------------------------ 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 11 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: Conlangs in music
From: John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. The German Element in Brazil
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Conlangs in music
From: John Schlembach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: Types of Possession -- Tesäfköm: A Constructed Language (S11)
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Hominins (Was: Why grammar is so complex a subject)
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 08:53:19 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
--- R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> Such a sophisticated set of tasks is carried out
> with unsophisticated
> grunts and gestures? No, it doesn't fit well for me.
>
I have no trouble believing that Neandrathal had
sophisticated language. What I do have trouble
belieiving is the apparent implication by some posters
that on Tuesday night, Aug. 14, 896,351 B.C. there was
no language and on the morning of Wednesday, Aug. 15,
896,351 B.C. All the homonids woke up to find they had
a fully developed language.
Either that improbable scenario is true, OR there was,
for some period of time, something intermediate
between no language and sophisticated language. If not
"grunts and gestures" then some other intermediate
form. Unless, of course, people are arguing for
intervention by space aliens or some kind of
linguistic creationism.
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:53:09 +0200
From: John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
Hey folks - funny coïncidence here - check out the latest BoaSaS cartoon:
http://www.boasas.com/?c=587
Good timing, I must say.
John Vertical
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:13:16 +0200
From: John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlangs in music
John Schlembach wrote:
>Please do, as one John to another. ;-)
The Gibberish examples? OK. First, Mike Oldfield's "Hergest Ridge pt 2" has
some choral babbling by Clodagh Simmonds. It goes on quite a while, but
seems like to be improvised on the spot. She has a similar appearence again
on "Ommadawn pt 1", with short repeating lyrics - but it's mostly bad Irish
this time (or so I'm told...) The album's sleeve notes transcribe it as "Ab
yul / ann I dyad awt / En yab na / log a toc na awd / Taw may on / Ommadawn
egg kyowl / Omma dawn egg kyowl".
Jean-Michel Jarre's "Diva" also has a Gibberish section, sung by Laurie
Anderson. It's mostly incoherent babbling and ahhhs, but at some points it
does slightly resemble actual words.
..Uh, I know I have more, but I cannot remember right now; so (hopefully)
more on this later.
John Vertical
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:11:24 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[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:
>
> [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.
The thing is, Neanderthal technology was stable for several
_hundred thousand_ years. Then, suddenly, 50,000 or so years ago
humans started an inexplicable period technological innovation
where there were more changes in 10,000 years than in the
previous million. (And this still doesn't take us out of the
stone age!) I'm not convinced that fully developed language
caused this sudden change, but it's orders of magnitude better
than any of the other theories I've heard.
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/myths/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 22:22:35 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The German Element in Brazil
This might be interesting and/or useful to various members. It's a
description of how Brazilian German differs from German German, and why:
http://www.languagehat.com/archives/002230.php
I hadn't really heard or thought much about Brazilian German before now,
but this looks like an interesting read.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:56:30 +0000
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth
Sai Emrys wrote at 2005-12-29 16:45:46 (-0800)
> 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 can easily produce raster formats like jpeg or bmp from the (vector)
svg, but I need to know what size the image should be.
>
> 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.
>
I don't know if I can produce any other vector formats, although it
seems like it shouldn't be that difficult in principle. Googling
briefly, it looks like it is possible to open SVG files in Corel Draw,
for instance, so if anyone has a copy they could try that.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:19:17 -0600
From: John Schlembach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlangs in music
A friend of mine mentioned that Enya sings in a conlang on her new album.
I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet. Remind me to check out the songs
you mentioned.
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 07:47:24 +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>
>
>>Such a sophisticated set of tasks is carried out
>>with unsophisticated
>>grunts and gestures? No, it doesn't fit well for me.
>>
>
>
> I have no trouble believing that Neandrathal had
> sophisticated language.
Good.
> What I do have trouble
> belieiving is the apparent implication by some posters
> that on Tuesday night, Aug. 14, 896,351 B.C. there was
> no language and on the morning of Wednesday, Aug. 15,
> 896,351 B.C. All the homonids woke up to find they had
> a fully developed language.
I was not aware that the Julian calendar (still less the Gregorian
calendar,) was in use in 896 351 BCE. Nor have I read any mails on this
list which has suggested that one day hominids had no language & the
next day they did. That seems to me rather like suggesting that one
night a group of pre-hominids went to sleep and woke up in the morning
as fully developed hominids - not a credible scenario IMO.
I would, however, question whether there was ever a time when _hominids_
did not have language.
> Either that improbable scenario is true, OR there was,
> for some period of time, something intermediate
> between no language and sophisticated language. If not
> "grunts and gestures" then some other intermediate
> form.
Of course there must have been intermediate period as hominids evolved
from their pre-hominid forebears. I firmly believe that the development
of human language was part and parcel of the whole process of
noogenesis. I suspect there will always be gaps in our knowledge
concerning the long process of noogenesis. I certainly do not claim to
have all the answers.
> Unless, of course, people are arguing for
> intervention by space aliens or some kind of
> linguistic creationism.
I have not read any mails that suggest either scenario.
Indeed, in my case, I wrote on the 29th Dec.:"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..."
I do not write one thing one day and something entirely different a day
or so later.
I really think it is time to stop this thread.
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:45:38 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject
Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I would, however, question whether there was ever a time when _hominids_
> did not have language.
Unfortunately, the term "hominid" does not have a single, agreed-on definition.
Since all the great apes (incl humans) are today usually united in the single
family Hominidae, it should properly mean simply "great ape", but that's
obviously not what you mean. The most common use today is probably as a synonym
to homini_n_, that is a creature closer to modern humans than to chimps on the
family tree.
It seems to me very unlikely that early hominins - with non-sunken larynxes,
chimp-sized brains, and probably without the elaborate neural apparatus to
control breathing of modern humans - could have had language.
(In fact, said neural apparatus does not seem to've been in place until very
late - even H. erectus lacks the expanded spinal cord canal to accomodate the
extra nerves.)
Since the discussion has mostly concerned Neanderthals, I however suspect you
have some even more restricted meaning in mind.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 08:01:36 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Types of Possession -- Tesäfköm: A Constructed Language (S11)
On 12/29/05, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How
> do, say gzb or Ithkuil or other conlangs handle inalienable possession
> and what types are possibly distinguished?
gjâ-zym-byn has part/whole postpositions, which
are part of the core spacetime postposition system;
the suffix -m marks being a part of something,
so:
im - in; part of
om - into; becoming part of
rqm - out of; ceasing to be part of
It also has a derived postposition "sxu-i"
which is used for "possession" of qualities
(and more rarely used "sxu-o", "sxu-rq").
There is some overlap in their use; "im"
is used of body parts, "sxu-i" of e.g.
intelligence, health, wakefulness, etc. --
not just permanent or durable but also
transient qualities. Either could be
used of intangible faculties like
will, reason, and imagination.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/gzb/gzb.htm
...Mind the gmail Reply-to: field
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 15:56:22 -0000
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Hominins (Was: Why grammar is so complex a subject)
--- In [email protected], Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Unfortunately, the term "hominid" does not have a single, agreed-on
>definition.
Yes, unfortunate.
Search Wikipedia for "hominin." There's a chart illustrating
(possible) descent lines. Interestingly, both humans and chimpanzees
are hominins!
Charlie
http://wiki.frath.net/user:caeruleancentaur
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
