There are 11 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
From: taliesin the storyteller
1b. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
From: Henrik Theiling
1c. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
1d. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
From: Dana Nutter
1e. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
From: caeruleancentaur
1f. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
From: caeruleancentaur
1g. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
From: Eldin Raigmore
1h. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
From: Henrik Theiling
1i. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
From: Roger Mills
1j. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
From: Dirk Elzinga
2. Re: Serial Verb Constructions With "Kill" (was: THEORY: "Finite Verb
From: taliesin the storyteller
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
Posted by: "taliesin the storyteller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:35 am (PDT)
* Eldin Raigmore said on 2006-08-16 02:05:29 +0200
> How about your conlangs? Would you say they are:
> 4. Would you say they are neither very Tense-Prominent nor very Aspect-
> Prominent?
> 4a. Nevertheless, rather more Tense-Prominent than Aspect-Prominent?
Taruven is probably 4a. right now. Neither tense nor aspect is
obligatory but since I'm used to tense-marking from my L1 I guess I mark
tense more often by accident :)
> Does your conlang require that any speaker mention how he/she knows what
> he/she is saying happened, but hardly ever require at that they mention
> when it happened (or how often it happened, or how long it took to happen,
> or whatever)?
Taruven generally only require cases on nouns, the verb-machinery is
mostly pick and choose. There are both mood-markers and evidential-
markers and they can be mixed and matched.
> Whatever your answers to the above questions, can you also answer this one?
> Where did you get that idea to put it in your conlang?
I knew of mood and evidentials through general reading of (descriptive)
linguistic works, but didn't find a space for it until I read Describing
Morphosyntax by Payne.
> Is your conlang a lot like any natlang or any group of natlangs in that
> way?
I don't know. I haven't consciously modelled the verb-machinery on any
one system, I've just been trying to avoid certain uses of adverbs,
coverbs etc.
t.
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:04 am (PDT)
Hi!
Eldin Raigmore writes:
> How about your conlangs? Would you say they are:
> 1. Very Tense-Prominent but not very Aspect-Prominent?
> 2. Very Aspect-Prominent but not very Tense-Prominent?
> 3. Or that they are both quite Tense-Prominent and quite Aspect-Prominent?
> 3a. Nevertheless, rather more Tense-Prominent than Aspect-Prominent?
> 3b. Nevertheless, rather more Aspect-Prominent than Tense-Prominent?
> 3c. About equally Aspect-Prominent as Tense-Prominent?
> 4. Would you say they are neither very Tense-Prominent nor very Aspect-
> Prominent?
> 4a. Nevertheless, rather more Tense-Prominent than Aspect-Prominent?
> 4b. Nevertheless, rather more Aspect-Prominent than Tense-Prominent?
> 4c. About equally Aspect-Prominent as Tense-Prominent?
Fukhian has neither grammatical tense nor aspect marking. So 4c. (It
does have marking for 'Vorzeitigkeit', but I don't know what that is
in English.) It lacks aspect marking for the reason Herman Miller
mentioned: I did not know it existed. It lacks tense marking because
I learned that tense was not mandatory in some languages, and I
probably included it in order to collect interesting features.
Tyl Sjok is pro-drop, ambiguous, and underspecified. It is 4c.
Qþyn|gài has morphemes for tense and aspect, but they are not
mandatory either. Again, it is 4c. One of the mandatory categories
is evidentiality/mood.
And theoretically, S11 is like Qþyn|gài, but has no words or morphemes
yet.
So I seem to clearly prefer 4c for my artlangs. :-)
Finally, Da Mätz se Basa and Þrjótrunn are both a posteriori langs
(Germanic and Romance, resp.).
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:17 am (PDT)
Hallo!
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:05:29 -0400, Eldin Raigmore wrote:
> How about your conlangs? Would you say they are:
> 1. Very Tense-Prominent but not very Aspect-Prominent?
> 2. Very Aspect-Prominent but not very Tense-Prominent?
> 3. Or that they are both quite Tense-Prominent and quite Aspect-Prominent?
> 3a. Nevertheless, rather more Tense-Prominent than Aspect-Prominent?
> 3b. Nevertheless, rather more Aspect-Prominent than Tense-Prominent?
> 3c. About equally Aspect-Prominent as Tense-Prominent?
> 4. Would you say they are neither very Tense-Prominent nor very Aspect-
> Prominent?
> 4a. Nevertheless, rather more Tense-Prominent than Aspect-Prominent?
> 4b. Nevertheless, rather more Aspect-Prominent than Tense-Prominent?
> 4c. About equally Aspect-Prominent as Tense-Prominent?
My earlier conlangs were clearly (1.) tense-prominent as I was unaware of the
category of aspect.
Old Albic marks verbs for both aspect and - in the imperfective aspect -
tense (the perfective aspect has no tense marking). So it is both
(3.) tense-prominent and aspect-prominent, perhaps slightly more the latter
(3b.).
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
Posted by: "Dana Nutter" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:56 am (PDT)
li [Eldin Raigmore] mi tulis la
> ...
> How about your conlangs? Would you say they are:
> 1. Very Tense-Prominent but not very Aspect-Prominent?
> 2. Very Aspect-Prominent but not very Tense-Prominent?
> 3. Or that they are both quite Tense-Prominent and quite
> Aspect-Prominent?
> 3a. Nevertheless, rather more Tense-Prominent than Aspect-Prominent?
> 3b. Nevertheless, rather more Aspect-Prominent than Tense-Prominent?
> 3c. About equally Aspect-Prominent as Tense-Prominent?
> 4. Would you say they are neither very Tense-Prominent nor
> very Aspect-
> Prominent?
> 4a. Nevertheless, rather more Tense-Prominent than Aspect-Prominent?
> 4b. Nevertheless, rather more Aspect-Prominent than Tense-Prominent?
> 4c. About equally Aspect-Prominent as Tense-Prominent?
For Sasxsek, the answer would have to be 4 since neither tense nor
aspect are marked on the verb. Adverbs are used to mark both and only
used when needed for clarity. We could use the top line of this message
for an example.
(simple past)
li [Eldin Raigmore] mi tulis la
NAME Eldin Raigmore before write QUOTE...
Eldin Raigmore wrote ...
(unmarked)
li [Eldin Raigmore] tulis la
NAME Eldin Raigmore write QUOTE...
Eldin Raigmore [writes/is writing/wrote/was writing/will
write/etc.] ..
(past perfect)
li [Eldin Raigmore] ti mi tulis la
NAME Eldin Raigmore then before write QUOTE...
Eldin Raigmore had written ...
(habitual)
li [Eldin Raigmore] ki tulis la
NAME Eldin Raigmore always write QUOTE...
Eldin Raigmore always writes ...
li [Eldin Raigmore] dini tulis
NAME Eldin Raigmore day+ly write
Eldin Raigmore writes daily.
> -------
> That might not be all there is to it at all.
> Languages with evidentials may be "Mood-Prominent", or at
> least "Evidential-Prominent", rather than either
> Aspect-Prominent or Tense-
> Prominent.
> Does your conlang require that any speaker mention how he/she
> knows what
> he/she is saying happened, but hardly ever require at that
> they mention
> when it happened (or how often it happened, or how long it
> took to happen,
> or whatever)?
No. It's no required.
> --------
> Whatever your answers to the above questions, can you also
> answer this one?
> Where did you get that idea to put it in your conlang?
> Is your conlang a lot like any natlang or any group of
> natlangs in that
> way?
It's not based on any one language or group of languages.
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:10 am (PDT)
>Eldin Raigmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That might not be all there is to it at all. Languages with
>evidentials may be "Mood-Prominent", or at least "Evidential-
>Prominent", rather than either Aspect-Prominent or Tense-
>Prominent.
Senjecas is "mood-prominent." The verb is inflected only for mood,
tense being indicated by the use of particles for past or future. Four
moods: indicative, subjunctive, imperative, and relative.
>Where did you get that idea to put it in your conlang?
I read some of Lehmann's works in PIE. He says, if I read him
correctly, that verbs in pre-PIE were not inflected.
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:11 am (PDT)
>Eldin Raigmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How about your conlangs? Would you say they are:
>2. Very Aspect-Prominent but not very Tense-Prominent?
I forgot to mention that the Senjecan verb is marked for aspect. The
imperfective is unmarked and for the perfective the initial consonant
is duplicated or the initial vowel is lengthened. If the initial
vowel is already long, nothing else is done.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:12 am (PDT)
---In [email protected], Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi!
Hi. Thanks for writing.
>Eldin Raigmore writes:
[snip]
>Fukhian has neither grammatical tense nor aspect marking. So 4c. (It
>does have marking for 'Vorzeitigkeit', but I don't know what that is
>in English.)
"Fore-time-y-hood"? ;-)
"Anteriority". (This one is serious.)
English is said to distinguish this by opposing the Past Perfect (a.k.a.
Pluperfect) to the Present Perfect and/or "Simple Past".
See, e.g.,
http://englischlehrer.de/language/grammar_participle.php
>It lacks aspect marking for the reason Herman Miller
>mentioned: I did not know it existed. It lacks tense marking because
>I learned that tense was not mandatory in some languages, and I
>probably included it in order to collect interesting features.
I think vorzetigkeit is a kind of tense, at least in Bernard Comrie's
Cambridge Textbook in Linguistics "Tense"; it qualifies, IMO, as what he
would have called "Relative Past" -- that is, the so-marked verb happened
before some other verb; no commitment is made one way or the other about
whether or not it happened before the speech-act. If the "other verb"
happens during or happened before the speech-act, then the "anterior"-
marked verb must also have happened before the speech-act; but if
the "other verb" will happen after the speech-act, more information would
necessary to figure it out.
So this would apply to past-in-the-past, "past-in-the-present"(= just plain
past), and past-in-the-future; depending on when the "other verb"
happened/happens/will happen.
So Fukhian might be 4a rather than 4c. If the marking for anteriority is
mandatory, it might even be 1. (Or maybe not.)
>Tyl Sjok is pro-drop, ambiguous, and underspecified. It is 4c.
I am interested in the "ambibuous" part and the "underspecified" part.
Which one is -- or are they both -- most related to the "4c" answer you
give for Tyl Sjok?
>Qþyn|gài has morphemes for tense and aspect, but they are not
>mandatory either. Again, it is 4c. One of the mandatory categories
>is evidentiality/mood.
>
>And theoretically, S11 is like Qþyn|gài, but has no words or
>morphemes yet.
Does that make it very _easy_ to learn, or very _difficult_ to learn?
>So I seem to clearly prefer 4c for my artlangs. :-)
>
>Finally, Da Mätz se Basa and Þrjótrunn are both a posteriori langs
>(Germanic and Romance, resp.).
So, probably, 3a?
>**Henrik
Thanks.
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:39 am (PDT)
Hi!
Eldin Raigmore writes:
> ---In [email protected], Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Eldin Raigmore writes:
> [snip]
> >Fukhian has neither grammatical tense nor aspect marking. So 4c. (It
> >does have marking for 'Vorzeitigkeit', but I don't know what that is
> >in English.)
>
> "Fore-time-y-hood"? ;-)
> "Anteriority". (This one is serious.)
> English is said to distinguish this by opposing the Past Perfect (a.k.a.
> Pluperfect) to the Present Perfect and/or "Simple Past".
That's exactly what it does, yes. (German does the same, btw.)
>...
> would have called "Relative Past" -- that is, the so-marked verb happened
>...
Yes, right. My conlangs after Fukhian all have (optional) relative
tense (but also future), but in Fukhian, it is mandatory.
>...
> >Tyl Sjok is pro-drop, ambiguous, and underspecified. It is 4c.
>
> I am interested in the "ambibuous" part and the "underspecified" part.
> Which one is -- or are they both -- most related to the "4c" answer you
> give for Tyl Sjok?
>...
Tense is optional, aspect is optional, mood is optional, personal
pronouns are optional, markers for embedding order are optional (so
you must infer which one is the main clause and which one the
subordinary clause), reference marking is optional (so you have to
infer which part of the relative clause is modified), markers for
argument structure are optional, and verbs are optional, or put
differently, nouns = verbs and so one can be used for the other.
Further, causative markers are optional and 'verbs' can be used as
nouns to refer not only to the action itself, but also to the agent.
So basically, you need to infer the whole clause and argument
structure.
The word order is not free, though, but defined by 'control'. The
grammar rule for ordering a sentence is: the controller precedes the
controlled. This gives some hints for the puzzle of finding out the
meaning of a sentence.
BTW, this is only slightly worse, if at all, than the situation in
Ancient Chinese, so I'd say it's an anadewism. But I think it messed
up a relay text once.
> >Qþyn|gài has morphemes for tense and aspect, but they are not
> >mandatory either. Again, it is 4c. One of the mandatory categories
> >is evidentiality/mood.
> >
> >And theoretically, S11 is like Qþyn|gài, but has no words or
> >morphemes yet.
>
> Does that make it very _easy_ to learn, or very _difficult_ to learn?
The sentence and argument structure is clearly marked and both are
quite regular, so structurally, both are easy languages. However, the
structure is so different from the languages I speak, and also so
complex, that of all my conlangs, it takes me longest to translate
into Qþyn|gài (e.g. in one of the relays, it took me ~15 minutes to
decypher the meaning of the preceding romlang text, but it took ~11
hours to translate that into my well-known own conlang).
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1i. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:41 am (PDT)
Eldin Raigmore wrote:
> How about your conlangs? Would you say they are:
> 1. Very Tense-Prominent but not very Aspect-Prominent?
> 2. Very Aspect-Prominent but not very Tense-Prominent?
> 3. Or that they are both quite Tense-Prominent and quite Aspect-Prominent?
> 3a. Nevertheless, rather more Tense-Prominent than Aspect-Prominent?
> 3b. Nevertheless, rather more Aspect-Prominent than Tense-Prominent?
> 3c. About equally Aspect-Prominent as Tense-Prominent?
> 4. Would you say they are neither very Tense-Prominent nor very Aspect-
> Prominent?
> 4a. Nevertheless, rather more Tense-Prominent than Aspect-Prominent?
> 4b. Nevertheless, rather more Aspect-Prominent than Tense-Prominent?
> 4c. About equally Aspect-Prominent as Tense-Prominent?
>
Although tense and aspect are both optional in spoken and informal Kash,
tense is usually marked in formal usages. So it would be 4a, I guess.
Aspect, when it appears, would be indicated by adverbials, not in the
morphology. As I've said before, I don't really understand how aspect
works..........:-( Kash is more or less modelled on Indonesian, but with
some tweaks (like tense markers and noun cases).
Gwr, as it develops, is probably a 4 -- T&A are marked by adverbials, but
they are always optional. It is a high isolating lang., on the model of
Chinese or Vietnamese, as I understand them.
Neither Kash nor Gwr require evidentials; I'm aware of them from a nodding
acquaintance with Amer.Indian languages. There's always the possibility
that my third Cindu language, Prevli, could with a little more study on my
part, include aspect (realis vs. irrealis??) and perhaps evidentials too.
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1j. Re: TYPOLOGY: (conlangs and natlangs): "Tense-Prominent" vs
Posted by: "Dirk Elzinga" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:38 am (PDT)
Eldin:
You need to look at this book:
Bhat, D. N. S. 1999. The prominence of tense, aspect, and mood. John
Benjamins. ISBN: 155619935X.
Here is the publisher's blurb:
"The book puts forth an exciting hypothesis for the typologist. Its
major claim is that languages can generally be regarded as belonging
to a tense-prominent, aspect-prominent or mood-prominent language
type. This grouping can be based upon the relative prominence that
languages attach to one or the other of the three verbal categories,
namely tense, aspect and mood, by grammaticalizing the chosen category
to a greater degree than others, and by making it more obligatory,
more systematic and more pervasive than others. The grouping, however,
involves a gradation, as is indeed the case with other typological
groupings, with some languages manifesting the relevant characteristic
more strikingly than others. There are several characteristics that
can be correlated with the relative prominence that languages attach
to verbal categories. For example, tense-prominent languages tend to
have mostly active but not stative verbs. They also tend to keep
adjectives as a distinct category, or group them with nouns but not
with verbs. Verbal forms used for foregrounding generally belong to
the most prominent verbal category. These and other similar
correlations make this typological classification worth pursuing. The
book also contains a descriptive study of the three verbal
categories."
Dirk
On 8/15/06, Eldin Raigmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that some languages nearly require nearly every verb -- or, at
> least, the nucleus of nearly every main clause -- to be inflected for
> Tense.
>
> For lack of knowing the real terminology, (if there even is any), let me
> call these "Tense-Prominent Languages".
>
> It seems that some languages nearly require nearly every verb -- or, at
> least, the nucleus of nearly every main clause -- to be inflected for
> Aspect.
>
> For lack of knowing the real terminology, (if there even is any), let me
> call these "Aspect-Prominent Languages".
>
> It seems several "Aspect-Prominent" Languages are _not_ "Tense-Prominent".
> It seems several "Tense-Prominent" Languages are _not_ "Aspect-Prominent".
>
> How about your conlangs? Would you say they are:
> 1. Very Tense-Prominent but not very Aspect-Prominent?
> 2. Very Aspect-Prominent but not very Tense-Prominent?
> 3. Or that they are both quite Tense-Prominent and quite Aspect-Prominent?
> 3a. Nevertheless, rather more Tense-Prominent than Aspect-Prominent?
> 3b. Nevertheless, rather more Aspect-Prominent than Tense-Prominent?
> 3c. About equally Aspect-Prominent as Tense-Prominent?
> 4. Would you say they are neither very Tense-Prominent nor very Aspect-
> Prominent?
> 4a. Nevertheless, rather more Tense-Prominent than Aspect-Prominent?
> 4b. Nevertheless, rather more Aspect-Prominent than Tense-Prominent?
> 4c. About equally Aspect-Prominent as Tense-Prominent?
>
> -------
>
> That might not be all there is to it at all.
> Languages with evidentials may be "Mood-Prominent", or at
> least "Evidential-Prominent", rather than either Aspect-Prominent or Tense-
> Prominent.
>
> Does your conlang require that any speaker mention how he/she knows what
> he/she is saying happened, but hardly ever require at that they mention
> when it happened (or how often it happened, or how long it took to happen,
> or whatever)?
>
> --------
>
> Whatever your answers to the above questions, can you also answer this one?
> Where did you get that idea to put it in your conlang?
> Is your conlang a lot like any natlang or any group of natlangs in that
> way?
>
> ---
> Thanks,
> ---
> eldin
>
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. Re: Serial Verb Constructions With "Kill" (was: THEORY: "Finite Verb
Posted by: "taliesin the storyteller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:06 am (PDT)
* Eldin Raigmore said on 2006-08-16 01:51:13 +0200
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:13:02 +0200, taliesin the storyteller <taliesin-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > jehan Seva kirja kru ilisiaT
> >
> > This is, obviously :), an SVC: Jehan go cut kill Ilisi.
> > S is [S], T is [T], aT marks objects
>
> I find it interesting that your first example of a serial verb
> construction uses a verb meaning "kill" as part of the series.
As I say later, I still have *very* few transitive verbs. "kirja" was
originally just used for how a boat cuts through waves.
> Is "Jehan" the Taruven equivalent of "Jack", by any chance?
The entire set of words deriving from hebrew Jochanan actually: so:
John, Joe, Johnny, Jane, Jean, Joan, Anne, Hannah, Sean, Ian, Jack etc.
It's my default "need a name for examples"-name right now.
> And what's the difference, if any, between the Taruven for "cut" and the
> Taruven for "rip"?
Cut needs an (implied) instrument. Rip will only be done without an
implement (cannot take an NP marked for instrumental).
> > jehan Seva saies, kiri ilisiaT ao kru iaT
> >
> > means "Jehan go to.river, I/we cut Ilisi and.then I/we kill him/her"
> >
> > This is ambiguous btw: did I/we kill Ilisi or Jehan? It might be that
> > there is also a marker for same object but I haven't discovered one so
> > far.
>
> I assume you mean "I haven't discovered a 'SameObject vs DifferentObject'
> morphology in Taruven so far."
Yep. Btw, the "ao" implies that the clause to the right happened at the
same time or later than the clause to the right. "ao" only conjoins
clauses.
> Remind me, please, what the differences are between Types I, II, III,
> and IV of object-incorporation?
Most people just differ between type I and type not-I, collapsing II,
III and IV, but I'll try:
I: "Lexical compounding". Lexicalized incorporation. The verb is
modified by a constituent and decreases in valency by 1. Transitive
-> Intransitive. Many languages used to have this and now only have
frozen forms left, hence lexicalized.
II: "Manipulation of case". Valency not decreased, the incorporated
constituent is replaced by another constituent that changes in case.
This could maybe be used for passivization: incorporate the subject
and change the prior object into the (syntactic) subject.
III: "Manipulation of discourse". The incorporated constituent serves as
background information. No change in valency.
IV: "Classificatory". The incorporated constituent shows the class of
the NP, no change in valency.
I recommend this survey:
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pycha/2006%20LSA%20Handout%20final.pdf
> It just seems natural to use "cut kill" as a serial verb construction,
> especially if your subject is named Jack. I suppose if he were named
> Maxwell, you'd use a "hit kill" SVC.
Jack the Ripper I have heard of, who's Maxwell? Anyway, I still don't
have an acceptable word for "hit".
t.
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
