consist of a very diverse set of dialects
> > that are deliberately engineered, codified and koinized. Koine being the
> > obvious example, but if my brain isn't playing tricks on me, I seem to
> > recall Bahasa Indonesia kinda fits the bill, too.
> >
> > It's a hard set to define. I'm tempted to go with the "second-generation
> > L1 speakers" thing, but that I suspect locks out dying or dead languages
> > going through a resurgence.
>
> You are right, there are borderline cases and a "gray area" between
> natlangs and conlangs. It's rather like a spectrum than like a
> black-and-white binary. The extremes are vernacular dialects on
> one end and a priori conlangs on the other; many languages fall
> somewhere between.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Jörg.
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:04:46 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What defines a conlang?
Re ASL:
What Chris was probably referring to originally was the Abbe' Sicard's
LSF, which was French using the locally preexisting sign language's
signs. Rather like SEE, for French.
I'd say SEE and LSF are a posteriori conlangs of a sort; they're
certainly not natlangs but not entirely constructed either (since the
grammar / structure / etc is from one language, and the words [as
signed] are from another, and there's not much to it that's not from
one of the two).
LSF then migrated here to blend with homebrew sign via Gallaudet, and
thus the pidgin that Adam winced about so. :-P
And now ASL is starting to re-blend with SEE and plenty of borrowed
English fingerspellings (I've seen native Deaf-of-Deaf-parents people
using the backwards-J "ing" and the hook-s "'s" signs, eg, without
even blinking.) So I'd say it has a pretty strong conlang blend in
that mix even these days.
- Sai
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:17:06 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Slightly OT: dreidel question
I'm a bit confused about the history of the dreidel and its association with
Hanukkah. I know the dreidel was originally a gambling device (the original
d4, in D&D terms). I know that in the context of the Hanukkah game, the
four letters stand for the Yiddish words for "Nothing", "Everything",
"Half", and "Put" or "Pay", while in the larger context of Hanukkah itself
they are construed as an acronym for the Hebrew phrase "A great miracle
happened here/there".
But which came first? I have found explanations that give both directions -
that the game started with the Yiddish letters which were then reinterpreted
as the acronym, or that they started with the acronym and then developed the
game mechanics to match. The latter interpretation seems to be more common,
but the information I've found so far is lacking in detail.
I don't know how old the association is, but if it dates back to the
beginning of the Hanukkah custom, then I don't think Yiddish existed yet?
Sorry for my confusion, but my Google-fu has failed me here. Any pointers
appreciated.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:49:00 +0000
From: Rodlox R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Christmas/Holidays
>Good Friday and Anzac Day (a war memorial day, held both in Australia and
>New Zealand)
...and the Republic of Turkey.
(just offering)
have nice days.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:12:03 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Person Marking On Nouns
Hi!
Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 03:43:12 -0500, Chris Bates
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A while ago on the ZBB and on the conlang list we had a discussion
> > about person marking on nouns, since I'd incorporated it into my
> > conlang at the time (which I'm doing a bit of work on at the
> > moment). At the time I had difficulty citing a clear example of a
> > natlang that had such marking.
>
> Elamite clearly had distinct, obligatory person/gender marking on nouns:
>...
>From this natlang and discussions on this list I stole the feature for
S11 (working title Tesäfköm). It will have only personal marking on
nouns and no pronouns at all.
BTW: I made some extraordinary progress in S11 syntax during the last
few days! The current version of the syntax, although not totally
complete, is now LALR(1) parsable meaning that I have a bison grammar
for it. Yay! The best thing is that it is almost my initial grammar
sketch so that it feels nicely esthetical to me. It took a while to
convince bison that to understand what I want, but now, I'm happy! :-)
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:11:07 +0200
From: Markus Miekk-oja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slightly OT: dreidel question
>But which came first? I have found explanations that give both directions
>-
>that the game started with the Yiddish letters which were then
>reinterpreted
>as the acronym, or that they started with the acronym and then developed
>the
>game mechanics to match. The latter interpretation seems to be more
>common,
>but the information I've found so far is lacking in detail.
>
>I don't know how old the association is, but if it dates back to the
>beginning of the Hanukkah custom, then I don't think Yiddish existed yet?
There is no such thing as "Yiddish letters" as distinct from Hebrew letters,
except perhaps really minor typographic differences.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:19:44 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Imperative vs Jussive vs Hortative
As far as I can tell, the imperative, jussive and hortative cases have
roughly the same semantic connotation, except they're split by person,
thus:
Hortative: 1st person plural inclusive (Let's eat!)
Imperative: 2nd person (Go!)
Jussive: 3rd person (Let them eat cake!)
Is that all there is to it, or am I missing some subtle (or not so subtle)
distinction? I notice the jussive and hortative are formed with "let" in
English, but is that part of a larger pattern, for instance?
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:47:17 -0500
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slightly OT: dreidel question
On Dec 27, 2005, at 1:17 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> I'm a bit confused about the history of the dreidel and its
> association with Hanukkah. I know the dreidel was originally a
> gambling device (the original d4, in D&D terms). I know that in the
> context of the Hanukkah game, the four letters stand for the Yiddish
> words for "Nothing", "Everything", "Half", and "Put" or "Pay", while
> in the larger context of Hanukkah itself they are construed as an
> acronym for the Hebrew phrase "A great miracle happened here/there".
> But which came first? I have found explanations that give both
> directions - that the game started with the Yiddish letters which were
> then reinterpreted as the acronym, or that they started with the
> acronym and then developed the game mechanics to match. The latter
> interpretation seems to be more common, but the information I've found
> so far is lacking in detail.
> I don't know how old the association is, but if it dates back to the
> beginning of the Hanukkah custom, then I don't think Yiddish existed
> yet?
> Sorry for my confusion, but my Google-fu has failed me here. Any
> pointers appreciated.
> --
> Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From what i've read it seems that the 'practical' meaning of the
letters predates the 'religious' meaning of them, and that they were
copied from similar German d4-based games which used similar words.
It's unclear when exactly Yiddish developed into a recognizably
separate language, but there's a long history of Jews writing their
vernacular in Hebrew letters. So even in Yiddish as such hadn't yet
developed, there was still a kind of Judeo-German being written on the
dreidls.
-Stephen (Steg)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:44:45 -0500
From: "Ph.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Person Marking On Nouns
Henrik Theiling wrote:
>
> BTW: I made some extraordinary progress in S11 syntax
> during the last few days! The current version of the syntax,
> although not totally complete, is now LALR(1) parsable
> meaning that I have a bison grammar for it. Yay! The best
> thing is that it is almost my initial grammar sketch so that it
> feels nicely esthetical to me. It took a while to convince
> bison that to understand what I want, but now, I'm happy! :-)
Is the S11 syntax on a web site somewhere?
--Ph. D.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:52:16 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why grammar is so complex a subject
I think I've finally figured out why grammar is so
complex. It's because it's an artificial attempt to
discover "rules" in what is really a monsterous
collection of exceptions. There ARE no rules; only
exceptions! Tens of thousands of unique patterns of
words learned by rote which, in reality, have no
underlying theoretical reason for existing other than
generations of acquired habits passed down with a bit
of alteration and streamlining from one generation to
the next.
Beneath it all, there is no such thing as "grammar",
and that's why it appears to be so complex; because in
the end it is nothing but the enumeration of
exceptional cases that we learned by example from
childhood on. The existence of some solid and
universal principal beneath it all is just a mirage,
an illusion, and epiphenomenon.
Therefore conlangs should not be "designed", they
should be "used into existence." Their "grammar"
should never be discussed, but only demonstrated with
a catalog of exemplars (exceptions, all). Their
phonology should never be analyzed, but only produced
in real time, as needed, with assorted mouth noises.
Their lexicon must never be planned, but only
documented AFTER the fact. They should be taught by
example only, not by enumeration of so-called "rules"
which don't really exist anyway.
For what it's worth that's my newest conception of
reality, and I'm sticking by it. For the moment, at
least.
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:33:31 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slightly OT: dreidel question
On 12/27/05, Markus Miekk-oja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There is no such thing as "Yiddish letters" as distinct from Hebrew
> letters,
> except perhaps really minor typographic differences.
Yes, I know. I apologize for the imprecision; what I meant was Hebrew
letters which represent Yiddish (not Hebrew) words.
On 12/27/05, Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From what i've read it seems that the 'practical' meaning of the
> letters predates the 'religious' meaning of them, and that they were
> copied from similar German d4-based games which used similar words.
> It's unclear when exactly Yiddish developed into a recognizably
> separate language, but there's a long history of Jews writing their
> vernacular in Hebrew letters. So even in Yiddish as such hadn't yet
> developed, there was still a kind of Judeo-German being written on the
> dreidls.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks!
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:41:14 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
On 12/27/05, Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Therefore conlangs should not be "designed", they
> should be "used into existence." Their "grammar"
> should never be discussed, but only demonstrated with
> a catalog of exemplars (exceptions, all). Their
> phonology should never be analyzed, but only produced
> in real time, as needed, with assorted mouth noises.
> Their lexicon must never be planned, but only
> documented AFTER the fact. They should be taught by
> example only, not by enumeration of so-called "rules"
> which don't really exist anyway.
A while ago there was a collaborative conlang project
which consisted of various conlangers contributing
sentences to a corpus, and making speculative
analyses of the grammar and lexicon based upon
the corpus. I can't recall the name, however, and can't
seem to find the right search terms to find it.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:08:16 -0500
From: "Harald S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:52:16 -0800, Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Beneath it all, there is no such thing as "grammar",
There is no grammar and Gary is its grammarian? *lol*
Somehow your theory has a touch of Schroedinger's language-cat. ;-)
Maybe it is the nature of language to change whenever people try
to determine the pattern of its grammatical system.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:51:43 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Imperative vs Jussive vs Hortative
Most French conjugator-dictionaries list these under the same tense,
but French doesn't have a 3rd person. French would use the
subjunctive, and you would say "Qu'ils puissent manger du ga^teau",
literally "That they may eat cake".
Esperanto, my L3, doesn't mark person for this group of tenses but
calls it the jussive.
As for actual differences, I don't really think there are any. All
three seem to express the same idea of "I command these people to
perform this action."
On 12/27/05, Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the imperative, jussive and hortative cases have
> roughly the same semantic connotation, except they're split by person,
> thus:
>
> Hortative: 1st person plural inclusive (Let's eat!)
> Imperative: 2nd person (Go!)
> Jussive: 3rd person (Let them eat cake!)
>
> Is that all there is to it, or am I missing some subtle (or not so subtle)
> distinction? I notice the jussive and hortative are formed with "let" in
> English, but is that part of a larger pattern, for instance?
>
>
>
>
> Paul
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:17:58 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
--- Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>
> A while ago there was a collaborative conlang
> project
> which consisted of various conlangers contributing
> sentences to a corpus, and making speculative
> analyses of the grammar and lexicon based upon
> the corpus. I can't recall the name, however, and
> can't
> seem to find the right search terms to find it.
>
> --
> Jim Henry
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry
>
I tried to start something like that here back around
aug of 2004. It withered and died due ot lack of
interest. It's still archived at http://fiziwig.com/
filed under "Madjal - A failed experiment in conlang
anarchy" in the conlang section.
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 03:17:36 -0500
From: Shreyas Sampat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
Gary Shannon wrote:
>I think I've finally figured out why grammar is so
>complex. It's because it's an artificial attempt to
>discover "rules" in what is really a monsterous
>collection of exceptions. There ARE no rules; only
>exceptions! Tens of thousands of unique patterns of
>words learned by rote which, in reality, have no
>underlying theoretical reason for existing other than
>generations of acquired habits passed down with a bit
>of alteration and streamlining from one generation to
>the next.
>
>
I think this theory predicts a much larger set of probable languages,
with fewer common qualities, than are in evidence.
--
The "Million Style Manual" is a set of sixty-four jade stones marked
with pieces of Chinese characters. It expresses the kung fu of the void,
as taught by P'an Ku's axe.
Shreyas Sampat
http://njyar.blogspot.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:14:05 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Person Marking On Nouns
Hi!
"Ph.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Henrik Theiling wrote:
> >
> > BTW: I made some extraordinary progress in S11 syntax
> > during the last few days! The current version of the syntax,
> > although not totally complete, is now LALR(1) parsable
> > meaning that I have a bison grammar for it. Yay! The best
> > thing is that it is almost my initial grammar sketch so that it
> > feels nicely esthetical to me. It took a while to convince
> > bison that to understand what I want, but now, I'm happy! :-)
>
>
> Is the S11 syntax on a web site somewhere?
There's an outdated version only, but it shows my intentions:
http://www.kunstsprachen.de/s11/
Sorry that it is still a bit messy. When I update, I'll have a
separate and short syntax overview.
Very brief: it is a head-last, topic-comment structure similar to
Japanese, but since the lang has only unary verbs, a normal clause
is a serial verb construction of the form:
S ::= N-Mood-V N-V N-V ... N-V.
I call the N-V combinations 'adverbs'. Maybe there will be a few
lexicon entries for single word adverbs, too. The first N is the topic.
The verbs and most affixes are clitics, so it is mostly the nouns that
start new words. Nouns and verbs are the same lexical category: each
one being one lexicon entry, but they have a different usage in a
sentence.
As can be seen, an adverb with an incorporated mood (or evidence)
marker marks the beginning of a clause.
There are two forms of relative clauses: internally headed and
externally headed ones, the former for descriptive clauses, the latter
for restrictive clauses. Both nouns and verbs can be modified, since
they are the same category.
IHRC:
X' ::= S Resumptive_Pronoun
The topic of S is the modified X.
EHRC:
X' ::= S Relative_Pronoun X
This S has a gap for the topic filled by X.
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:25:42 +1300
From: Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
Which is what I suggested - half in jest - should be done with all the
"conlangs" made by various musicians and left completely undocumented by
their creators. ;)
Wesley Parish
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:41, Jim Henry wrote:
> On 12/27/05, Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Therefore conlangs should not be "designed", they
> > should be "used into existence." Their "grammar"
> > should never be discussed, but only demonstrated with
> > a catalog of exemplars (exceptions, all). Their
> > phonology should never be analyzed, but only produced
> > in real time, as needed, with assorted mouth noises.
> > Their lexicon must never be planned, but only
> > documented AFTER the fact. They should be taught by
> > example only, not by enumeration of so-called "rules"
> > which don't really exist anyway.
>
> A while ago there was a collaborative conlang project
> which consisted of various conlangers contributing
> sentences to a corpus, and making speculative
> analyses of the grammar and lexicon based upon
> the corpus. I can't recall the name, however, and can't
> seem to find the right search terms to find it.
>
> --
> Jim Henry
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry
--
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: 24
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:21:23 +0100
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, 12:52 AM CET, Gary Shannon wrote:
> I think I've finally figured out why grammar is so
> complex. It's because it's an artificial attempt to
> discover "rules" in what is really a monsterous
> collection of exceptions. There ARE no rules; only
> exceptions! Tens of thousands of unique patterns of
> words learned by rote which, in reality, have no
> underlying theoretical reason for existing other than
> generations of acquired habits passed down with a bit
> of alteration and streamlining from one generation to
> the next.
In my understanding, grammar tries to catalogize the
exceptions in that it tries to point out the most likely way
how something is expressed. That we try to think of language
as having regular patterns is, considering your realization,
maybe only due to the brain always seeking for them.
For the same reason, you can sometimes see animals or
other common structures/patterns in the shape of clouds.
Carsten
--
Keywords: grammar
"Miranayam cepauarà naranoaris."
(Calvin nay Hobbes)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:21:47 +0100
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperative vs Jussive vs Hortative
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, 12:19 AM CET, Paul Bennett wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the imperative, jussive and
> hortative cases have roughly the same semantic
> connotation, except they're split by person, thus:
>
> Hortative: 1st person plural inclusive (Let's eat!)
> Imperative: 2nd person (Go!)
> Jussive: 3rd person (Let them eat cake!)
Isn't at least the imperative considered a mode? Hortative
and Jussive also seem to me rather to be modes than cases.
OK, but then, in Ayeri, the 'native' word for 'mode' is
'verbal case' (as in Latin 'casus verbi' IIRC) and cases are
'nominal cases'.
Cheers,
Carsten
--
Keywords: imperatives
"Miranayam cepauarà naranoaris."
(Calvin nay Hobbes)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
