There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: How to learn an incomplete conlang?
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: Imperative mood in ergative languages
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: Imperative mood in ergative languages
From: JS Bangs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. OT books on Ebay
From: Adam Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Adpositional irregularities
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: Imperative mood in ergative languages
From: JS Bangs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: ago
From: Harold Ensle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Imperative mood in ergative languages
From: mike poxon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: ago
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: OT: I'll be in Germany ...
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: Adpositional irregularities
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: can we hear X-Sampa?
From: Rodlox R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Imperative mood in ergative languages
From: tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Imperative mood in ergative languages
From: tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Imperative mood in ergative languages
From: tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: Imperative mood in ergative languages
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: How to learn an incomplete conlang?
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Asha'ille Script: Kateinu Yiréb
From: Arthaey Angosii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. OT Latin final -M (was: Adpositional irregularities)
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: How to learn an incomplete conlang?
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: OT Latin final -M (was: Adpositional irregularities)
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: How to learn an incomplete conlang?
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: How to learn an incomplete conlang?
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: OT Latin final -M (was: Adpositional irregularities)
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:04:28 -0500
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to learn an incomplete conlang?
On 1/24/06, Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I *won't* bet that! There are quite a few Tolkienists who object against
> any attempt to fill in the gaps Tolkien has left behind. This matter is a
> constant source of flamewars on the TolkLang and elfling mailing lists.
> Another source of flamewars are different attempts to fill the same gap...
>
> Greetings,
>
> Jörg.
Oh, that's too bad.
Yitzik, you're welcome to come learn (and build) Elomi! (You too,
Jörg!) ---Larry
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:08:26 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperative mood in ergative languages
On 1/24/06, Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> having started P47 project, I met a problem. The lang is intended to have
> three basic types of a simple sentence: absolute (for intransitive verbs),
> ergative (for transitive verbs) and dative (for perceptive verbs). In
> indicative mood it goes smooth. How then it works in imperative? If
> indicative "The hunter killed a wolf" and "The boy hears his father's voice"
> may be glossed as "wolf is.killed hunter-ERG" and "father-GEN voice is.heard
> boy-DAT",
What cases would "wolf" and "voice" be in?
Absolutive?
I'm not sure why you have a passive gloss for the "kill"
verb. My understanding (probably very
imperfect) of ergative languages is that in such sentences
the ergative case marks the agent and the absolutive case
marks the patient. Passivization in an ergative
language would seem to suggest that the patient still be in the
absolutive but the agent might could be in some
other case than ergative, possibly in an adpositional
phrase and probably optional (or even mandatorily
deleted?). E.g.,
wolf-ABS kill man-ERG
The man kills the wolf.
wolf-ABS kill-PSS.
The wolf is killed.
wolf-ABS kill-PSS by man-GEN
The wolf is killed by the man.
>will imperative "Kill the wolf!", "Hear my voice!" be rendered as
> "wolf let.it.be.killed you-ERG", "my voice let.be.heard you-DAT"?
I don't see why not -- but maybe
wolf-ABS kill-IMP you-ERG
would work as well or better.
>IIRC in
> Georgian imperative in fact coincides with aorist, so "Give me some wine!"
> is the same as "You have.given me (some) wine!"
That sounds cool too.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:35:21 -0800
From: JS Bangs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperative mood in ergative languages
2006/1/24, Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello,
>
> having started P47 project, I met a problem. The lang is intended to have
> three basic types of a simple sentence: absolute (for intransitive verbs),
> ergative (for transitive verbs) and dative (for perceptive verbs). In
> indicative mood it goes smooth. How then it works in imperative? If
> indicative "The hunter killed a wolf" and "The boy hears his father's voice"
> may be glossed as "wolf is.killed hunter-ERG" and "father-GEN voice is.heard
> boy-DAT", will imperative "Kill the wolf!", "Hear my voice!" be rendered as
> "wolf let.it.be.killed you-ERG", "my voice let.be.heard you-DAT"? IIRC in
> Georgian imperative in fact coincides with aorist, so "Give me some wine!"
> is the same as "You have.given me (some) wine!" Any confirmation? Any
> alternatives?
It seems to me that the simplest thing to do for an ergative language
is simply to not have a morphological passive. In ergative langs the
ergative case is more peripheral than the absolutive, so
"passivization" is simply omitting the optional ergative argument:
wolf-ABS kill me-ERG
"I kill the wolf"
wolf-ABS kill
"The wolf is killed"
In fact, passivization in an ergative lang would actually imply that
the ergative argument is promoted to absolutive, and absolutive is
made peripheral--analogous to how in accusative langs the acc. is
promoted to nom., and the nom. is made peripheral:
wolf-ABS kill me-ERG
"I kill the wolf"
me-ABS kill-PASS to wolf-DAT
"I kill the wolf"
me-ABS kill-PASS
"I kill"
Calling this "passive" is probably a bit esoteric, though. IIRC the
proper term for this kind of construction is "unergative".
English actually allows unergative syntax, though there's no morphology for it:
Active: "We slaughter sheep easily."
Unergative: "Sheep slaughter easily."
> -- Yitzik
> from frosty Ukraine with love
My relatives in Romania tell me that it's -20 C there. Is it the same
in Ukraine? Brrr!
--
JS Bangs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jaspax.com
"I could buy you a drink
I could tell you all about it
I could tell you why I doubted
And why I still believe."
- Pedro the Lion
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:45:43 -0800
From: Adam Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT books on Ebay
I usually try to stay on-topic of not post, but I just
wanted to let those who might care know that I've
listed several books of linguistic interest over on
EBay:
Papeles de la Chinantla VI -- Proto-Cinantec Phonology
- Clavin Ross Rensch
Grammatical Analysis -- Kenneth & Evalyn Pike
Index and Glossary to the above
Grammar Discovery Proceedures -- Robert Longacre
A Synopsis of English Syntax -- Eugene Nida
Discourse Grammar - Studies in Indiginous Languages of
Colombia, Panama & Ecuador vols. 2 & 3
Internationa Journal of American Linguistics vol 23 no
4 -- Proto-Mixtecan - Longacre
Predicateand Arguement in Rengao Grammar -- Kenneth
Gregorian
I may be listing more soon.
Adam
Pochini ninadud ul Jezu in ul Betuemi djal Juda in ils djis djul Errodu ul regu
iñi! aviniruns junis maguis djil ojindi ad al Jerosolima, dichindu: «¿Jundi
esti ul regu djuls Ivreus fin ninadud? Pervia avemus spepadu al su steja in il
ojindi ed avemus avinidu adorari ad sivi.»
Mach 2:1-2
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:38:43 +0000
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Adpositional irregularities
In case Amanda, or any one else for that matter, are still interested in
possible irregularities, I thought I might give non-English (the 'ago'
business was possibly not too helpful ;)
But during the exchanges about the AHD & Columbia Guide 'ago'
classification, it was mentioned at one point that Latin did not have
postpositions. That is not strictly true, it did. But they were so few
and far between that the name 'praepositio' was used generally for
adpositions, whether they were truly preposited or not. The majority of
adpositions were, of course, well-behaved prepositions as they generally
are in western European languages.
The word _tenus_ "as far as" always follows its noun. At school we were
told that it was 'a preposition that followed its noun'! It is normally
used with the ablative case, e.g.
pectoribus tenus - up to [their] chests
Antio tenus - as far as Antium
summi tenus - as far as the top
Sometimes (but never with Cicero) it followed the genitive. That itself
was an irregularity since all other adpositions govern the accusative or
ablative case; examples:
labrorum tenus - as far as the lips
Cumarum tenus - as far as Cumae
The adposition _uersus_ was also always placed after its noun. But it
had this additional restriction: it was used only with the word _domum_
(home [acc.]) or names of towns and cities. It governed the accusative
case. Examples:
domum uersus - towards home
Romam uersus - in the direction of Rome
The adposition _propter_ (which also governed the accusative) could be
place either before or after its noun if it meant "close to, near to",
example:
propter murum _or_ murum propter = close by the wall
But when it had its more common (tho originally secondary) meaning "on
account of', "because of" it had to behave like a properly brought up
preposition. Example: propter nos homines - because of us humans.
Some will no doubt remember from their school days that the adposition
_cum_ "(together) with", while normally a well-behaved preposition, got
suffixed to the personal pronouns: mecum (with me), tecum (with the,
with you), nobiscum (with us), uobiscum (with you [pl]), secum (with
himself, with herself, with themselves). They are written this rather
than as separate words, since the suffixing of -cum changed the stress
of _nobis_ and _uobis_, thus: nobis /'no:bi:s/, _but_ nobiscum
/no:'bi:scu(m)/
(the final -m was silent, but some think the vowel was nasalized in
compensation. Others think it was just silent. I'm inclined to agree
with the latter FWIW)
With the interrogative pronoun (quis, quis, quid) & the relative pronoun
(qui, quae, quod) it could be either preposited or suffixed, e.g.
cum quo _or_ quocum; cum qua _or_ quacum; cum quibus _or_ quibuscum.
If you wanted to add extra jollity, besides exceptional positioning of
adposition, you could always do as they do in Welsh: have some
adpositions _conjugated_ and others not; thus e.g.
ON AFTER
me arna i wedi fi
you [s.] arnat ti wedi ti
him arno fe wedi fo
her arni hi wedi hi
us arnon ni wedi ni
you [pl] arnoch chi wedi chi
them arnyn nhw wedi nhw
Note:
- there is no 'it' in Welsh. All is masc or fem as in French, Spanish,
Hebrew, Arabic, Hindi etc.
- in literary Welsh the pronouns are not used after the conjugated
forms, and some of the forms themselves are slightly different, namely:
arnaf, arnat, arno, arni, armom, arnoch, arnynt.
Of course, once you have conjugated forms, there's always scope for an
irregularly conjugated adposition or two. Thus besides the three regular
conjugations in Welsh, there are delightful irregularities :)
cf. gan = with
Literary Colloquial Colloquial
(north) (south)*
gennyf gen i gen i
gennyt gen ti gen ti
ganddo gynno fo ganddo fe
ganddi gynni hi ganddi hi
gennym gynnon ni gennyn ni
gennych gynnoch chi gennych chi
ganddynt gynnyn nhw ganddyn nhw
*in practice, the southerners have rather given up on this word and
normally use the invariable _gyda_ to express "with". Softies!
There you are - quite a few ideas to make adpositions more interesting
in your conlangs ;)
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:37:52 -0800
From: JS Bangs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperative mood in ergative languages
> English actually allows unergative syntax, though there's no morphology for
> it:
>
> Active: "We slaughter sheep easily."
> Unergative: "Sheep slaughter easily."
Erm, I seem to have gotten confused. This example is actually
unaccusative, I think (?). In any case, it's not actually parallel to
the syntax that I called "unergative" previously in my message, so you
should probably disregard this part.
--
JS Bangs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jaspax.com
"I could buy you a drink
I could tell you all about it
I could tell you why I doubted
And why I still believe."
- Pedro the Lion
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:32:56 -0500
From: Harold Ensle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ago
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:44:47 +0000, R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Harold Ensle wrote:
>[snip]
>>>With respect, you did not. It is true that you first used the simple
>>>subject line 'ago', but the thread about 'ago' had started some time
>>>before. Previously the subject line was 'THEORY ago (was: Most common
>>>irregular verbs?)'.
>
>...and at one stage we had just plain "THEORY ago".
>>
>> YES I did start this thread..which has the simple subject line 'ago'.
>> The fact that the subject is virtually identical to another thread
>> does not make it part of the other thread.
>
>I think that is a moot point. How different is "THEORY ago" from just
>plain "ago"? OK - maybe I should have said: "While you may have begun a
>new thread, it was certainly not a new topic." It is evident from other
>replies that I was not the only one assuming you were basically
>continuing the 'ago' topic. But I really do not think this is worth
>exchanging emails about.
Probably not...though I should mention here that I was not trying to
single you out. My interruption merely followed your post. After
reviewing the original thread, there was a discontinuity by a single
poster (who probably simply misplaced his reply due to the other
similar titles) and all posts that followed were consistent from
that post on. It mas my fault to generalize the problem the way I did.
>[snip]
>> I did read relevant posts to see if someone had identical
>> comments as my own. If someone had made the same comments I would
>> not have needed to make them myself. I did see that people were
>> "uncomfortable" with the adjective classification, but I didn't
>> see my particular arguments being made.
>
>Eh? But it began when some stated that 'ago' was a postposition!
Well....here is where it is odd, because in my initial post I
claimed that it was an adverb! So I still do not think that
you read the initial post of this thread.....which doing so
is completely your choice of course. However, if you make the
claim that I am rehashing old arguments, it would be more
credible if you knew what my arguments actually were.
>After Charlie had given us the references from the AHD & the Columbia
>Guide, others not merely said they were uncomfortable, but argued for
>its being a postposition. I also said that while I understood that
>analysis, I considered it an adverb; I wrote on 17th Jan.:
>{quote}
>Presumably everyone agrees that the phrase "an hour ago" _functions_ as
>an adverb. If we take 'ago' as a postposition, we then have a
>'postpositional phrase' (NP+postposition) similar in use to the familiar
>prepositional phrases such as: 'within an hour', 'after an hour' etc.
>
>If it is taken as an adverb, we then have an adverbial phrase where the
>head 'ago' is the head and 'an hour' is a "measurement of time",
>modifying the head of the phrase. It can be argued that the second
>analysis is better in that 'long ago' can be analyzed in the same way.
>{/quote}
Ay Caramba! Yes I missed this particular post. So yes I guess I stated
the same thing you did. I even held your position for exactly the same
reason you state here. HOWEVER....I would recommend that you read the
exchange between Herman and I again as you may also want to switch
over to the postposition camp.
>> I also disputed The Colombia
>> Guide's adverb classification in their particular context which
>> I also did not see done before.
>
>adjective classification,
No I meant their adverb classification. They were clearly implying
that "ago" was modifying "long" instead of the other way around.
This switching of modifiers is what I assumed caused them to give
the word type as both adjective and adverb.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:21:28 -0000
From: mike poxon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperative mood in ergative languages
Omeina uses a different auxiliary for ergative constructions, basically the
standard auxiliary with the ergative case ending!
This also enables other constructions to be used in a parallel fashion,
i.e.,
Gurku hauksa raisen "Kill the wolf"
gur - ku / hauksa / ra - ise - n
Kill - imp / wolf / you - erg - it
Gurku hauksa naisen "Let him/her kill the wolf"
Mike (from frosty, but probably not THAT frosty... U.K.)
Visit the improved website at:
www.starman.co.uk
How then it works in imperative?
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.22/238 - Release Date: 23/01/06
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:13:54 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ago
Hi!
Again: This thread is closed!
Thank you for your attention.
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:39:54 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
Ray -
>> IIRC, it took a while for me to convince you of that, or of what the
>> hell I was trying to get at in the first place. :-P
>Yes, it did. But when I understood the implication of _fully_, I was
>convinced.
How would *you* explain it to someone else? (E.g. 'pre-conversion' you :-P)
I ran into a similar problem a few days ago, when talking to a
linguistics prof about this - she got stuck on the idea that it was
'non-temporal', and kept overstating my position as saying that I was
trying to have non-temporal *processing* (which is silly, aside from
the important exclusion of 'glance' level processing, which is fast
enough that it might as well be). I think I left that conversation
with her still thoroughly convinced that what I was talking about was
completely impossible by everything she knew from linguistics and
cogpsych - and me with the impression that she didn't understand what
I was trying to describe.
But then, Lakoff said the same thing when he gave me a F on my paper
about it. It'll probably be one of those nice things to frame and put
on my wall, once (if? nah, 'once') I succeed in making such a system.
:-P
Yahya -
> Yet just yesterday I may have unintentionally
> implied that Sai's quest for 2D writing systems
> was poorly motivated ...
*shrug* Motivation is hard to judge. I make no claims that my ideas
need be interesting to others.
> Humble apologies! I'm sure your reasons for
> wanting a 2D writing system are much better than
> mere technical capability. And your latest posts on
> this topic are more concerned than ever with the
> idea of writing expressing a gestalt, with higher-
> level connections. Sometimes I thinnk the ideal
> poem would be like that - a simple, integrated whole.
>
> Indeed, I hadn't yet joined this list in May, so I
> had better follow Ray's advice and look up the
> original thread.
No offense taken. Please do read those, and let us know what you think
about the idea once you have. I (and others here most likely) could
use some more inspiration / ideas about how this could be done.
I'm currently a bit stuck on it - pending, as you say, the gestalt.
It's like poetry-writing for me; I can't really force myself to do it
until I have a cogent concept of what the idea / image / scene / etc.
is. And in this case, while I have a few ideas of how I want it to
work, and various angles at it, I don't have a good feeling of the
gestalt.
I figure that once I do, the rest will come pretty quickly though.
- Sai
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:47:51 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: I'll be in Germany ...
Quoting Dirk Elzinga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hey.
>
> I know we have some German residents on the list. I'll be in Tübingen
> for a conference 1-5 February. The conference itself is being held 2-4
> February, but I'm allowing myself a day on either end (1 Feb to get
> over jet lag, 5 Feb to go to church). I'd love to get together if
> you're in the area (I won't be able to travel much). I'm staying at
> the Hotel Hospiz in Tübingen.
Reminds me - I'll be in Berlin 5-12 Feb. I don't recall if any conlanger lives
close by, but if so we might organize a minimeet.
Possibly we could even see Dirk on the evening of the fifth - I arrive in the
afternoon.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:43:03 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Adpositional irregularities
Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Some will no doubt remember from their school days that the adposition
> _cum_ "(together) with", while normally a well-behaved preposition, got
> suffixed to the personal pronouns: mecum (with me), tecum (with the,
> with you), nobiscum (with us), uobiscum (with you [pl]), secum (with
> himself, with herself, with themselves). They are written this rather
> than as separate words, since the suffixing of -cum changed the stress
> of _nobis_ and _uobis_, thus: nobis /'no:bi:s/, _but_ nobiscum
> /no:'bi:scu(m)/
>
> (the final -m was silent, but some think the vowel was nasalized in
> compensation. Others think it was just silent. I'm inclined to agree
> with the latter FWIW)
What period are you talking about here? Tore Jansson, in his popular book on the
history of Latin, dates the loss of final /m/ to the later Empire.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:15:36 +0000
From: Rodlox R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: can we hear X-Sampa?
if I may ask, are there yet any sites that allow us to hear the sounds of
X-Sampa?
>Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 03:58:51 +0100
> > >One is: http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/ipa/full/
that one still doesn't have an audible portion, sadly.
thoughts?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:56:08 -0000
From: tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperative mood in ergative languages
--- In [email protected], Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> having started P47 project, I met a problem. The lang is intended
to have
> three basic types of a simple sentence: absolute (for intransitive
verbs),
> ergative (for transitive verbs) and dative (for perceptive verbs).
In
> indicative mood it goes smooth. How then it works in imperative? If
> indicative "The hunter killed a wolf" and "The boy hears his
father's voice"
> may be glossed as "wolf is.killed hunter-ERG" and "father-GEN voice
is.heard
> boy-DAT", will imperative "Kill the wolf!", "Hear my voice!" be
rendered as
> "wolf let.it.be.killed you-ERG", "my voice let.be.heard you-DAT"?
IIRC in
> Georgian imperative in fact coincides with aorist, so "Give me some
wine!"
> is the same as "You have.given me (some) wine!" Any confirmation?
Any
> alternatives?
>
> -- Yitzik
> from frosty Ukraine with love
>
I can't think of any systematic treatment of "passive voices and
passivization in ergative languages". I think it must be both rare
and idiosyncratic.
Detransitivization in ergative languages is usually anti-
passivization, not passivization.
If "Kill-ACT wolf-ABS Peter-ERG" is the active form,
"Kill-ANTIPAS Peter-ABS (wolf-OBL)" would be the anti-passive form.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:18:51 -0000
From: tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperative mood in ergative languages
--- In [email protected], JS Bangs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > English actually allows unergative syntax, though there's no
morphology for it:
> >
> > Active: "We slaughter sheep easily."
> > Unergative: "Sheep slaughter easily."
"Sheep slaughter easily" is Middle Diathesis.
Considered as an intransitive sentence, on the unergative-vs-
unaccusative scale: Since what it lacks is an agent (it has a
patient), it is unaccusative, not unergative.
> Erm, I seem to have gotten confused. This example is actually
> unaccusative, I think (?). In any case, it's not actually parallel
to
> the syntax that I called "unergative" previously in my message, so
you
> should probably disregard this part.
>
>
> --
> JS Bangs
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://jaspax.com
Tom H.C. in MI
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:14:19 -0000
From: tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperative mood in ergative languages
--- In [email protected], JS Bangs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2006/1/24, Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hello,
> >
> > having started P47 project, I met a problem. The lang is intended
to have
> > three basic types of a simple sentence: absolute (for
intransitive verbs),
> > ergative (for transitive verbs) and dative (for perceptive
verbs). In
> > indicative mood it goes smooth. How then it works in imperative?
If
> > indicative "The hunter killed a wolf" and "The boy hears his
father's voice"
> > may be glossed as "wolf is.killed hunter-ERG" and "father-GEN
voice is.heard
> > boy-DAT", will imperative "Kill the wolf!", "Hear my voice!" be
rendered as
> > "wolf let.it.be.killed you-ERG", "my voice let.be.heard you-DAT"?
IIRC in
> > Georgian imperative in fact coincides with aorist, so "Give me
some wine!"
> > is the same as "You have.given me (some) wine!" Any confirmation?
Any
> > alternatives?
>
> It seems to me that the simplest thing to do for an ergative
language
> is simply to not have a morphological passive. In ergative langs the
> ergative case is more peripheral than the absolutive, so
> "passivization" is simply omitting the optional ergative argument:
>
> wolf-ABS kill me-ERG
> "I kill the wolf"
>
> wolf-ABS kill
> "The wolf is killed"
>
> In fact, passivization in an ergative lang would actually imply that
> the ergative argument is promoted to absolutive, and absolutive is
> made peripheral--analogous to how in accusative langs the acc. is
> promoted to nom., and the nom. is made peripheral:
>
> wolf-ABS kill me-ERG
> "I kill the wolf"
>
> me-ABS kill-PASS to wolf-DAT
> "I kill the wolf"
>
> me-ABS kill-PASS
> "I kill"
>
> Calling this "passive" is probably a bit esoteric, though. IIRC the
> proper term for this kind of construction is "unergative".
This is the more common detransitivization process in ergative
languages, and it is called "anti-passivization" rather
than "passivization"; also, the voice is called "antipassive voice"
rather than "passive voice".
The erstwhile ergative argument (the agent, e.g.) is promoted to
absolutive, while the erstwhile absolutive argument (the patient,
e.g.) is either omitted or demoted to an oblique -- an adpositional
phrase or some oblique case.
"Unergative" is something else; in split-S (split-intransitive)
languages, intransitives may be unergative or unaccusative, depending
on whether what they lack is a patient or an agent.
> English actually allows unergative syntax, though there's no
morphology for it:
>
> Active: "We slaughter sheep easily."
> Unergative: "Sheep slaughter easily."
>
> > -- Yitzik
> > from frosty Ukraine with love
>
> My relatives in Romania tell me that it's -20 C there. Is it the
same
> in Ukraine? Brrr!
>
>
> --
> JS Bangs
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://jaspax.com
Tom H.C. in MI
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:05:42 +0200
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Imperative mood in ergative languages
Thanks to everybody who contibuted to this thread. I see I have confused
people by mixing true glosses and their English approximations.
The true gloss should be "wolf-ABS kill hunter-ERG", subconsciously
perceived as "wolf is.killed by.hunter" (at least in my aberrated brains)...
Surely I know how ergative works (at least in indicative and subjunctive),
and I know there is no true passive there, and that antipassive may be used
to reduce valency. Not the question of passiveness was the issue. The real
issue was about imperative. But now I see it looks as if there is no
standard procedure for solving the issue, and it differs in various ergative
langusges. Very good! I think I'll stick to the Georgian variant.
-- Yitzik
OT: Yes, it was up to -27C here. Now it only -15C, and it is much better...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:13:06 +0200
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to learn an incomplete conlang?
Hi,
Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> I *won't* bet that! There are quite a few Tolkienists who object against
> any attempt to fill in the gaps Tolkien has left behind. This matter is a
> constant source of flamewars on the TolkLang and elfling mailing lists.
> Another source of flamewars are different attempts to fill the same gap...
That is what I was afraid of... I, personally, don't see any plausible
solution. I don't think somebody can expand Tolkien's product. To make some
reconstructions? It may work, but different people may come to different
solutions, and this is Not Good. An, anyway, those reconstructions do not
fill all the necessary gaps to make the lang workable.
============================================
Larry Sulky wrote:
> Yitzik, you're welcome to come learn (and build) Elomi!
Thank you, Larry! I don't think I'm too much interested in it - its
principles do not correspond much with my glottopoietic aesthetics... But
you are doing a good job, indeed!
Cheers,
-- Yitzik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 03:23:27 -0800
From: Arthaey Angosii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Asha'ille Script: Kateinu Yiréb
So I finally sat down and fixed up a preliminary font for my conlang
Asha'ille. The conscript is called the kateinu yiréb (so named from
the first letters of the alphabet). Information about it is up at:
http://writing.arthaey.com/kateinu.html
and more specifically for the font at:
http://writing.arthaey.com/kateinu.html#font
Links to the MetaFont font I made today are available on that webpage,
but here's a direct link to the demonstratory PDF:
http://writing.arthaey.com/kateinu.pdf
Note that the kateinu yiréb normally runs top-to-bottom,
left-to-right. Due to my inexperience at making LaTeX do top-to-bottom
display, I've made the above sample run bottom-to-top, left-to-right
instead. (I figured out how to do that for small amounts of text.)
In other words, turn the PDF 90 degrees clockwise to match it to the
graphic on the kateinu yiréb webpage.
Comments/criticism welcomed. But be kind, this IS my first MetaFont
excursion. ;)
--
AA
http://conlang.arthaey.com/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:53:26 +0000
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT Latin final -M (was: Adpositional irregularities)
Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
>>(the final -m was silent, but some think the vowel was nasalized in
>>compensation. Others think it was just silent. I'm inclined to agree
>>with the latter FWIW)
>
>
> What period are you talking about here? Tore Jansson, in his popular book on
> the
> history of Latin, dates the loss of final /m/ to the later Empire.
I wonder why he says that. In Classical prosody of the late Republic &
early empire, words finals ending in -m are regularly elided before a
word beginning with a vowel. That simply does not make sense if the -m
were still pronounced. There is IIRC also evidence from graffiti of loss
of final -m by that date.
Indeed even in Old Latin we find spellings without final -m, e.g.
oino = CL unum; aide = CL aedem; duonoro = CL bonorum
This does not mean that the final vowels were not nasalized - there was
no way of indicating nasalization per_se.
I was oversimplifying in my statement which you quoted. In Classical
prosody, word finals ending in Vm are, as I said, elided before a
following vowel just like any normal vowel ending would be; but before
a consonant, the Vm is scanned as a heavy syllable altho (we know this
from various evidence) the vowel was short. This suggests that the
educated, at least, did nasalize the vowel and that before a consonant
there was an 'automatic' non-phonemic homorganic nasal between V and C.
I believe nasalized vowels behave like this in Portuguese.
Further evidence is, I think, is that Augustus proposed writing final M
without the second vertical stroke. There was, it seems to me, little
point in doing so if final -m was pronounced /m/.
So why write it as |m| in the first place? Well, it is clear the
prescriptivism of Classical Latin was conservative. It would have
preserved the final nasalized of early Latin. Without creating a new
symbol, there were only two to choose from to symbolize 'preceding
nasalization', namely |n| or |m|. To have used the former would have
been ambiguous as /n/ was a permitted final sound in Latin, e.g. tamen
(however), nomen (name) etc. But |m| was unambiguous. Augustus was being
unnecesarily pedantic :)
What I was referring to was the pronunciation of the common people. The
evidence of graffit & the Romance languages seem to me (and others) to
indicate that in the common Latin of the Empire (early & late):
i. in polysyllabic words, the final -m was silent and vowel unnasalized.
cf. French _leur_, Italian _loro_ <-- (il)lorum
ii. in monosyllabic words, the nasalization is lost & the nasalized
vowel becomes Vn, e.g.
CL rem /rE~/ --> VL *ren /rEn/ --> Fr. rien /rjE~/
Cl quem /k_wE~/ --> VL *ken /kEn/ --> Sp. quien /kjen/
This is what I understand the position to be. I wonder why Tore Jansson
gives such a late date to the loss of final -m.
BTW final /m/ was, of course, restored in Medieval Latin, the common IAL
of western & central Europe in the Middle Ages - but that is a spelling
pronunciation.
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:39:14 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to learn an incomplete conlang?
Hi!
Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>
> > I *won't* bet that! There are quite a few Tolkienists who object against
> > any attempt to fill in the gaps Tolkien has left behind. This matter is a
> > constant source of flamewars on the TolkLang and elfling mailing lists.
> > Another source of flamewars are different attempts to fill the same gap...
>
> That is what I was afraid of... I, personally, don't see any plausible
> solution. I don't think somebody can expand Tolkien's product. To make some
> reconstructions? It may work, but different people may come to different
> solutions, and this is Not Good. An, anyway, those reconstructions do not
> fill all the necessary gaps to make the lang workable.
Start a new conlang accidentally identical to a Tokien lang, and
continue under a different name. Isn't that how open source
development often works? :-)
**Henrik
--
Relay 13 is forthcoming:
http://www.conlang.info/relay/relay13.html
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 07:38:38 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT Latin final -M (was: Adpositional irregularities)
So how far back must one go before the common pronunciation of Latin
matches the CL prescription?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:02:49 +0100
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to learn an incomplete conlang?
Hallo!
Henrik Theiling writes:
> Hi!
>
> Isaac Penzev <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> > Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> >
> > > I *won't* bet that! There are quite a few Tolkienists who object against
> > > any attempt to fill in the gaps Tolkien has left behind. This matter is a
> > > constant source of flamewars on the TolkLang and elfling mailing lists.
> > > Another source of flamewars are different attempts to fill the same gap...
> >
> > That is what I was afraid of... I, personally, don't see any plausible
> > solution. I don't think somebody can expand Tolkien's product. To make some
> > reconstructions? It may work, but different people may come to different
> > solutions, and this is Not Good. An, anyway, those reconstructions do not
> > fill all the necessary gaps to make the lang workable.
Yes. These problems are part of the reason why I abstain from those
communities. All that bickering about reconstructions and fill-ins turned
me off.
> Start a new conlang accidentally identical to a Tokien lang, and
> continue under a different name.
Actually, this is pretty much what happened with Albic. Six years ago,
I started off with Nur-ellen, then conceived as a descendant of Sindarin.
One reason why I revamped it and built my own conlang almost completely
independent from Tolkien's langs was that Tolkien's languages were so
incompletely attested. (Another reason was that my British Elves became
more and more independent from Tolkien's Elves, and I wanted to do my
own thing rather than a Tolkien rip-off. Yet, a handful of Tolkienian word
roots have survived into Old Albic.)
Greetings,
Jörg.
______________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:42:03 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to learn an incomplete conlang?
Quoting Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yet, a handful of Tolkienian word
> roots have survived into Old Albic.)
I enjoy to try and spot them whenever you post a piece in Old Albic.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:40:35 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT Latin final -M (was: Adpositional irregularities)
Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [snip]
> >>(the final -m was silent, but some think the vowel was nasalized in
> >>compensation. Others think it was just silent. I'm inclined to agree
> >>with the latter FWIW)
> >
> >
> > What period are you talking about here? Tore Jansson, in his popular book
> on the
> > history of Latin, dates the loss of final /m/ to the later Empire.
>
> I wonder why he says that. In Classical prosody of the late Republic &
> early empire, words finals ending in -m are regularly elided before a
> word beginning with a vowel. That simply does not make sense if the -m
> were still pronounced. There is IIRC also evidence from graffiti of loss
> of final -m by that date.
Checking the book again, I see I may have misinterpreted him. He writes, when
discussing change is pronunciation during the late Empire, that final /m/ was
lost "fairly early" - I took this to mean fairly early during the late imperial
period, but there really isn't anything to tell relative to what the loss was
fairly early. Maybe he meant fairly early in the history of spoken Latin.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
