------------------------ 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 18 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth
From: taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
7. Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
9. THEORY: How many parameters, constraints, or "types" are there?
From: Thomas Hart Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: THEORY: How many parameters, constraints, or "types" are there?
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: THEORY: How many parameters, constraints, or "types" are there?
From: Patrick Littell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: THEORY: How many parameters, constraints, or "types" are there?
From: Patrick Littell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Describing Derivational operations
From: Paul Bennett <[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: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. LLL Monthly Update #12/2005
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Yahoo! Auto Response
From: James Casavant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:44:47 +0100
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
Jim Henry skrev:
> On 12/28/05, Chris Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>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.
>
>
> This seems like a bad idea, simply
> to use one's children as experimental
> subjects to test whether a language design
> is workable or complete.
Indeed. I decided not to speak Quenya with my son
on those ground.
> It could be
> fun and useful for a family to have its
> own language for speaking privately
> in public, etc.;
I also decided that this was a bad idea:
it would create a weird bond between me and
my son, and create an awkward social situation
for him only for my amusement.
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
"Maybe" is a strange word. When mum or dad says it
it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
means "no"!
(Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 11:26:23 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
--- Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This seems like a bad idea, simply
> > to use one's children as experimental
> > subjects to test whether a language design
> > is workable or complete.
>
> Agreed. This is why I've started off teaching Elomi
> mainly to the
> family beagle. She has learned "aya!" already, which
> is an utterance
> of consternation, alarm, or excitement, and
> pronounces it quite well.
> She has also coined a new word herself, "awuuuuuuu",
> which seems to
> mean 'lonesome'.
>
> ---larry
>
Perhaps you need a parrot?
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:09:18 +0100
From: taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth
* Sai Emrys said on 2005-12-29 08:13:13 +0100
> Could I please have a more common-formatted version - compatible with:
> Illustrator 8.0, CorelDraw 9.0, and/or Photoshop 5.0?
Well I don't have access to any of those evil imperialistic programs,
and won't make myself into a copyright violator to get them ;)
> 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
There were even several colors for black, but I'd say:
black: Black 6 2X
yellow: PMS 123
purple: PMS 2592 2X or PMS 527
t.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:57:28 +0000
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
Gary Shannon wrote:
> --- R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
>>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.
>
>
> It is also absolutely correct that children find teddy
> bears and elephants in puffy clouds.
Do they all? I haven't noticed this either as a universal of all
children, nor as something peculiar to children and not to grown ups
(except that grown will see other less innocent shapes in clouds).
I see no relevance in this trivial observation to that which Henrik drew
our attention.
> That we seek
> something is not proof that what we seek exists.
Nor do I understand the relevance of that sentence. As far as I can
understand it, the only one actually seeking something here is yourself.
Indeed, that fact that you seek a particularly theory of grammar is not
proof that that theory is true.
> However, "rules" DO exist. There's no doubt of that,
> but they exist as artificial human constructs, not as
> genetically wired givens.
Umm - there are other views about grammar than that they are genetically
wired givens. I am still of the opinion that language is acquired and
learnt just as, apparently, is bird song among birds.
But I am now confused. You wrote on the 27th Dec.: "It's because it
[grammar] is an artificial attempt to discover "rules" in what is really
a monstrous collection of exceptions. There ARE no rules; only
exceptions!"
Now two days later you write: '"rules" DO exist!'
Sorry, but to my simple mind "There ARE no rules" and "rules do exist"
appear to be contradictory statements.
> By my definition a "rule of
> grammar" is simply a description of a habit of speech.
So what? We all know, I thought, that rules of grammar like 'laws of
nature' are human abstractions trying to make sense of the data
available to us.
> <...>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Surely you are not suggesting that on day one, when
> the first homonid made the first sound with his mouth
> that it was as grammatically sophisticated as Chaucer!
I don't think the first hominids spoke late Middle English. But, yes, I
do think their social communication had sophistication.
> Certainly there was a time, however brief, when
> utterances were little more than grunts and gestures.
Grunts & gestures, eh? Not even 'me see tiger'!
> I can't imagine how language could have emerged fully
> developed overnight.
Pardon me, but I do not recall suggesting that language developed
overnight.
As far as I am concerned human development is the result of billions
upon billions of years of evolution. For goodness sake, even some
insects appear to have sophisticated communication systems. There is
rather more than just grunts and gestures with bird-song or the
'singing' of humpbacked whales. Why should hominids be _less_ developed?
I find it not at all surprising that the earliest recorded literary
forms are (nearly) always verse. I would be extremely surprised if the
earliest social intercommunication between hominids did not contain
elements of what we would now call poetry - I am sure song and dance
played an important role. For, as I said, I agree with Kit, but I should
also have said I agree with Cian.
Cian wrote: "Language doesn't seem to be necessary for survival at all:
AFAIK humans are the only species that use syntactic language as such"
And Kit wrote:"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."
I say amen to both.
But I suspect we shall not agree on this, and without time-travel it is
really impossible to know what the first loquent hominids did sound like.
[snip]
>
> That WAS tongue in cheek. ;-) Certainly I'm not
> foolish enough to proclaim the manner in which ALL
> conlangs MUST be produced.
Good - something we can agree on.
[snip]
>
> Certainly. And some prefer golf to bowling. But we all
> know that the world would be a better place if all the
> bowlers and golfers would get out of the alleys and
> off the greens and start conlanging! We must picket
> the bowling alleys with our conlang flags!
Eh? Do not count me among the 'all', please. I do not know that. Indeed
I do not understand the relevance of the paragraph - must be senility
clicking in - sigh!
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:59:25 +0100
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
R A Brown skrev:
> But I suspect we shall not agree on this, and without time-travel it is
> really impossible to know what the first loquent hominids did sound like.
see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Language>
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
"Maybe" is a strange word. When mum or dad says it
it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
means "no"!
(Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:26:35 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth
Sai Emrys: Assuming you use Windows, go to http://gimp-win.sf.net/ --
that will be compatible with Photoshop formats. I don't think it
recognizes SVG though because SVG is a vector format. You can get
Inkscape at http://www.inkscape.org/ , which will probably let you
export the SVG to JPEG or some other format.
On 12/29/05, taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Sai Emrys said on 2005-12-29 08:13:13 +0100
> > Could I please have a more common-formatted version - compatible with:
> > Illustrator 8.0, CorelDraw 9.0, and/or Photoshop 5.0?
>
> Well I don't have access to any of those evil imperialistic programs,
> and won't make myself into a copyright violator to get them ;)
>
> > 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
>
> There were even several colors for black, but I'd say:
>
> black: Black 6 2X
> yellow: PMS 123
> purple: PMS 2592 2X or PMS 527
>
>
> t.
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:42:07 +0000
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote at 2005-12-29 13:26:35 (-0800)
> Sai Emrys: Assuming you use Windows, go to http://gimp-win.sf.net/ --
> that will be compatible with Photoshop formats. I don't think it
> recognizes SVG though because SVG is a vector format. You can get
> Inkscape at http://www.inkscape.org/ , which will probably let you
> export the SVG to JPEG or some other format.
There is a Gimp plugin to import SVG files, actually. I've only seen
it on Linux, but I imagine it works with the Windows version too.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:01:28 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth
I know Inkscape works though...that's my vector editor.
On 12/29/05, Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote at 2005-12-29 13:26:35 (-0800)
> > Sai Emrys: Assuming you use Windows, go to http://gimp-win.sf.net/ --
> > that will be compatible with Photoshop formats. I don't think it
> > recognizes SVG though because SVG is a vector format. You can get
> > Inkscape at http://www.inkscape.org/ , which will probably let you
> > export the SVG to JPEG or some other format.
>
> There is a Gimp plugin to import SVG files, actually. I've only seen
> it on Linux, but I imagine it works with the Windows version too.
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:04:57 -0500
From: Thomas Hart Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: THEORY: How many parameters, constraints, or "types" are there?
Hello, the list.
I don't really expect anyone to be able to give an exact answer to that
question ("How many parameters, constraints, or 'types' are there?"),
although someone may surprise me.
I have read that there are between 4000 and 8000 natlangs now; and I have
read (though I can't find it anymore) that, at the estimated period of
greatest linguistic diversity (either 15000 B.P. or 15000 B.C.E., I forget
which), there were estimated to be about 15,000 natlangs.
Now, if "parameters" have exactly two values each, and they are _logically_
independent -- that is, any parameter can assume either value, no matter
what values the others have -- then, with 12 parameters we get 4096
combinations, with 13 parameters we get 8192 combinations, and with 14
parameters we get 16,384 combinations.
So if there are 15 or more independent binary parameters, there are more
language "types" than there have ever been languages at any given time.
If, OTOH, "parameters" have exactly three values each, then with 7
parameters we get 2187 combinations, with 8 parameters 6561 combinations,
and with 9 parameters 19,683 combinations.
So if there are 9 or more independent ternary parameters, there are more
language "types" than there have ever been languages at any given time.
Suppose we require the parameters to be only pairwise-independent; that is,
for any two different parameters, each one of the two can assume any value,
regardless of the value assumed by the other one? In effect, then, any set
of three parameters, if they're binary, will yield between 5 and 8
combinations; so we might expect at least 3125 combinations out of 15
parameters and at least 15,625 combinations out of 20 parameters.
-----
Leaving Principles&Parameters aside for the moment, let's look at
Optimality Theory.
In Optimality Theory, what counts is what order the constraints are in --
that is, which of each pair of constraints each language regards as the
higher-priority constraint.
Any two constraints can occur in either order.
Assume, for example, three constraints, called, for lack of creativity,
ConstraintA, ConstraintB, and ConstraintC.
There may be extant natlangs attesting ConstraintA >> ConstraintB;
and there may be extant natlangs attesting ConstraintA >> ConstraintC;
and there may be extant natlangs attesting ConstraintB >> ConstraintA;
and there may be extant natlangs attesting ConstraintB >> ConstraintC;
and there may be extant natlangs attesting ConstraintC >> ConstraintA;
and there may be extant natlangs attesting ConstraintC >> ConstraintB.
Now, whether ConstraintA >> ConstraintB
or ConstraintB >> Constraint A,
we may have natlangs extant attesting
both ConstraintA >> ConstraintC
and ConstraintC >> ConstraintA.
That is, the three questions
1. ConstraintA >> ConstraintB, or ConstraintB >> ConstraintA?
2. ConstraintA >> ConstraintC, or ConstraintC >> ConstraintA?
3. ConstraintB >> ConstraintC, or ConstraintC >> ConstraintB?
may be pairwise-independent; for each two of them, there may be natlangs
attesting all four combinations of answers.
Indeed, O.T. would expect that there are; that is, O.T. would expect that
each two of the questions are, indeed, _logically_ (if not statistically)
independent.
However, the three questions can't possibly be an independent set-of-three;
by O.T.,
if ConstraintA >> ConstraintB and ConstraintB >> ConstraintC,
then ConstraintA >> ConstraintC.
In O.T., the number of different "types" of languages
will be N! ("enn factorial"), where N is the number of constraints.
But 7! = 5040, and 8! = 40320.
That means, with just eight (8) constraints, there would be more "types" of
languages, than there have ever been (estimated to be) contemporaneously-
existing languages.
-----
So, what about it? Any P&P-ers want to guess that there are at most 15
Parameters? Any OT-ers want to guess that there are at most 8 constraints?
For that matter, what would you guess the top 10 parameters or the top 5
constraints are?
-----
Thanks to anyone who answers.
Tom H.C. in MI
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:45:46 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth
It's not for me, it's for the flag makers. Those are the programs they
use. (They mentioned EPS and AI (?) formats also, in addition to the
usual .jpg and .bmp.)
I don't know offhand what vector formats they support (they do prefer
vector images obviously), since I'm not very much into graphics. I'll
ask.
- Sai
On 12/29/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know Inkscape works though...that's my vector editor.
>
> On 12/29/05, Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote at 2005-12-29 13:26:35 (-0800)
> > > Sai Emrys: Assuming you use Windows, go to http://gimp-win.sf.net/ --
> > > that will be compatible with Photoshop formats. I don't think it
> > > recognizes SVG though because SVG is a vector format. You can get
> > > Inkscape at http://www.inkscape.org/ , which will probably let you
> > > export the SVG to JPEG or some other format.
> >
> > There is a Gimp plugin to import SVG files, actually. I've only seen
> > it on Linux, but I imagine it works with the Windows version too.
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:57:15 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: THEORY: How many parameters, constraints, or "types" are there?
Surely, the question of the number of simultaneous languages is something
of a red herring. Whether parameters, constraints, or some combination of
theories explains the possible grammars, we should expect those limits to
apply to the entire sum of all possible languages, not to a snapshot of
languages at any point of time. That would be like expecting them to
account for all the languages of Chicago over the entire period of human
existence.
Bear in mind that languages are defined by lexical items as well as
grammatical rules. There are (arguably) infinetely more ways of devising a
word for "mother" than there are grammatical ways to mark "my mother"
distinct from "your mother".
FWIW, I rather suspect there are several thousand parameters, excluding
millions or billions more for lexical choice.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:29:53 -0500
From: Patrick Littell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: THEORY: How many parameters, constraints, or "types" are there?
On 12/29/05, Thomas Hart Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In O.T., the number of different "types" of languages
> will be N! ("enn factorial"), where N is the number of constraints.
>
> But 7! = 5040, and 8! = 40320.
>
> That means, with just eight (8) constraints, there would be more "types" of
> languages, than there have ever been (estimated to be) contemporaneously-
> existing languages.
>
Well, not all constraint rankings give different sets of surfacing
candidate -- if we're doing an OT typology, the number of "types"
created by n constraints is usually a lot less than n!. Quite often
the precise placement of A vs. B has no effect on what candidates win,
especially down towards the "less important" side of things. (So, if
we're talking phonology here, markedness constraints that are lower
ranked than any faithfulness constraint won't be relevant for the
purposes of ranking.)
(What's more, if two rankings A > B > C > D and A > C > B > D lead to
the same candidates winning, then there is really no difference
between them, for the simple reason that no evidence would ever allow
the learner to choose between them. They're really just one ranking A
> B | C > D.)
Anyway, it depends on the constraints used and how often they
conflict, but to take an example... take the OT case-and-voice
analysis of Legendre & Smolensky -- I think I mailed you a copy once.
Their 8 constraints produce, iirc, only a 13-fold distinction of
language types, not a 40k-fold one.
---
About the number of constraints: well, if you're looking to
characterize all the difference between languages (for some level of
the language) you're going to need a lot more than eight. A complete
account of phonology would probably take around 50. (I get that
number from an opponent of OT, but iirc she says that's not a
controversial number.)
(That, of course, begs the question that we *can* account for the all
the phonological facts of every language with a reasonable set of
universal constraints. OT phonology works quite well for its core
strengths like stress assignment and syllable structure, but once we
sit down and try to get everything this way it becomes icky. You end
up positing some arbitrary constraint like "/k/ can't occur
intervocalically", and then you have to either say it's
language-specific and not a part of UG or that it's universal but only
crucially ranked for, like, Turkish. Neither is particularly
appetizing.)
If we're working on something like morphosyntax, it'll be fewer, 'cuz
there don't seem to be as many types. If we're playing around with
case and voice, for example, there are only so many logical
possibilities, and only some fraction of these are attested.
--
If we're working with P&P instead... hmm... I'd go with about 50 for
morphosyntax. No real reason why, but in the great jar-full-of-candy
that is linguistics, I count 50. Gotta guess something. Bear in mind
that both of these are for systematic ways languages can differ;
there's no parameter setting/constraint ranking that causes English
"over" to postpose in "the world over", and none that makes English
call a particular animal "dog" and French "chien".
> For that matter, what would you guess the top 10 parameters or the top 5
> constraints are?
>
What in the world do you mean?
--
Patrick Littell
University of Pittsburgh
Fall 05 Office Hours: Friday, 1:00-2:00 by appointment
G17, Cathedral of Learning
CCBC
Voice Mail: ext 744
Fall 05 Office Hours: W 5:00-6:00, by appointment
Building 9, room 102
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:10:25 -0500
From: Patrick Littell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: THEORY: How many parameters, constraints, or "types" are there?
On 12/29/05, Thomas Hart Chappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if there are 15 or more independent binary parameters, there are more
> language "types" than there have ever been languages at any given time.
>
> That means, with just eight (8) constraints, there would be more "types" of
> languages, than there have ever been (estimated to be) contemporaneously-
> existing languages.
>
One more thing to think about: the set of attested language types is
always going to be smaller than the set of naturally possible language
types due to the simple reason that not every naturally possible type
can be produced by some reasonable diachronic process. We can produce
and parse languages that nonetheless would not occur -- not because of
being ruled out by UG, but just because the historical changes that
would produce these languages are either very unlikely or practically
impossible.
So when we find that a language type is unattested, and it doesn't
look like an accident of the available data, we can't necessarily
attribute the lack to the human language faculty. So take the
nonexistent type of the Monosyllabic Inflecting language, in which
*all* inflection is performed by consonant mutation and ablaut, and in
which there is no affixation at all:
gopf : dance, pres. sing. goepf : dance, pres. pl.
ngopf : dance, past sing. ngoepf : dance, past sing.
This language is a possible human language in the sense that nothing
in the human language faculty prevents it from being learnt, spoken,
or understood. But it's not a language that is reasonably going to
evolve; it would take some unnatural changes to create precisely this
type.
--
Sometime it's a tricky question why a type doesn't exist. Take this
nonexistent type, which I'll call Root-and-Anagram morphology. Each
root consists of a stop, a fricative, a vowel, and an approximant, and
the arrangement of these determines the meaning:
plas : learn twaS : eat
pals : teach tawS : feed
psal : knowledge tSaw : food
laps : school watS : eatery
spla : student Stwa : eater
spal : teacher Staw : cook
Could this sort of system reasonably evolve? Probably not, not to
this extent. The tricky question for the typologist would be whether
or not it's ruled out by UG or just ruled out by diachronic factors...
--
Patrick Littell
University of Pittsburgh
Fall 05 Office Hours: Friday, 1:00-2:00 by appointment
G17, Cathedral of Learning
CCBC
Voice Mail: ext 744
Fall 05 Office Hours: W 5:00-6:00, by appointment
Building 9, room 102
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:42:24 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Describing Derivational operations
Please imagine all > in this post are -> (right arrow) instead. I thought
the substitution obvious enough, but you never can tell. That said, on
with the post proper...
Thanks to some of the recent discussion on the list, I'm finally starting
to make serious headway into the derivational mechanisms of Br'ga.
Thusfar, I have classes of suffixes that change the part of speech of a
stem, collated by the source and target parts of speech, e.g. v > n for
verb to noun operations (verb > agent, or verb > patient, ia).
I also have a small collection of operations that apply equally well to
either nouns or verbs (everything that isn't a noun is a verb in Br'ga),
such as the augmentative suffix. Bearing in mind this universal
applicability and lack of type change, I've been denoting them as the "α >
α" collection (that is, {alpha} > {alpha}), based on some
vaguely-remembered computer-programming theory book from years ago.
Is there a better short term for this, or am I safe enough using α > α, as
long as I define it longhand before I get into discussing it? Does it have
some horrific but all-too-common meaning elsewhere in linguistics, or
anything like that?
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:26:15 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
--- R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>
> But I am now confused. You wrote on the 27th Dec.:
> "It's because it
> [grammar] is an artificial attempt to discover
> "rules" in what is really
> a monstrous collection of exceptions. There ARE no
> rules; only
> exceptions!"
>
> Now two days later you write: '"rules" DO exist!'
>
> Sorry, but to my simple mind "There ARE no rules"
> and "rules do exist"
> appear to be contradictory statements.
Of course they are! I'm a hobbiest, not a
professional. I have no academic reputation to uphold
and no need to be the least bit consistent. I am,
therefore, free to say any ridiculous thing I choose,
and to contradict myself a day later. For me
conlanging is strictly for fun, and I have fun with
it. And I don't really take any of it very seriously.
It's a lingusitic game that I enjoy playing. Please
don't hold me to academic standards or you'll take all
the fun out of it for me.
But just for the record, I will try to remember to
preface my posts with a disclaimer to the effect that
whatever I post is today's half-baked theory or
hypothetical speculation which I suspect I will either
contradict or forget all about by this time next week.
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 08:10:37 +0000
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
Cian Ross wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 14:57, R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
[first hominids]
>>But, yes, I
>>do think their social communication had sophistication.
>
>
> I'm not sure how nearly modern hominids would lack that, if they had so
> many things so otherwise like Cro Magnon humans. Neanderthals did
> burials, supported the unwell...and yet their language was some sort of
> minimal thing? That just doesn't fit well for me.
Quite so - it doesn't fit well for me either. The wikipedia reference
Philip Jonsson gave is interesting. "A recent study conducted on the
Neanderthal hyoid found that due to the physical characteristics of
Neanderthals and the fact that their larynx would have been stouter than
that of modern man, the average note emitted by Neanderthals would have
been high pitched and sharper than that of modern man, contrary to the
media stereotype of Neanderthals having ape-like grunts."
Also:
"Neanderthals performed a sophisticated set of tasks normally associated
with humans alone. For example, they constructed complex shelters,
controlled fire, and skinned animals. Particularly intriguing is a
hollowed-out bear femur with four holes in the diatonic scale
deliberately bored into it. "
Such a sophisticated set of tasks is carried out with unsophisticated
grunts and gestures? No, it doesn't fit well for me.
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:17:31 +0100
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: LLL Monthly Update #12/2005
Hallo!
The lostlangs mailing list has been just as silent in December as it has been
in November.
Greetings,
Jörg.
______________________________________________________________________
XXL-Speicher, PC-Virenschutz, Spartarife & mehr: Nur im WEB.DE Club!
Jetzt gratis testen! http://freemail.web.de/home/landingpad/?mc=021130
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 05:22:16 -0800
From: James Casavant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Yahoo! Auto Response
I am shutting off the phone and computer for the next week. Cutting all lines
of communication until January 1st or 2nd.
*bowing absently and entering the fog*
--------------------
Original Message:
X-Originating-IP: [128.148.19.84]
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Authentication-Results: mta239.mail.scd.yahoo.com
from=WEB.DE; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 128.148.19.84 (EHLO listserv.brown.edu) (128.148.19.84)
by mta239.mail.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 05:22:06 -0800
Received: from bootes.services.brown.edu (bootes.services.brown.edu
[128.148.19.84])
by listserv.brown.edu (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id
jBUAIxpg018367;
Fri, 30 Dec 2005 08:17:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: by LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id
1004 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 08:17:36 -0500
Received: from fmmailgate04.web.de (fmmailgate04.web.de [217.72.192.242]) by
listserv.brown.edu (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id
jBUDHZUP025593 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
