There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Syntactic differences within parts of speech
From: taliesin the storyteller
1b. Re: Syntactic differences within parts of speech
From: Sylvia Sotomayor
1c. Re: Syntactic differences within parts of speech
From: Chris Bates
1d. OFFLIST: ngwaalq (was: Syntactic differences within parts of speech)
From: eldin_raigmore
1e. Re: OFFLIST: ngwaalq
From: Chris Bates
2a. Baby/infant
From: caeruleancentaur
2b. Re: Baby/infant
From: Henrik Theiling
2c. Re: Baby/infant
From: Roger Mills
2d. Re: Baby/infant
From: Paul Bennett
2e. Re: Baby/infant
From: Chris Peters
2f. Re: Baby/infant
From: Edgard Bikelis
2g. Re: Baby/infant
From: taliesin the storyteller
2h. Re: Baby/infant
From: Antonielly Garcia Rodrigues
2i. Re: Baby/infant
From: taliesin the storyteller
2j. Re: Baby/infant
From: Yahya Abdal-Aziz
2k. Re: Baby/infant
From: Antonielly Garcia Rodrigues
2l. Re: Baby/infant
From: Andreas Johansson
2m. Re: Baby/infant
From: Edgard Bikelis
2n. Re: Baby/infant
From: Sapthan
2o. Re: Baby/infant
From: Philip Newton
2p. Re: Baby/infant
From: caeruleancentaur
3a. Help with German
From: caeruleancentaur
3b. Re: Help with German
From: Henrik Theiling
3c. Re: Help with German
From: Philip Newton
4. Re: Weekly vocab revival?
From: Henrik Theiling
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Syntactic differences within parts of speech
Posted by: "taliesin the storyteller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:22 pm (PDT)
* Amanda Babcock Furrow said on 2006-08-22 17:11:50 +0200
> I've been intrigued lately (the past six months?) by discussions on
> the list which expose variations in the syntax of words considered to
> be of the same part of speech.
/snip/
> At any rate, I want to be able to apply this level of detail to a
> conlang, maybe even to the extent of devising a grammar with more
> parts of speech (and I mean open classes - creating a small closed
> class is easy) than we are used to. But I need ideas. Does anyone
> know of a resource (preferably online, or in books I already own ;)
> which addresses the detailed syntactics of parts of speech, or of
> groups of words within a part of speech, ideally with examples in
> English?
There's the series Timothy Shopen edited (borrow, don't buy): "Language
typology and syntactic description". As in most works of descriptive
linguistics, you won't find only English examples though.
> Also, who can provide similar examples from their conlangs?
It is possible to analyze Taruven such that it has two open
word-classes: statives (adjectives) and experiencer-verbs. Verbs and
nouns are then basically subsets of statives, while all/most of the
closed-class words derive from the experiencer-verbs (which, really,
really ought to be renamed complement(ed)-verbs. One of these days...)
Furthermore there's a closed class of words (tentatively) called
front-words. These must always be the first word in a clause if used at
all.
One definite goal of Taruven is to do away with adverbs. This does have
a discernible effect on the entire system :) Adverbs truly is a class of
"leftovers", ripe for splitting up into smaller classes.
You might find interesting discussions about word classes on Language Log
btw. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/
t.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Syntactic differences within parts of speech
Posted by: "Sylvia Sotomayor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:27 pm (PDT)
On 8/22/06, Amanda Babcock Furrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, who can provide similar examples from their conlangs? Does your
> conlang have an extra part of speech (two separate kinds of verbs,
> perhaps, which operate differently)? Does it contain subclasses within
> parts of speech (verbs, perhaps, that can't be nominalized? Yes, I'm
> rather stuck on verbs...) Words which don't fit into any part of speech
> in the language? Any other relevant examples or thoughts?
>
Kelen has nouns, of course - an open class. And relationals - a closed
class. Then, we have prepositional modifiers aka case markers,
postpositional modifiers, 4 types of conjunctions, pronouns of various
types, clause-level modifiers, and mood markers - all closed. Usage
within each class follows certain trends, but can vary from word to
word. The biggest source of variation is that some members of a class
can only appear in clauses headed by certain relationals. For example,
the case marker 'ke' only occurs with the relational SE, as does the
relative pronoun 'ien'.
It took me a long time to figure all that out, too. For the longest
time I had 'ien' and 'ñe' as case markers, when one is actually a
relative pronoun and the other a conjunction.
-S
--
Sylvia Sotomayor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.terjemar.net
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Syntactic differences within parts of speech
Posted by: "Chris Bates" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:09 am (PDT)
>Also, who can provide similar examples from their conlangs? Does your
>conlang have an extra part of speech (two separate kinds of verbs,
>perhaps, which operate differently)? Does it contain subclasses within
>parts of speech (verbs, perhaps, that can't be nominalized? Yes, I'm
>rather stuck on verbs...) Words which don't fit into any part of speech
>in the language? Any other relevant examples or thoughts?
>
>
My current conlang ngwaalq has additional word classes not found in
English: noun classifiers and verb classifiers. These are closed classes
(about 50 items in each) which have distinct distributional and
morphological properties to verbs and nouns: namely, noun and verb
classifiers are the locus of nominal and verbal inflectional morphology
respectively, and can occur independently (nouns and verbs require a
classifier, but noun and verb classifiers do not require anything
explicit to classify).
On the other hand, ngwaalq lacks a class that English has: adjectives
(treating adjectives as verbs basically). It also lacks true inherently
stative verbs (except for verb classifiers): verb classifiers
distinguish various Aktionsart and telicity related distinctions, and
stativity is indicated by the choice of a stative type verb classifier.
When a telic verb classifier occurs with a verb related to a state, say
"to be red", it is interpreted as an accomplishment, in this case "to
become red". I do not regard these verbs as inherently stative, since
neither meaning is more basic or more marked than the other... telicity
and Aktionsart (as well as valency) related distinctions are simply
mostly marked by the choice of verb classifier rather than being
inherently associated with a root.
As for nominalization, verb classifiers (if you count them as a subset
of verbs) cannot be nominalized. You can form a relative clause that
contains them, but the nominalizing morphology available to open class
verbs is unavailable to them. Noun classifiers (again, if you count them
as nouns) also resist denominalization strongly, since one of their main
functions is to mark nominality.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. OFFLIST: ngwaalq (was: Syntactic differences within parts of speech)
Posted by: "eldin_raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:13 am (PDT)
---In [email protected], Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>[Sylvia wrote]
>>Also, who can provide similar examples from their conlangs? Does
>>your conlang have an extra part of speech (two separate kinds of
>>verbs, perhaps, which operate differently)? Does it contain
>>subclasses within parts of speech (verbs, perhaps, that can't be
>>nominalized? Yes, I'm rather stuck on verbs...) Words which don't
>>fit into any part of speech in the language? Any other relevant
>>examples or thoughts?
>>
>My current conlang ngwaalq has additional word classes not found in
>English: noun classifiers and verb classifiers. These are closed
>classes (about 50 items in each) which have distinct distributional
>and morphological properties to verbs and nouns: namely, noun and
>verb classifiers are the locus of nominal and verbal inflectional
>morphology respectively, and can occur independently (nouns and
>verbs require a classifier, but noun and verb classifiers do not
>require anything explicit to classify).
>On the other hand, ngwaalq lacks a class that English has: adjectives
>(treating adjectives as verbs basically). It also lacks true
>inherently stative verbs (except for verb classifiers): verb
>classifiers distinguish various Aktionsart and telicity related
>distinctions, and stativity is indicated by the choice of a stative
>type verb classifier.
>When a telic verb classifier occurs with a verb related to a state,
>say "to be red", it is interpreted as an accomplishment, in this
>case "to become red". I do not regard these verbs as inherently
>stative, since neither meaning is more basic or more marked than the
>other... telicity and Aktionsart (as well as valency) related
>distinctions are simply mostly marked by the choice of verb
>classifier rather than being inherently associated with a root.
>As for nominalization, verb classifiers (if you count them as a
>subset of verbs) cannot be nominalized. You can form a relative
>clause that contains them, but the nominalizing morphology available
>to open class verbs is unavailable to them. Noun classifiers (again,
>if you count them as nouns) also resist denominalization strongly,
>since one of their main functions is to mark nominality.
This is all great stuff, Chris.
I'd like to see more about ngwaalq.
Where can I find it?
---
Sylvia was more interested in non-closed and non-small classes; or at
least _one_ of her questions said so. Possibly the question _you_
answered couldn't be answered with an open, major class.
---
Two Eskimos sharing a kayak grew uncomfortably cold, so they lit a
fire in their craft. Of course it sank; thus proving, once again,
that you can't have your kayak and heat it, too.
-----
eldin
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: OFFLIST: ngwaalq
Posted by: "Chris Bates" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:32 pm (PDT)
>This is all great stuff, Chris.
>I'd like to see more about ngwaalq.
>Where can I find it?
>
>
Eldin, I've posted a few thoughts about in on my board. To be honest,
since it's my newest project it's to a large extent still unorganized
scribbles slowly condensing as I sort them and organize them more... a
lot of it is still living in my head, and many details remain to be
completely finalized (I'm considering extending its number system, but
the system I was thinking of is a bit of a mess so I may not bother). :)
If you want I'll post you my first grammar sketch when I've got it
together more.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Baby/infant
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:42 pm (PDT)
Hi!
I'm looking for a word for "baby/infant" in a natlang that has not
evolved from "indistinct speech" (baba > baby) or from "not speaking"
(in-fans > infant). Does anyone know of such?
Charlie
http://wiki.frath.net/senjecas
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Baby/infant
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:42 pm (PDT)
Hi!
caeruleancentaur writes:
> Hi!
> I'm looking for a word for "baby/infant" in a natlang that has not
> evolved from "indistinct speech" (baba > baby) or from "not speaking"
> (in-fans > infant). Does anyone know of such?
>...
German 'Säugling' is from vt. 'säugen', 'to breast-feed', + '-ling'.
(BTW, vt. 'säugen' is the (lexicalised) causative of vi. 'saugen',
'to suck').
According to my dictionary, English also has 'suckling'.
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Baby/infant
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:47 pm (PDT)
Charlie wrote:
> I'm looking for a word for "baby/infant" in a natlang that has not
> evolved from "indistinct speech" (baba > baby) or from "not speaking"
> (in-fans > infant). Does anyone know of such?
>
> Charlie
Well, it's conlang, and nursery/colloquial, but Kash has _veve_ and _meme_,
derived from _velu_ 'new' and _anamelu_ 'newborn child' (medical jargon
'neonate')
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Baby/infant
Posted by: "Paul Bennett" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:35 pm (PDT)
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:48:08 -0400, taliesin the storyteller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * caeruleancentaur said on 2006-08-22 22:26:40 +0200
>> I'm looking for a word for "baby/infant" in a natlang that has not
>> evolved from "indistinct speech" (baba > baby) or from "not speaking"
>> (in-fans > infant). Does anyone know of such?
>
> Norwegian "spedbarn", a baby prior to walking. I assume the "sped-" is
> the same as "sped" meaning simply "small, slight in size", but for all I
> know it might have something to do with truffles...
Is that -barn element a cousin of the Scots word "bairn"? ISTR it has
Scandinavian origins, and if unanalyzable seems to be another candidate.
Paul
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: Baby/infant
Posted by: "Chris Peters" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:53 pm (PDT)
I'm not entirely sure if this qualifies, but the Japanese word "akachan"
might qualify. I don't know the etymology of "aka-", but the "-chan" suffix
is a common "cuteness" qualifier commonly used for people and animals.
("oneechan" = "big sister"; "nekochan" = "kitty).
:Chris
>From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Baby/infant
>Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:26:40 -0000
>
>Hi!
>I'm looking for a word for "baby/infant" in a natlang that has not
>evolved from "indistinct speech" (baba > baby) or from "not speaking"
>(in-fans > infant). Does anyone know of such?
>
>Charlie
>http://wiki.frath.net/senjecas
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: Baby/infant
Posted by: "Edgard Bikelis" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:02 pm (PDT)
caeruleancentaur wrote:
> Hi!
> I'm looking for a word for "baby/infant" in a natlang that has not
> evolved from "indistinct speech" (baba > baby) or from "not speaking"
> (in-fans > infant). Does anyone know of such?
>
> Charlie
> http://wiki.frath.net/senjecas
>
>
Hi!
Portuguese 'criança', from 'criar', to raise, from Latin creo, creare,
creaui, creatum. The old spelling is 'creança', as the verb, 'crear'.
From the vulgar Latin 'creantia', or from the present participle
'crea:ns, creantis'. It reminds me suckling, and a word Tolkien used on
LoTR, but I dont remember it now :/. 'Ris(e/i?)ling' ; ).
Edgard.
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2g. Re: Baby/infant
Posted by: "taliesin the storyteller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:22 pm (PDT)
* caeruleancentaur said on 2006-08-22 22:26:40 +0200
> I'm looking for a word for "baby/infant" in a natlang that has not
> evolved from "indistinct speech" (baba > baby) or from "not speaking"
> (in-fans > infant). Does anyone know of such?
Norwegian "spedbarn", a baby prior to walking. I assume the "sped-" is
the same as "sped" meaning simply "small, slight in size", but for all I
know it might have something to do with truffles...
t.
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2h. Re: Baby/infant
Posted by: "Antonielly Garcia Rodrigues" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:38 pm (PDT)
Yes, but "criança" (a person to be created or raised) is any child,
from 0 up to about 11 years old. It is not a term restricted to
babies.
On 8/22/06, Edgard Bikelis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Portuguese 'criança', from 'criar', to raise, from Latin creo, creare,
> creaui, creatum. The old spelling is 'creança', as the verb, 'crear'.
> From the vulgar Latin 'creantia', or from the present participle
> 'crea:ns, creantis'. It reminds me suckling, and a word Tolkien used on
> LoTR, but I dont remember it now :/. 'Ris(e/i?)ling' ; ).
>
> Edgard.
>
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2i. Re: Baby/infant
Posted by: "taliesin the storyteller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:18 am (PDT)
* Paul Bennett said on 2006-08-23 00:31:17 +0200
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:48:08 -0400, taliesin the storyteller
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * caeruleancentaur said on 2006-08-22 22:26:40 +0200
> > > I'm looking for a word for "baby/infant" in a natlang that has not
> > > evolved from "indistinct speech" (baba > baby) or from "not
> > > speaking" (in-fans > infant). Does anyone know of such?
> >
> > Norwegian "spedbarn", a baby prior to walking. I assume the "sped-"
> > is the same as "sped" meaning simply "small, slight in size", but
> > for all I know it might have something to do with truffles...
>
> Is that -barn element a cousin of the Scots word "bairn"? ISTR it has
> Scandinavian origins, and if unanalyzable seems to be another
> candidate.
"barn" just means child and it might be that scottish got it from Norse
:)
t.
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2j. Re: Baby/infant
Posted by: "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:37 am (PDT)
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Charlie wrote:
>
> Hi!
> I'm looking for a word for "baby/infant" in a natlang that has not
> evolved from "indistinct speech" (baba > baby) or from "not speaking"
> (in-fans > infant). Does anyone know of such?
>
> Charlie
> http://wiki.frath.net/senjecas
- Malay (Austronesian) has "bayi" for "infant, baby".
- Iban (Austronesian) has "anak biak" for "baby", literally "child breed".
- Kadazan (Austronesian) has "tanak tonini", literally "child small" for
"baby" and "koposusuvan", literally "suckler" for "suckling".
- Spanish (IE, Romance) in all varieties has "niño" for "male infant" and
"niña" for "female infant".
- Andean Spanish (IE, Romance) has "guagua" for "baby"; I don't know its
etymology.
- German (IE, Germanic) has "Säugling" for English (IE, Germanic)
"suckling".
- Tamazight (Semitic) has "taslmiya" or "tislmiwin" for baby; I cannot
determine the etymology of either word, but both appear to have the
triliteral root "s-l-m-" which in Arabic and Hebrew (Semitic) means "peace"
or "safety".
- Greek (IE) has "vréfos" for "infant, baby", "nípio" for "infant, baby,
newborn child", and "moró" for "baby". "nípio" *seems* to combine the roots
for "new" and "child".
HTH,
Yahya
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/425 - Release Date: 22/8/06
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2k. Re: Baby/infant
Posted by: "Antonielly Garcia Rodrigues" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:54 am (PDT)
On 8/22/06, Edgard Bikelis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Antonielly Garcia Rodrigues wrote:
> > Yes, but "criança" (a person to be created or raised) is any child,
> > from 0 up to about 11 years old. It is not a term restricted to
> > babies.
> >>
> >
> Hi,
>
> I'm not totally sure, but in English 'to create' is just... to make,
> to forge something new, hm? If so, 'criança' can't be created, because
> it already was, otherwise it would be just a wish, a plan, or something
> on a refrigerator, waiting for the seeding season ; ). In Portuguese,
> and I think in Spanish too, we 'create pigs' (criamos porcos), but we
> are just growing them ; ).
It depends on what you mean by "create". I know that in English the
most suitable words for that context are "grow" or "raise". You said
"we are just growing them", but there is no reason English would be
right and Portuguese would be wrong, or vice versa. There is no
absolute frame of reference in Linguistics. The conclusion is that we
have to use the most suitable word in the language we want to use. In
Rome, be a Roman. We have to use "grow" or "raise" in English, and
"criar" (literally "create") in Portuguese. The Portuguese word also
makes sense, I believe even from the point of view of a native
English-speaker, although it would be strange if it appeared in an
English statement for that context (e.g. "We create pigs"). Anyway,
the source of confusion was a flaw of mine: I forgot to put [""]
around the word "created". I apologise for that.
>
> ..."Seeing his newborn son, he thinks 'oooo great, now I have to
> raise it! Let me engineer a plausible smile... : )' "... Infans
> creaturus est.
>
> Edgard scripsit.
>
By the way, the word "criatura" (creature) is etymologically related
to "criança". Maybe because a creature is a being which is generated
or "created" (raised) by nature. I am a natural creature, and so are
you! ;)
Cheers,
Antonielly Garcia Rodrigues
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2l. Re: Baby/infant
Posted by: "Andreas Johansson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:33 am (PDT)
Citerar taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * caeruleancentaur said on 2006-08-22 22:26:40 +0200
> > I'm looking for a word for "baby/infant" in a natlang that has not
> > evolved from "indistinct speech" (baba > baby) or from "not speaking"
> > (in-fans > infant). Does anyone know of such?
>
> Norwegian "spedbarn", a baby prior to walking. I assume the "sped-" is
> the same as "sped" meaning simply "small, slight in size", but for all I
> know it might have something to do with truffles...
I've always taken for granted that Sw. _spädbarn_ is from the adjective.
Andreas
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2m. Re: Baby/infant
Posted by: "Edgard Bikelis" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:09 am (PDT)
Antonielly Garcia Rodrigues wrote:
> Yes, but "criança" (a person to be created or raised) is any child,
> from 0 up to about 11 years old. It is not a term restricted to
> babies.
>
> On 8/22/06, Edgard Bikelis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Portuguese 'criança', from 'criar', to raise, from Latin creo, creare,
>> creaui, creatum. The old spelling is 'creança', as the verb, 'crear'.
>> From the vulgar Latin 'creantia', or from the present participle
>> 'crea:ns, creantis'. It reminds me suckling, and a word Tolkien used on
>> LoTR, but I dont remember it now :/. 'Ris(e/i?)ling' ; ).
>>
>> Edgard.
>>
>
Hi,
Surely a very good point, and one that I forgot completely! But in
his conculture, who knows, the timespan could very well be different.
Unless he wants to import all the nuances of signification together with
the 'etymological idea'.
I'm not totally sure, but in English 'to create' is just... to make,
to forge something new, hm? If so, 'criança' can't be created, because
it already was, otherwise it would be just a wish, a plan, or something
on a refrigerator, waiting for the seeding season ; ). In Portuguese,
and I think in Spanish too, we 'create pigs' (criamos porcos), but we
are just growing them ; ).
..."Seeing his newborn son, he thinks 'oooo great, now I have to
raise it! Let me engineer a plausible smile... : )' "... Infans
creaturus est.
Edgard scripsit.
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2n. Re: Baby/infant
Posted by: "Sapthan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:00 am (PDT)
>
> It depends on what you mean by "create". I know that in English the
> most suitable words for that context are "grow" or "raise". You said
> "we are just growing them", but there is no reason English would be
> right and Portuguese would be wrong, or vice versa. There is no
> absolute frame of reference in Linguistics. The conclusion is that we
> have to use the most suitable word in the language we want to use. In
> Rome, be a Roman. We have to use "grow" or "raise" in English, and
> "criar" (literally "create") in Portuguese. The Portuguese word also
> makes sense, I believe even from the point of view of a native
> English-speaker, although it would be strange if it appeared in an
> English statement for that context (e.g. "We create pigs"). Anyway,
> the source of confusion was a flaw of mine: I forgot to put [""]
> around the word "created". I apologise for that.
You know, here in México we actually have both verbs "criar" (raise) and
"crear" (create) as separate words.
By the way, the word "criatura" (creature) is etymologically related
> to "criança". Maybe because a creature is a being which is generated
> or "created" (raised) by nature. I am a natural creature, and so are
> you! ;)
Mexican Spanish has "criatura" for babies and children under 5 normally.
If you use the diminutive ("criaturita") it can only apply to small babies.
We also use the word "pequeño" (masc.) or "pequeña" (fem.) which literally
mean "small".
Sapthan.
--
Nac Mac Feegle! Wee Free Men!
Nae King! Nae Quin! Nae Laird! Nae Master!
We Willna Be Fooled Again!
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2o. Re: Baby/infant
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:21 pm (PDT)
On 8/22/06, taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * caeruleancentaur said on 2006-08-22 22:26:40 +0200
> > I'm looking for a word for "baby/infant" in a natlang that has not
> > evolved from "indistinct speech" (baba > baby) or from "not speaking"
> > (in-fans > infant). Does anyone know of such?
>
> Norwegian "spedbarn", a baby prior to walking. I assume the "sped-" is
> the same as "sped" meaning simply "small, slight in size", but for all I
> know it might have something to do with truffles...
German also has "Kleinkind" for, roughly, "toddler" (so a bit past
"baby/infant"). Literally, "smallchild".
On 8/23/06, Chris Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure if this qualifies, but the Japanese word "akachan"
> might qualify. I don't know the etymology of "aka-",
It's spelled with the character for "red" (akai). This may or may not
mean that the morpheme is indeed the same -- the character might have
been used because the sound was the same and it "seemed" appropriate,
even if there is etymologically no relationship.
There's also "akanbou" for child, again written with "red"; "bou" is
written with a character meaning "(Buddhist) priest" or, apparently,
"boy".
On 8/23/06, Yahya Abdal-Aziz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Andean Spanish (IE, Romance) has "guagua" for "baby"; I don't know its
> etymology.
Sounds like onomatopoeia to me, though.
> - Greek (IE) has "vréfos" for "infant, baby", "nípio" for "infant, baby,
> newborn child", and "moró" for "baby".
"Moró" seems to be the neuter singular of "morós" = "foolish, stupid,
idiotic", so this is probably the "incapable of speech" thing.
> "nípio" *seems* to combine the roots
> for "new" and "child".
Well, it does share the consonant n- with "néos" and the consonant p-
with "paidí"...
There's also "neognó" for "nursling, suckling, new-born baby", which
seems more clearly related to "néos" (new). I presume the second part
has the same g-n as gennó "bear, give birth to" and possibly words
such as geneá/geniá "generation; ancestry"; génos "lineage; species;
genus"; génesi "creation; Genesis"; and maybe gínomai "become".
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2p. Re: Baby/infant
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:02 pm (PDT)
>>caeruleancentaur wrote:
>> I'm looking for a word for "baby/infant" in a natlang that has not
>> evolved from "indistinct speech" (baba > baby) or from "not
>>speaking" (in-fans > infant). Does anyone know of such?
Thanks to all who made suggestions.
> Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> German 'Säugling' is from vt. 'säugen', 'to breast-feed', +
> 'ling'. (BTW, vt. 'säugen' is the (lexicalised) causative of
> vi. 'saugen', 'to suck').
I am currently suffering from a bout of otitis externa which must
have addled my brain. I can't believe I didn't think of this
route! English has the synonyms "suckle" & "nurse." And both can
be transitive or intransitive. Thus, a woman can nurse her child &
a child can nurse from/on (?) his mother.
Senjecas has the verb _pâpa_, to suckle, to nurse. The following
nouns are found in the lexicon:
1) with root _pap-_
papâmas - wet nurse
pâpes - mammal
pâpos - breast
2) with root _paf-_ (lenition needed)
pafdûûra - wean; dûûra = stop
pâfles - suckling; -l- = diminutive
pafµîdas - mammology
To this latter group I just added _pâflus_, a human suckling.
> According to my dictionary, English also has 'suckling'.
Interestingly, the AHD notes that "suckle" is probably a back-
formation from "suckling."
Thanks again.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Help with German
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:00 pm (PDT)
In working with Pokorny's "Indogermanisches Wörterbuch" I have come
across some German words the meanings of which I don't know. I can't
find them in my German dictionary. I can break them into parts, but
the compounds don't make any sense to me. Would any of our German
members tell me what these words mean currently?
Leuchtpflanze
Fruchertrag
Wassersiedler
Eiröden
Thanks.
Charlie
http://wiki.frath.net/senjecas
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Help with German
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:48 pm (PDT)
Hi!
caeruleancentaur writes:
> In working with Pokorny's "Indogermanisches Wörterbuch" I have come
> across some German words the meanings of which I don't know. I can't
> find them in my German dictionary. I can break them into parts, but
> the compounds don't make any sense to me. Would any of our German
> members tell me what these words mean currently?
>
> Leuchtpflanze
glowing plant
(Maybe there's a special term for this?)
> Fruchertrag
probably 'Fruchtertrag':
proceeds of fruit
> Wassersiedler
water settler
> Eiröden
???
Maybe 'einöden'? That's not a verb you'd find in a lexicon, but if
I were forced to tell what it means, it would be:
to make a solitude, to make desolate
I.e., the causative of 'veröden', 'to become a solitude'; from
'öd(e)', 'bleak, desolate, barren'.
But this is quite far-fetched!
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Help with German
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:07 pm (PDT)
On 8/22/06, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> caeruleancentaur writes:
> > Fruchertrag
>
> probably 'Fruchtertrag':
ditto
> proceeds of fruit
"Proceeds" sounds like the money you get for selling your fruit.
I'd interpret "Fruchtertrag" as the amount of crop (not necessarily
fruit) that your land produces -- e.g. your "Fruchtertrag" one year
might be 60 t.
> > Eiröden
>
> ???
>
> Maybe 'einöden'?
My guess was "Einöden".
> That's not a verb you'd find in a lexicon,
I interpreted it as the plural of a noun -- something like
"wildernesses". (The singular is "Einöde".)
Not a particularly common word, and I'm not entirely sure of the
correct meaning.
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Re: Weekly vocab revival?
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:17 pm (PDT)
Hi!
Roger Mills writes:
>...
> OK!! Here are 10 words, and some suggested sentences, culled from my Kash
> to-do list:
Ok, I'll try to translate! It took a while to create vocab, because I lack
so much that the sentences triggered a lot more new words.
> 1. committee
kúmisjó [k_hU:mIsjou)] < COMMISSIO
> 2. bell-tower
kapnityrr ['k_hahpni,tIr_0] < kapn[gen.sg.] + tyrr
kapnær ['k_hahpn,ai)r] < CAMPANARIUM (cmp. Sp., Port.)
> (or just _tower_)
tyrr [t_hIr_0] < TURRIS
> The committee has(have) decided to erect a (bell-)tower.
Kúmisjósa haft dékis að érigir kapniturr.
erect: érigir [jE'rI:jIr] < ERIGERE
decide: dékiðir [djE'c_hI:DIr < DECIDERE
> 3. exactly
jöst [j9st] < EXACTUM
jastmett ['jast,mett] < EXACTA MENTE
> It will be exactly 73 metres [or suitable equivalent] tall.
'She will have a height of 73 meters.':
þissa haft tinir altúr jöst 73 mjötrur.
meter: mjötur ['mj9:tYr] < METRUM
tall: öltur ['9KtYr] < ALTUS
altitude/height: altúr ['aK,tUr] < ALTUS + -TURA
> 4. crane/derrick
grýr [kri:r] < GRUS
Also used for the animal 'crane'.
> 5. bell(s)
kapn [k_hahpm_0] < CAMPANA
> They will need a crane to lift the bell(s) into place.
'A crane will be necessary to them to lift the bells to their place.'
Grýr irð niskrir þissir að læri kapnarsar að lok þissu.
necessary: niskrir [nIskrIr] < NECESSARIUS
lift: læri [lai):rI] < LEVARE
> 6. net (for fishing)
rét [rjE:t] < RETE
> The fishermen have lost their nets.
Pjösktirsi pirðruð rétir svær.
['p_hj9stIsI 'p_hIrDrYT 'rjE:tIr svai):r]
loose: pirðir [p_hIrDir] < PERDERE
fish: piskur [p_hIskYr] < PISCIS
to fish: pjaskri [p_hjaskrI] < *PESCARE < PESCARI
fisherman: pjôsktur [p_hj9stYr] < PESCATOR
> 7. napkin
= piece of cloth: pöður [p_h9:DYr] < PANNUS
> The [ethnic slur of your choice] people eat with their fingers and do not
> use napkins.
eat: kyndir [c_hIntIr] < COMEDERE
Phew. The rest is too much for me now. Maybe I'll try more later.
This was fun. Have others just not posted anything or not translated anything?
I found this fun any would be happy to get inspired by other work.
**Henrik
PS: Current lexicon size: 253 :-)
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
