There are 10 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Weekly vocab revival?
From: Remi Villatel
1b. Re: Weekly vocab revival?
From: René Uittenbogaard
2a. Weekly Vocab #1.1.1 (repost #1)
From: Henrik Theiling
2b. Re: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1 (repost #1)
From: caeruleancentaur
2c. Re: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1 (repost #1)
From: Elliott Lash
2d. Re: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1 (repost #1)
From: Henrik Theiling
3a. Re: Baby/infant
From: Nik Taylor
3b. Re: Baby/infant
From: Philip Newton
4a. Re: Syntactic differences within parts of speech
From: Yahya Abdal-Aziz
4b. Re: Syntactic differences within parts of speech
From: Chris Bates
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Weekly vocab revival?
Posted by: "Remi Villatel" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:59 pm (PDT)
On 2006-08-20 21:58, Roger Mills wrote:
WARNING: Unicode! (UTF-8)
> 2. bell-tower (or just _tower_)
> The committee has(have) decided to erect a (bell-)tower.
be rake diga ja tō liçhkiga ; tsiya ; xe tule lōrokas yōja te lobēlēsēr.
be rake diga ja tō liçhkiga
QLT ACQU built INDEF.SG IND+FUT.RTR alarm.tower
tsiya
around.POSTP
xe tule lōrokas yōja te lobēlēsēr
UNQ DOTA decision DEF:SG IND+PST sub-collectivity
**To become built will one alarm tower, about this, to express some
decidedness did the sub-collectivity.
= The sub-collectivity has decided that an alarm tower will be built.
> 3. exactly
> It will be exactly 73 metres [or suitable equivalent] tall.
klibe 4.9 rorēelō fare kutlōy tō'bēdja.
klibe 4.9(base 12) rorēelō fare kutlōy tō 'bēdja
LINV:QLT 4.75(base 10) length.unit EQUA height IND+FUT.RTR=IRR:3SG
**Exactly 4.75 "rorēelō" to be high will it.
= It will be exactly 4.75 x 15.3846 m. high.
(4.9 in base 12 = 4.75 in decimal and 1 "rorēelō" = 15.3846 m.)
> 5. bell(s)
/dao/ = gong
> 7. napkin
> The [ethnic slur of your choice] people eat with their fingers and do not
> use napkins.
daçiri pratit gea, xe pile juvlo sōja yareli tiyō juça ;
sibo ; skē lijudōl yājhdu gār, be sirēj.
daçiri pratit gea
3PL.PROPR:PL finger INST
xe pile juvlo sōja yareli tiyō juça
UNQ ACQU food GNR evil IND+ATMP person
sibo
and.POSTP
skē lijudōl yājhdu gār, be sirēj
ANUM meal cloth DOTA, QLT useful
**With their fingers, to take food do evil people, and, of no meal cloth
to make use.
= Bad people eat food with their fingers and do not use meal clothes.
> 8. rummage around/poke around in with the finger
> They just rummage around in the pot with their fingers
daçiri pratit gea, be gōko lōtsiko kyō klizikye tiyō'yō-daçi.
daçiri pratit gea
3PL.PROPR:PL finger INST
be gōko lōsaeko kyō klizikye tiyō 'yō -daçi
QLT only in:out:ALLA EQUA pot IND+ATMP=RSM=3PL
**With their fingers, just into and out of pot to go do they.
-------------------
Interlinear lexicon
ACQU acquisitive descriptor
ALLA allative suffix
ANUM anumeral (zero in number or quantity)
ATMP atemporal tense (habit or universal fact)
DOTA dotative descriptor
EQUA equative descriptor
FUT future tense
GNR generic quantifier (concepts)
IND indicative mode
INDEF indefinite
INST instrumental
IRR irrational
LINV linear variator
POSTR postposition
PROPR proprietive (inalienable possession)
PST past tense
RSM resumptive prefix
QLT qualitative quantifier (describes a quality)
RTR retrospective
UNQ unquantitative (undefined quantity)
-------------------
Suddenly like Yoda I feel... ;-)
--
==================
Remi Villatel
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==================
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Weekly vocab revival?
Posted by: "René Uittenbogaard" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:06 pm (PDT)
> 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.
I've given it a shot, but I really want to give more thought to the
modal adverbs, and I lack the time.
This is what I came up with so far:
1.
nuxímmu : committee
2.
medúte : tower
The committee has(have) decided to erect/build a (bell-)tower.
O nuxímmu or códdivra zóno medúte gla notélbo.
3.
-ro (suffix) : exactly
scoq : [unit of length, approx. 131cm]
It will be exactly 73 metres [or suitable equivalent] tall.
Zégla prohíru sciq uqítte stóxo tésro.
4.
xanéro : crane/derrick
5.
zúmo : bell
They will need a crane to lift the bell(s) into place.
[still needs to be translated]
6.
reyz (pl. riyz) : fishing net
láype : to hunt (derived: viláype: hunter; for a particular
kind of animal: [animal]-láy, e.g. bòrmo-láy: fisherman)
The fishermen have lost their nets.
O bòrmo-líy or ðóygevra s-viw riyz.
7.
éllud (pl. éllid) : napkin
The [ethnic slur of your choice] people eat with their fingers and
do not use napkins.
O tacsíy fésnimo uráronur o viw cúti be hi uráro sen éllid.
8.
avalëu /a'val_ju/ : to rummage around/to poke/Dutch peuteren
cíffil (pl. cíffiil) : cooking pot/pan
They just rummage around in the pot with their fingers
Bési avalëumo cul *fuld o cíffil-i uráronur o viw cúti.
cul *fuld : only, just (modal adv) [for the time being; I don't really
like this construct]
9.
brucóto : bankrupt
(picked at random. the sound similarity is purely coincidental :))
10.
bènxo-énëig : toothpaste
énëig /'En_jig/
(pl. énëiig /'En_jyg/) : medicine
béltu : to buy sth. (from so.: _num_)
The king is bankrupt.
On inárta brucóto.
He can't even afford to buy toothpaste.
Fa hi bèltu-gáwna [not even] f-bènxo-énëig.
René
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Weekly Vocab #1.1.1 (repost #1)
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:19 pm (PDT)
Last posted: March 29th, 2002
> From: Aidan Grey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> A lot of people have complained/noticed/commiserated about the
> difficulty of vocab creation. I don't really have a solution, but I thought
> providing 5 (or 10) words a week might help with the issue somewhat. If I
> provided 5 words every week, and assuming that someone created words for
> the items, oh, 80% of the time, that's 52 x 5 x 0.8 = 208 new word a year.
> Not a huge jump forward, but certainly better than the 15 per year some of
> us (like myself) get stuck at.
>
> I'll start with five (but 10 would put our number above up to 416!), and
> if it looks like it will help, I'll continue to do so weekly, and may
> upgrade the number depending on popularity and usefulness.
>
> Here goes:
>
> 1. birch (the tree)
> 2. werewolf / lycanthrope of some variety
> 3. to save (money)
> 4. to conquer
> 5. motif
>
> Of course, free variation from the meanings here is encouraged. Some may
> not be appropriate to your lang / conculture, and the point is to help
> create vocab, not nitpick what any given word means in particular.
>
> I'll post my new vocab in a different post. I'm hoping that seeing what
> other people do will also help inspire me.
>
> Aidan
Bonus Vocab (automatically from WordNet):
- ribbon tree, n.
deciduous New Zealand tree whose inner bark yields a strong fiber that
resembles
flax and is called New Zealand cotton
- concuss, v.
shake violently
Fiat verba!
----
If you want to post your own weekly vocab, please do not send it to
the list directly. To prevent unbalanced amounts of new vocab, send
it to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in order to enqueue it in the
regular weekly posting process.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1 (repost #1)
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:18 am (PDT)
> Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fiat verba!
Should that not be "fiant verba"?
Charlie
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1 (repost #1)
Posted by: "Elliott Lash" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:55 am (PDT)
Is it not a rule of Latin grammar that Neuter Plurals
can be used with a singular verb, since the -a comes
from a collective plural marker....perhaps related to
the feminine singular nominative -a.
-Elliott
--- caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Fiat verba!
>
> Should that not be "fiant verba"?
>
> Charlie
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1 (repost #1)
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:15 pm (PDT)
Hi!
Elliott Lash writes:
> Is it not a rule of Latin grammar that Neuter Plurals
> can be used with a singular verb, since the -a comes
> from a collective plural marker....perhaps related to
> the feminine singular nominative -a.
>
> -Elliott
>
> --- caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > > Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Fiat verba!
> >
> > Should that not be "fiant verba"?
> >
> > Charlie
Well, I think it was a graecism. :-P
No, I just did not pay attention, sorry. I think Greek has the type
of agreement Elliott describes, but I don't know whether it was found
in Latin. I should probably correct the line for the next post on
next Friday then.
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Baby/infant
Posted by: "Nik Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:06 pm (PDT)
---- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: Baby/infant
> 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).
aka = red. Akago (-ko = child) is another word for infant.
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Baby/infant
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:09 am (PDT)
On 8/24/06, Yahya Abdal-Aziz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Philip Newton wrote:
> > On 8/23/06, Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:
> > > "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"...
>
> It actually shares the "né" (nu eta) with "néos",
But néos is nu-epsilon-omicron-sigma, while nípio (as you noted) uses
eta and not epsilon.
This made me further doubt a relationship between the two (though
eta-epsilon correspondences are not, of course, unheard-of, e.g. aêr
(nom.) with eta vs aeros (gen.) with epsilon. Both use epsilon in MG,
though: aeras, aera.)
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Syntactic differences within parts of speech
Posted by: "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:21 am (PDT)
Hi Chris,
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Chris Bates wrote:
>
> >I'm picturing verb classifiers as generalized (or so-called 'light')
> >verbs that convey notions like 'motion', 'change of state', 'reflexive
> >action', 'transitive action', 'direct causation', 'accidental action',
> >'repetitive process/action', etc. Am I in the ballpark, or did you have
> >something different in mind?
> >
> This is indeed the basis of most verb classifier systems (see Australian
> langs). The verbs used in this way have been called auxilliaries (and
> indeed they may be, depending on your definition), but they do not
> usually mark TAM (unlike auxilliaries in more familiar languages), but
> rather classify the action in terms of its general type (causation,
> telicity, how the abs argument is affected, general type of action
> (motion etc)). Here is a list of my verb classifier meanings, only some
> of which have forms associated with them (I'm in the process of filling
> in the list... this is a recent project):
>
> http://www.chrisdb.me.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=48
Nice start, Chris! I've saved a copy of that page so I can
pinch your list should I ever want it.
I notice you have both 'throw' and 'hit' as VCs. It might
be worth noting that most Australian languages split the
idea of hitting or striking into two distinct verbs (or VCs):
1. To strike with a weapon held in the hand, or part of the body.
2. To strike with a missile.
The distinction seems as fundamental to them as, say, the
distinction in English between "grow" and "create" (to
borrow a recently quoted example where these distinct
categories of action in English appear to overlap in another
language, eg Portuguese). That's probably because getting
food using missiles was as everyday to them as growing
beans, potatoes or roses is to us. So whether your language
ngwaalq needs the distinction will doubtless depend on
concultural factors.
> A book you may want to take a look at is "Verb Classification in
> Australian Languages" by McGregor... much of the book is waffle or
> supposition that I found vaguely uninteresting, ...
That bad, huh?
> ... but several systems that
> fall under the label of "Verb Classification" (as defined by McGregor)
> are described.
Regards,
Yahya
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/427 - Release Date: 24/8/06
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Syntactic differences within parts of speech
Posted by: "Chris Bates" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:49 am (PDT)
>Nice start, Chris! I've saved a copy of that page so I can
>pinch your list should I ever want it.
>
>I notice you have both 'throw' and 'hit' as VCs. It might
>be worth noting that most Australian languages split the
>idea of hitting or striking into two distinct verbs (or VCs):
>
>1. To strike with a weapon held in the hand, or part of the body.
>2. To strike with a missile.
>
>
>
My verb classifiers can be serialized to a certain extent, much like
some languages allow multiple noun classifiers to classify the same noun
(examples of the general idea are on that page I linked to). To strike
with a missile are both classified with "hit", but if you should wish to
make reference to the throwing part of the action it is possible to say
something like:
kill VC:THROW VC:HIT
"to kill by throwing then hitting something"
I don't think I need a basic classifier for this though. The conpeople
the language is aimed at are not hunter gatherers really... there's a
list of noun classifiers on the same site, and you can see that they
have classifiers for things like "sweet potato" and "seed" which are
used in farming. They are, though, fishermen and whale hunters, so
throwing a harpoon would be a fairly common activity for some members of
their society, but by no means the majority.
An issue has just occured to me incidentally: some of the classifiers
make reference to the means of violent action:
poke - action with the end of a long object
this is a rough English translation, and the ngwaalq alternative does
not necessary include the "not violent" component of the English verb
slash - action across with a flat or long object
bash - action with a blunt object
and so on.
The question is, does the ngwaalq verb classifier translated as "poke"
include the requirement that the long thin object used be in the hands?
If it does not, then hitting something with a thrown spear could be
classified as "poke"... much like slash in English does not require that
the object is in hand:
I threw a blade and slashed him across the face
This is perfectly good English to me, although admittedly I would assume
that the slashing object was in the hand unless something implied otherwise.
Perhaps you can say things like:
kill VC:THROW VC:SLASH
I threw slashed killed him
kill VC:THROW VC:POKE
I threw poked killed him
and so on. :) I will have to give more thought to the exact semantic
components of some of these verbs.
>That bad, huh?
>
>
>
I'm not sure I'd say that it's *bad* as such... some points just feel
either belaboured or unjustified. But since it's about the only book
I've found devoted to discussing Verb Classifiers, it has the benefit of
being the only choice out there. :)
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
