------------------------ 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: Imperative vs Jussive vs Hortative
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: Imperative vs Jussive vs Hortative
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. FWIW: Topic-worthiness chapter from Describing Morphosyntax
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: Imperative vs Jussive vs Hortative
From: John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: And Rosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Types of Possession -- Tesäfköm: A Constructed Language (S11)
From: Thomas Hart Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Chris Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Cian Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Kit La Touche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: Imperative vs Jussive vs Hortative
From: # 1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Conlangs Flag: Specs, Pricing & Details on how to get your own
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: Conlangs Flag: Specs, Pricing & Details on how to get your own
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: Conlangs Flag: Specs, Pricing & Details on how to get your own
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: Conlangs Flag: Specs, Pricing & Details on how to get your own
From: Aidan Grey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: Imperative vs Jussive vs Hortative
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: Conlangs Flag: Specs, Pricing & Details on how to get your own
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:08:12 +0000
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperative vs Jussive vs Hortative
Paul Bennett wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the imperative, jussive and hortative cases
moods, not cases - case is a marked form of _noun phrases_.
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,
More or less. But to some extent it is language specific. For example,
in ancient Greek verbs had 2nd & 3rd person forms for the imperative
mood, so one would say that _elthato:_ (let him/her/it come!) is 3rd
pers. singular imperative. On the other hand, the 1st person (hortative)
must be expressed by using the subjunctive mood. One would then talk
about a 'hortative/jussive subjunctive', meaning the use of a
subjunctive to express the hortative/jussive mood.
> 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?
No - it is language specific. In French, the three things are done
differently:
Hortative: mangeons! (1st pers. pl. present indic.)
Imperative: mange! mangez!
Jussive: Qu'ils mangent de la brioche! (Que + present subjunctive)
In Latin, as in English, the hortative & jussive were both expressed the
same way, but Latin simply used the present subjunctive for both. As
both 1st & 3rd person 'imperatives' are expressed the same way, it is
usual in talking of the Latin use to call both 'jussive'.
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:09:50 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperative vs Jussive vs Hortative
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:21:47 -0500, Carsten Becker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Yes. My brain automatically supplies the word "case" when it sees
linguistics words ending in "-ive". It's a known bug, and I'm working on
it.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:35:40 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
--- Shreyas Sampat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
Counter argument: For emerging proto-humans in a
rudamentary hunter-gatherer society there are a very
limited number of things that need to be discussed,
and the ways of putting those things together into a
single utterance are mathematically very limited. "Me
goat see", "Goat me see", "Me see goat", "Goat see
me.", "See goat me.", "See me goat." Which, for
reasons of survival, would have to be differentiated
in meaning from "Tiger see me.", "See tiger me.", etc.
Of those six one or two could, through usage, become
the habitual utterance, and thus create the "rule" of
SVO or SOV or whichever applies. That's a pretty small
set of possibilities to choose from, so all languages
that might have been invented in isolation would tend
to fall into a very small number of word order
systems.
Then there's the matter of how many ways case might be
marked to clarify who is being seen by whom. "Tiger
see at me.", "See tiger to me.", "Me me tiger see.",
"See tiger me me."
Then, as sophistication grows, tense might become an
issue. But again, there are a very limited number of
possible ways to mark the tense of a verb, and so
tense marking would again fall into a very imited
number of categories. "See before tiger me me.", etc.
I think that biological constraints, universe of
discourse limitations imposed by the necessities of
hunter-gatherer survival, and limitations imposed by
early proto-human brain capacity would tend to mold
languages in such a way that variety would be
relatively limited, except in details of lexicon which
would be subject to infinite diversity.
Once these limited ways of expressing the simplest
ideas became well established as speech habits, and
passed down from generation to generation, new layers
of sophistication would tend to adhere to the earlier
usage habits and the "rules" of grammar would begin to
emerge, not because of some inborn "grammar gene", but
because simple repetitve usage turned certain
formalized sentence templates into cultural habits.
What starts out as a simple set of sentence templates
becomes elaborated over time to the point where modern
children have to internalize thousands of templates in
order to go from "Me no see puppy. Puppy go bye-bye?"
to "I was wondering what ever became of that cute
little puppy you used to have."
The earliest childhood templates are those that the
earliest proto-humans would most likely have created
for themselves, and so ontogeny once again mirrors
phylogeny.
The interesting implication of all this is that if
true, it should be possible to do complete parsing of
any arbitrary natural language sentence with a process
not much more sophisticated than the
search-and-replace function of an ordinary word
processor program, using a set of template matching
patterns. In fact, that sounds like an interesting
project to attempt!
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:36:14 -0500
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FWIW: Topic-worthiness chapter from Describing Morphosyntax
Hi all,
If anyone cares, I have just copied the chapter about topic-worthiness [1]
from Describing Morphosyntax for a posting on the ZBB [2].
Carsten
[1] www.beckerscarsten.de/downloads/sprache/thepayne_topicworthiness.pdf
[2] http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?t=14181
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:58:29 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
Hi!
Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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! ...
Well, I find that too strict, since children do try to find rules when
learning a language. There's a certain state of language aquisition
when children over-generalise (e.g. make all verbs regular), so some
grammar rules probably do exist in peoples' brains.
Anyway, I basically agree that grammar as used in linguistics is
basically an attempt to find an approximative model for quite a
chaotic system and that it will always be incomplete since natural
language usually cannot be easily described completely by rules.
Still, grammar as a model simplifies handling a language e.g. in
research, and for analysing, comparing and predicting language, some
model, i.e., a grammar is quite handy.
This is of course the same in any science. Depending on the level of
detail you want to look at, you'll need a most or less detailed model.
Without simplification, you're lost.
>... Therefore conlangs should not be "designed", they should be
> "used into existence." ...
Hmm? Why (not)? They are conlangs. Of course, you may very well use
a different approach, but since grammar is a model for simplifying the
chaos, it seems like a very feasible approach to describing a lang and
thus, a conlang.
For engelangs, you might in fact have a set of grammar rules without
any exceptions.
Summarising: I basically agree with your analysis of language as a
heap of chaos, but I disagree about some of your conclusions.
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 22:06:45 +0200
From: John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperative vs Jussive vs Hortative
>My brain automatically supplies the word "case" when it sees linguistics
>words ending in "-ive". It's a known bug, and I'm
>working on it.
>
>
>Paul
Hmm... I just got an idea: what you described could be reversed to derive
new and interesting cases:
archive (for old objects; archaisms)
cursive (for cursed objects)
deceive (for groups of ten objects)
detective (for newly seen objects)
forgive (for objects hit with a hammer)
fugitive (for themes of fugues)
massive (for deriving units of mass)
productive (for association with the Plumber's Union)
...
Uh, I might have to do some further weeding. Still, feels like there's some
potential here.
John Vertical
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:09:18 +0000
From: And Rosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
Gary Shannon, On 27/12/2005 23:52:
> 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.
In linguistics this view is increasingly widely held.
I'd call it 'constructionism', and it is the main idea
underpinning the growing theory of Construction Grammar.
[I don't myself entirely agree with the view you put
forward, but then nor do you, as your follow-up messages
show...]
> 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 me, the chief attraction of conlangs (-- & I favour
the engelangy sort) is precisely that they can be
designed -- that Nature can be improved upon...
--And.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:54:31 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
On 12/28/05, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >... Therefore conlangs should not be "designed", they should be
> > "used into existence." ...
>
> Hmm? Why (not)? They are conlangs. Of course, you may very well use
> a different approach, but since grammar is a model for simplifying the
> chaos, it seems like a very feasible approach to describing a lang and
> thus, a conlang.
The approach Gary suggests is probably a good one for
naturalistic artlangs. What also works well is a method
involving a priori design of some aspects of the language
and allowing other aspects to emerge gradually from actual use
of the language. In fact, I suspect that pure a priori design
may be impossible if you want a language complete enough
to use -- you probably can't foresee every
issue at the beginning, so some grammatical and
semantic issues can only be resolved
after you've started using the language. Some of the
problems that emerge at this stage would require,
for their optimal solution, fundamental changes that would
retroactively make much of the corpus ungramatical,
so you may prefer a less optimal solution that allows
the existing corpus to stand (and doesn't require you
to re-learn basic aspects of the language). This
is the approach I'm taking with gjâ-zym-byn; for the
first few years it was all designed a priori, but once
I started using it extensively, I ruled out any changes
that would make the existing corpus obsolete or
require me to relearn aspects of the language
I'm already fluent with.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/gzb/gzb.htm
...Mind the gmail Reply-to: field
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:29:05 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[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.
The rules of grammar are the patterns of neural networks. As
such they are complicated, individual, and three-dimensional (at
least).
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:50:45 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
--- Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>
> The interesting implication of all this is that if
> true, it should be possible to do complete parsing
> of
> any arbitrary natural language sentence with a
> process
> not much more sophisticated than the
> search-and-replace function of an ordinary word
> processor program, using a set of template matching
> patterns. In fact, that sounds like an interesting
> project to attempt!
>
> --gary
>
Just for fun...
"Parsing by Search and Replace" project begun at
http://fiziwig.com/parser/parse1.html
It will be interesting to see if it's actually
possible to write a robust computerized parsing
program in this manner.
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:41:58 -0500
From: Thomas Hart Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Types of Possession -- Tesäfköm: A Constructed Language (S11)
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:20:46 -0500, Thomas Hart Chappell
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:46:53 -0500, Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:19:11 -0500, Jefferson Wilson
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>> [snip]
> [snip]
>
>... three ideas I remember from T.E. Payne's "Describing Morphosyntax";
>
>1) Many languages divide nouns into two types; possessible and non-
>possessible. ...
> [snip]
>
>2) Many languages divide nouns into two types; those on the one hand that,
>inherently, must be possessed, and those on the other hand that need not,
>inherently, be possessed. ...
> [snip]
>
>3) Many languages ... divide types of possession into alienable ...
> versus inalienable ...
>
>4) Many languages use a combination of two of the above three ideas. It is
> logically possible, and I think there may exist some natlangs attesting,
> all three at once -- I don't know, does anyone else?
>
> [snip]
Henrik Theiling's conlang Tesäfköm (S11) does embody all three of these
ideas.
Since he uses "construct-state" instead of "genitive-case", it turns out to
be much easier to do.
Since Tesafkom is a head-marking language, in the possessor-possessum pair
of nouns, it will be the possessum which gets marked, rather than the
possessor.
1) A noun which has no "construct states" will be non-possessible.
2) A noun which never has any non-"construct" states -- must be possessed.
3) Henrik gives S11 two construct-states; the alienable one and the
inalienable one.
-----
I've just timed out. 'Bye.
Tom H.C. in MI
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:46:34 -0600
From: Chris Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
> > Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > >... Therefore conlangs should not be "designed", they should be
> > > "used into existence." ...
> >
... Has anybody on this list attempted this ... by teaching their conlangs
to their children? That seems an obvious way to test the "speakability" of
a conlang, if a child is able to be raised bilingual in a conlang plus a
natlang. That would also have the benefit of adding some "evolution by
natural usage" to the conlang, as the child picks it up as their co-L1.
Of course, there are many examples of children being raised bilingual in a
natlang plus Esperanto. Besides those, I've only heard of one case of a
child whose father decided to raise him bilingual in English and Klingon.
The experiment lasted all of about five years -- once the child reached
school age, and discovered that none of his classmates spoke Klingon, he
gave it up entirely and used English exclusively.
That tells me that the concept is at least workable, but perhaps could be
done better. What "better" is, I have no idea.
:Chris
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:27:28 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth
>From Chstian Thalmann:
--------------
Hey.
> My understanding is that you are the one who ultimately designed the
> Conlangs 'babel tower on surise + purple' flag.
>
> So, two questions. May I use it to make a full-size cloth flag? And
> may I have a high-res version?
Sure, it belongs to the Conlang community, not me.
I'm afraid I don't have a higher-res version than
the one published back then, but it shouldn't be
too hard to make.
Happy Holidays,
-- Christian Thalmann
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:50:05 -0600
From: Cian Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 11:35, Gary Shannon wrote:
> Counter argument: For emerging proto-humans in a
> rudamentary hunter-gatherer society there are a very
> limited number of things that need to be discussed,
> and the ways of putting those things together into a
> single utterance are mathematically very limited. "Me
> goat see", "Goat me see", "Me see goat", "Goat see
> me.", "See goat me.", "See me goat." Which, for
> reasons of survival, would have to be differentiated
> in meaning from "Tiger see me.", "See tiger me.", etc.
I'm not quite comfortable with at least one assumption you seem to be
making here. Why would language even at a very early stage necessarily
be limited to matters of immediate physical survival? Language doesn't
seem to be necessary for survival at all: AFAIK humans are the only
species that use syntactic language as such and while we're very
successful we're not alone in being successful. I have to wonder if
language more likely started from interpersonal interactions and then
later turned "outwards" to deal with other matters?
Regards,
Cian Ross
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://crlh.tzo.org/~cian/conlang/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:25:31 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
--- Cian Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 11:35, Gary Shannon wrote:
>
<snip>
> "Me
> > goat see", "Goat me see", "Me see goat", "Goat see
> > me.", "See goat me.", "See me goat." Which, for
> > reasons of survival, would have to be
> differentiated
> > in meaning from "Tiger see me.", "See tiger me.",
> etc.
>
> I'm not quite comfortable with at least one
> assumption you seem to be
> making here. Why would language even at a very
> early stage necessarily
> be limited to matters of immediate physical
> survival?
Good point! But in the final analysis I'm just making
this stuff up anyway, so who knows? I guess the proof
is in the pudding. If I can build a working parser
based on the theory then it doesn't matter whether my
hypothetical ramblings are true or not.
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:43:25 -0500
From: Kit La Touche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
you're not alone in this view; there are those who hold that
language's initial purpose was probably for gossip. it's very much a
tool for social networks, more than for description of the
surrounding environment.
(the idea being that the environment is its own descriptor, while
social networks need to be expressed by social actions to be
perceived, and that in the case of humans, this happened to be
language.)
kit
On Dec 28, 2005, at 9:50 PM, Cian Ross wrote:
> I'm not quite comfortable with at least one assumption you seem to be
> making here. Why would language even at a very early stage
> necessarily
> be limited to matters of immediate physical survival? Language
> doesn't
> seem to be necessary for survival at all: AFAIK humans are the only
> species that use syntactic language as such and while we're very
> successful we're not alone in being successful. I have to wonder if
> language more likely started from interpersonal interactions and then
> later turned "outwards" to deal with other matters?
>
> Regards,
> Cian Ross
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://crlh.tzo.org/~cian/conlang/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:42:27 -0500
From: # 1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperative vs Jussive vs Hortative
Sorry for my long absence but my computer had a big problem, now it is
probably solved, so I'm back.
R A Brown wrote:
>>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?
>
>No - it is language specific. In French, the three things are done
>differently:
>Hortative: mangeons! (1st pers. pl. present indic.)
>Imperative: mange! mangez!
>Jussive: Qu'ils mangent de la brioche! (Que + present subjunctive)
Actually, for first person, it is also part of the imperative, the ending is
the same that for present indicative for most verbs like "mangeons!" and
"nous mangeons" but different for "être" and "avoir", and this is enough to
be different moods. "Être"(to be) is "soyons!" when imperative and "nous
sommes" when present indicative and "avoir"(to have) is "ayons!" and "nous
avons". The present indicative and the imperative are also different for all
verb on pronominal form like "se laver"(to wach oneself) that is
"lavons-nous!" and "nous nous lavons".
- Max
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 22:37:25 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Conlangs Flag: Specs, Pricing & Details on how to get your own
So I've gotten a bunch of quotes, and here is the current best (might
get lower than this, but not by much):
Specs:
3'x5' knitted polyester, single side screenprint (1 ply), grommetted
Price (excluding shipping, which is $8.50):
1 flag - 145 per
2 - 97.50
6 - 53
12 - 31.25
36 - 18.50
... so as you can see, this heavily depends on how many get ordered.
I think the best way to do this would be, everyone who's interested
please email me directly - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - and tell me what your
maximum price is. The more people we can get in on it, the lower the
price will be for everyone obviously, and everyone pays the same.
I'll then contact the manufacturer to tell them the number of flags,
and have you all email them directly to tell 'em your address and do
payment. The turnaround time they were citing is 10-12 days from when
the get the all-clear.
Let's say that you have until January 18th to contact me and add your
name to the list, at which point I'll start the finalizing. That's
just over two weeks.
Tell your friends or people who are offlist (or unlikely to read this). :-P
- Sai
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 02:02:06 -0500
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlangs Flag: Specs, Pricing & Details on how to get your own
While on the subject, could someone send me (or give url) the small graphic
version suitable for insertion on my website? (David Peterson has/had? one
on his-- is it copiable?)
(Sorry, Sai, I don't think I'll be ordering one at this point, though if
there's enough orders to get to the 18.50 price I could be interested.)
Several Conlang members also post to zbb and livejournal-- perhaps it would
be worth mentioning there?
=====================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sai Emrys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: December 29, 2005 1:37 AM
Subject: Conlangs Flag: Specs, Pricing & Details on how to get your own
> So I've gotten a bunch of quotes, and here is the current best (might
> get lower than this, but not by much):
>
> Specs:
> 3'x5' knitted polyester, single side screenprint (1 ply), grommetted
>
> Price (excluding shipping, which is $8.50):
> 1 flag - 145 per
> 2 - 97.50
> 6 - 53
> 12 - 31.25
> 36 - 18.50
>
> ... so as you can see, this heavily depends on how many get ordered.
>
> I think the best way to do this would be, everyone who's interested
> please email me directly - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - and tell me what your
> maximum price is. The more people we can get in on it, the lower the
> price will be for everyone obviously, and everyone pays the same.
>
> I'll then contact the manufacturer to tell them the number of flags,
> and have you all email them directly to tell 'em your address and do
> payment. The turnaround time they were citing is 10-12 days from when
> the get the all-clear.
>
> Let's say that you have until January 18th to contact me and add your
> name to the list, at which point I'll start the finalizing. That's
> just over two weeks.
>
> Tell your friends or people who are offlist (or unlikely to read this).
> :-P
>
> - Sai
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:13:13 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth
Taliesin / Tim:
Could I please have a more common-formatted version - compatible with:
Illustrator 8.0, CorelDraw 9.0, and/or Photoshop 5.0?
And please make sure that the colors conform to this palette:
http://www.the-flag-makers.com/pantone-color-chart.htm
Maybe argue over (er, I mean... discuss) which exactly is the right
color for the sun and the sky, since I'm not the herladry expert
around here. :-P
- Sai
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:09:07 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlangs Flag: Specs, Pricing & Details on how to get your own
I've crossposted this to the conlangs LJ, seeing as how I run it and
all. Didn't know about any zbb though; feel free to crosspost this
anywhere it'd be appropriate, and leave in my email address.
And I'll rephrase your response to "sure, count me in - my max price
is ~$18.50" :-P
- Sai
On 12/28/05, Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While on the subject, could someone send me (or give url) the small graphic
> version suitable for insertion on my website? (David Peterson has/had? one
> on his-- is it copiable?)
>
> (Sorry, Sai, I don't think I'll be ordering one at this point, though if
> there's enough orders to get to the 18.50 price I could be interested.)
>
> Several Conlang members also post to zbb and livejournal-- perhaps it would
> be worth mentioning there?
> =====================================================
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sai Emrys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: December 29, 2005 1:37 AM
> Subject: Conlangs Flag: Specs, Pricing & Details on how to get your own
>
>
> > So I've gotten a bunch of quotes, and here is the current best (might
> > get lower than this, but not by much):
> >
> > Specs:
> > 3'x5' knitted polyester, single side screenprint (1 ply), grommetted
> >
> > Price (excluding shipping, which is $8.50):
> > 1 flag - 145 per
> > 2 - 97.50
> > 6 - 53
> > 12 - 31.25
> > 36 - 18.50
> >
> > ... so as you can see, this heavily depends on how many get ordered.
> >
> > I think the best way to do this would be, everyone who's interested
> > please email me directly - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - and tell me what your
> > maximum price is. The more people we can get in on it, the lower the
> > price will be for everyone obviously, and everyone pays the same.
> >
> > I'll then contact the manufacturer to tell them the number of flags,
> > and have you all email them directly to tell 'em your address and do
> > payment. The turnaround time they were citing is 10-12 days from when
> > the get the all-clear.
> >
> > Let's say that you have until January 18th to contact me and add your
> > name to the list, at which point I'll start the finalizing. That's
> > just over two weeks.
> >
> > Tell your friends or people who are offlist (or unlikely to read this).
> > :-P
> >
> > - Sai
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:14:45 -0800
From: Aidan Grey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlangs Flag: Specs, Pricing & Details on how to get your own
The details have been posted on the ZBB | Ephemera.
A link to a website version: http://wiki.frath.net/Image:Conflag_med.png
For whoever needed it.
Aidan
Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've crossposted this to the conlangs LJ,
seeing as how I run it and
all. Didn't know about any zbb though; feel free to crosspost this
anywhere it'd be appropriate, and leave in my email address.
And I'll rephrase your response to "sure, count me in - my max price
is ~$18.50" :-P
- Sai
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:37:34 +0000
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperative vs Jussive vs Hortative
# 1 wrote:
> Sorry for my long absence but my computer had a big problem, now it is
> probably solved, so I'm back.
Welcome back - Bonne Année!
> R A Brown wrote:
>
>>> 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?
>>
>>
>> No - it is language specific. In French, the three things are done
>> differently:
>> Hortative: mangeons! (1st pers. pl. present indic.)
>> Imperative: mange! mangez!
>> Jussive: Qu'ils mangent de la brioche! (Que + present subjunctive)
>
>
> Actually, for first person, it is also part of the imperative, the
> ending is the same that for present indicative for most verbs like
> "mangeons!" and "nous mangeons" but different for "être" and "avoir",
> and this is enough to be different moods. "Être"(to be) is "soyons!"
> when imperative and "nous sommes" when present indicative and "avoir"(to
> have) is "ayons!" and "nous avons". The present indicative and the
> imperative are also different for all verb on pronominal form like "se
> laver"(to wach oneself) that is "lavons-nous!" and "nous nous lavons".
You're absolutely right. Textbooks do indeed term the 1st pers. pl.
forms as 'imperative' as well as the 2nd pers. forms; and I'd
half-forgotten 'soyons' and 'ayons'.
IIRC all the imperative forms of these two verbs are identical with the
present subjunctive. But in view of the behavior of all other French
verbs we must say that French has an imperative mood with 1st. plural
and 2nd. pers. sing. & plural forms.
This just re-enforces my point that the use of the three terms
hortative, imperative & jussive is conventional & language-specific.
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:02:14 +0000
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>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! ...
>
>
> Well, I find that too strict, since children do try to find rules when
> learning a language. There's a certain state of language aquisition
> when children over-generalise (e.g. make all verbs regular), so some
> grammar rules probably do exist in peoples' brains.
Yes - having had children of my own and now observing grandchildren,
there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that Henrik is absolutely
correct.
=======================================
Cian Ross wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 11:35, Gary Shannon wrote:
>
>
>>Counter argument: For emerging proto-humans in a
>>rudamentary hunter-gatherer society there are a very
>>limited number of things that need to be discussed,
>>and the ways of putting those things together into a
>>single utterance are mathematically very limited. "Me
>>goat see", "Goat me see", "Me see goat", "Goat see
>>me.", "See goat me.", "See me goat." Which, for
>>reasons of survival, would have to be differentiated
>>in meaning from "Tiger see me.", "See tiger me.", etc.
>
>
> I'm not quite comfortable with at least one assumption you seem to be
> making here. Why would language even at a very early stage necessarily
> be limited to matters of immediate physical survival? Language doesn't
> seem to be necessary for survival at all:
Quite so! Nor am I at all comfortable, to put it mildly, with the
apparent assumption that early hominids spoke in the comic book "me see
tiger" idiom. I have written about this before on this list, so will not
dwell on this further here. But I do find it somewhat annoying when
comic book stereotypes are peddled as 'linguistic fact'.
=================================================
And Rosta wrote:
> Gary Shannon, On 27/12/2005 23:52:
[snip]
>
>> 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).
_should_? In any case, that would be a darned silly IMHO way to go about
producing a loglang or, indeed, any sort of engelang.
Conlangs are produced for a *variety of different* reasons - as this
list has made clear over many years. To suggest that there is one method
that 'should' be adopted in the construction of all conlangs seems to me
just nonsense.
If Gary wants to put his ideas to the test and produce a conlang in the
way he has described, and see how it works out, that's fine - I have no
quarrel with that. But please do not say that this is how conlangs in
general should be produced.
>>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 me, the chief attraction of conlangs (-- & I favour
> the engelangy sort) is precisely that they can be designed
AMEN!
PS - I also agree with Kit La Touche, and also suspect that Jefferson
Wilson may be right :)
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 02:09:45 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlangs Flag: Specs, Pricing & Details on how to get your own
Great. Thanks, Adian.
Also, if anyone wants more than one, please tell me.
- Sai
On 12/29/05, Aidan Grey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The details have been posted on the ZBB | Ephemera.
>
> A link to a website version:
> http://wiki.frath.net/Image:Conflag_med.png
>
> For whoever needed it.
>
> Aidan
>
>
> Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've crossposted this to the conlangs LJ, seeing as how I run it and
> all. Didn't know about any zbb though; feel free to crosspost this
> anywhere it'd be appropriate, and leave in my email address.
>
> And I'll rephrase your response to "sure, count me in - my max price
> is ~$18.50" :-P
>
> - Sai
>
>
> ________________________________
> Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
