There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. I'm Back & New SpecGram Article
From: David J. Peterson
1b. Re: I'm Back & New SpecGram Article
From: taliesin the storyteller
1c. Re: I'm Back & New SpecGram Article
From: David J. Peterson
2a. Re: YAGPT: Carsten (was Re: Vertical script)
From: Mark Reed
2b. Re: YAGPT: Carsten (was Re: Vertical script)
From: Carsten Becker
2c. Re: YAGPT: Carsten (was Re: Vertical script)
From: Philip Newton
2d. Re: YAGPT: Carsten (was Re: Vertical script)
From: Paul Bennett
2e. Re: YAGPT: Carsten (was Re: Vertical script)
From: Carsten Becker
2f. Re: YAGPT: Carsten (was Re: Vertical script)
From: Henrik Theiling
2g. Re: YAGPT: Carsten (was Re: Vertical script)
From: Mark J. Reed
3a. Re: Stress placement systems
From: Philip Newton
3b. Re: Stress placement systems
From: Philip Newton
3c. Re: Stress placement systems
From: R A Brown
3d. Re: Stress placement systems
From: Dirk Elzinga
4a. Difficult language ideas
From: Leigh Richards
4b. Re: Difficult language ideas
From: Philip Newton
4c. Re: Difficult language ideas
From: Jim Henry
4d. Re: Difficult language ideas
From: Patrick Littell
4e. Re: Difficult language ideas
From: Leigh Richards
4f. Re: Difficult language ideas
From: Leigh Richards
4g. Re: Difficult language ideas
From: Henrik Theiling
4h. Re: Difficult language ideas
From: Leigh Richards
4i. Re: Difficult language ideas
From: H. S. Teoh
4j. Re: Difficult language ideas
From: Jim Henry
4k. Re: Difficult language ideas
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. I'm Back & New SpecGram Article
Posted by: "David J. Peterson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:05 am (PDT)
Hey all,
I'm back from my extended absence. In that time I saw Snakes
on a Plane, had some pizza, and saw a Padre game, which I didn't
enjoy.
For those that haven't heard of it, the Speculative Grammarian
is an online linguistic humor magazine that puts out some pretty
funny stuff re: language and linguistics. The current issue features
an article by me, featuring Zhyler (as well as a line drawing of mine,
and some Zhyler cursive). You can read it here:
http://specgram.com/CLI.b/
As I'm now trying to write for SpecGram semi-regularly, I'll
make sure that this isn't the last time a conlang graces its pages.
-David
*******************************************************************
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
-Jim Morrison
http://dedalvs.free.fr/
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: I'm Back & New SpecGram Article
Posted by: "taliesin the storyteller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:47 am (PDT)
* David J. Peterson said on 2006-09-19 11:28:05 +0200
> For those that haven't heard of it, the Speculative Grammarian
> is an online linguistic humor magazine that puts out some pretty
> funny stuff re: language and linguistics. The current issue features
> an article by me, featuring Zhyler (as well as a line drawing of mine,
> and some Zhyler cursive). You can read it here:
>
> http://specgram.com/CLI.b/
*reads text*
*giggles like a five year old girl*
I sense that you are not too fond of monsieur Chomsky and his insistence
on binary branching? ;)
t.
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: I'm Back & New SpecGram Article
Posted by: "David J. Peterson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:53 am (PDT)
t. the s. wrote:
<<
I sense that you are not too fond of monsieur Chomsky and his insistence
on binary branching? ;)
>>
Hee, hee... Apparently the whole idea came from a 19th century
(or early 20th?) German psychiatrist, who said that all things can
be divided into two parts. According to the morphology guy
down at UCSD, this directly influenced Chomsky's decision. I
have no evidence to present for or against this; just repeating what
I've heard. It doesn't seem unlikely, though. Oddball things have
influenced facets of various theories in significant ways over the
years...
-David
*******************************************************************
"A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
-Jim Morrison
http://dedalvs.free.fr/
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: YAGPT: Carsten (was Re: Vertical script)
Posted by: "Mark Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:33 am (PDT)
Sorry to belabor a point that has so little bearing on your actual
question. But if it was at one time Car-sten, what prevented the [s]
from becoming [S] in accordance with the usual initial-cluster
phonology?
On 9/19/06, Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:14:44 -0400, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Inconsistent you are being, Carsten:
>
> I'm sorry :-S
>
> >CB> Whoops. Yes, I was misguided by hyphenation rules: Cars-ten.
> >
> >From that "Yes", I infer that you agree with Phillip that the syllable
> >division lies before the [stn=].
>
> >CB> It's true that <st> becomes [St] in syllable onsets, but it's not
> >the case here.
> >
> >Why is that not the case here? You just said (above) that you agreed
> >with Phillip that it *is* the case here. So now I'm confused. Where
> >do the syllables in your name break?
>
> Orthographically, it'd now be Cars-ten, which is one possiblity, but Car-
> sten would also be acceptible, that's the problem. Which one of both I
> prefer I don't know myself. The only orthographically valid way to
> hyphenate "Carsten" is Cars-ten NOW, but it USED to be Car-sten.
>
> C.
>
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: YAGPT: Carsten (was Re: Vertical script)
Posted by: "Carsten Becker" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:09 am (PDT)
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:01:08 -0400, Mark Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sorry to belabor a point that has so little bearing on your actual
>question. But if it was at one time Car-sten, what prevented the [s]
>from becoming [S] in accordance with the usual initial-cluster
>phonology?
Maybe it's because this name is a Northern German variety of Christian (at
least I was told so). On the one hand, Christian is /"krIstja:n/ in
Standard German (that's indeed /"kRIStja:n/ in the South*), and on the
other hand, in the region beyond Hanover you don't have [St] and [Sp]
anymore in onsets for <st> and <sp>.
C.
*) When we have lived at the Swiss border people there called me /ka:Stn=/
as well
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: YAGPT: Carsten (was Re: Vertical script)
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:31 am (PDT)
On 9/19/06, Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christian is /"krIstja:n/ in
> Standard German (that's indeed /"kRIStja:n/ in the South*)
Are you implying that /r/ and /R/ are separate phonemes, or did you
mean to provide a [phonetic] rather than a /phonemic/ transcription?
Yours confusedly,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: YAGPT: Carsten (was Re: Vertical script)
Posted by: "Paul Bennett" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:53 am (PDT)
-----Original Message-----
>From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>On 9/19/06, Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Christian is /"krIstja:n/ in
>> Standard German (that's indeed /"kRIStja:n/ in the South*)
>
>Are you implying that /r/ and /R/ are separate phonemes, or did you
>mean to provide a [phonetic] rather than a /phonemic/ transcription?
I assumed that /r/ was a more accurate descritpion of the phoneme in one
dialect, and /R/ in the other.
Paul
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: YAGPT: Carsten (was Re: Vertical script)
Posted by: "Carsten Becker" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:04 am (PDT)
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:13:03 +0200, Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 9/19/06, Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Christian is /"krIstja:n/ in
>> Standard German (that's indeed /"kRIStja:n/ in the South*)
>
>Are you implying that /r/ and /R/ are separate phonemes, or did you
>mean to provide a [phonetic] rather than a /phonemic/ transcription?
Awww, I better shut up now before I talk myself even more into trouble.
.
.
.
No, I didn't intend to say that. Slip of the pinky, sorry.
c.
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: YAGPT: Carsten (was Re: Vertical script)
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:23 am (PDT)
Hi!
Carsten Becker writes:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:01:08 -0400, Mark Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Sorry to belabor a point that has so little bearing on your actual
> >question. But if it was at one time Car-sten, what prevented the [s]
> >from becoming [S] in accordance with the usual initial-cluster
> >phonology?
>
> Maybe it's because this name is a Northern German variety of Christian (at
> least I was told so). On the one hand, Christian is /"krIstja:n/ in
> Standard German (that's indeed /"kRIStja:n/ in the South*), and on the
> other hand, in the region beyond Hanover you don't have [St] and [Sp]
> anymore in onsets for <st> and <sp>.
It's much simpler: the /st/ is not at the beginning of a *stem*.
If you discuss dialects, there are those that have [St] everywhere and
some that have [st] everywhere. The norm is a mix determined by
whether the /st/ is stem-initial.
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2g. Re: YAGPT: Carsten (was Re: Vertical script)
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:33 am (PDT)
On 9/19/06, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's much simpler: the /st/ is not at the beginning of a *stem*.
...although it is at the beginning of a *sten*, and depending on your
font, that looks very similar to a stem.
But I guess we can't infer that Herr Becker is a Sten, of the Car variety...
:)
Danke.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Stress placement systems
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:59 am (PDT)
On 9/19/06, Eric Christopherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2a. How does secondary stress work, cross-linguistically? I think
> in all of the cases of languages having secondary stress I know of,
> secondary stress placement is determined by first finding the primary
> stress and then moving a certain number of syllables before and after
> it. What other systems are there for secondary stress placement?
The "obvious" case would be in compounds words, which might have
primary stress in the same position as the primary stress of one of
the compounds (say, the last one) and secondary stress(es) in the same
position as the primary stress(es) of the other compound(s).
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Stress placement systems
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:27 am (PDT)
On 9/19/06, Sanghyeon Seo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.cf.ac.uk/psych/ssd/index.html
>
> It introduces a systematic way to describe stress systems.
Oooh, shiny.
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Stress placement systems
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:47 am (PDT)
Philip Newton wrote:
> On 9/19/06, Sanghyeon Seo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> http://www.cf.ac.uk/psych/ssd/index.html
>>
>> It introduces a systematic way to describe stress systems.
>
>
> Oooh, shiny.
In places, maybe.
I notice it says of Latin: "23/3 2 if heavy, else 3 if heavy, else 3"
(The context makes it clear that 2 and 3 mean next to last and third
from last respectively (penultimate & antepenultimate).
Now maybe I'm getting senile, but can anyone explain how this is
different from: '2 if heavy, else 3'?
On Classical Greek we read the primary *stress* is: "12/2R". I
understand this to mean "on last syllable if heavy, else on next to last
if heavy, else next to last".
To put it politely, this is rubbish - because:
1. Ancient Greek did not, as far as we know, have word stress; there
possibly was phrasal stress, but we can merely guess how that might have
worked.
2. It is clear that ancient Greek words had *pitch* accent. The pitch was:
(a) *not* dependent upon syllable quantity, but *solely on vowel length*
(a) high pitch could occur on any one of the vowels in the last
*three* syllables, according to certain rules.
3. The modern Greek stress accent occurs (with very few exceptions) on
the same syllable as the ancient Attic & Koine pitch accent(1). This is
a strong indication IMHO that there was no separate word stress to
interfere with the process whereby pitch gave way to stress.
(1) In fact even for ancient Greek we know the pitch accent for only the
Attic, Epic and Aeolic (conventionally, other dialects are usually
printed according to the Attic system). The Koine Greek of the
Hellenistic period used the same pitch accent as Attic Greek.
There is a further cryptic sentence added to the description of ancient
Greek, namely: "Pitch accent interacts with tones". I do not know what
the writer means; Greek did not have a tonal system like Mandarin,
Cantonese, Vietnamese etc. Nor do I understand how it is supposed to be
related to the question of stress.
I'm afraid the Greek entry makes me take the whole thing with a pinch of
salt. Certainly, I think anyone using the database would be well advised
to cross check for the languages they are interested in.
BTW the entry for Welsh is correct :)
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB}
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: Stress placement systems
Posted by: "Dirk Elzinga" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:19 pm (PDT)
Ray:
You might want to point out the errors in the Greek entry to the
maintainers of the database. If the database is to be at all useful,
it should be checked and re-checked by people who are knowledgeable. I
notice that their source for many of the stress patterns is Hayes
1995. I find this rather ironic, since Hayes has this to say about
persons wanting to make use of the data found in his book: "...
readers conducting their own research in metrical theory should be
warned that as a reporter of other people's data, I am fallible, and
they are therefore urged to consult the original secondary sources
..., or if possible to find a native speaker consultant. Future
researchers who cite this book as a data source without bothering to
consult and cite the original references will hear from my lawyer."
That last was probably written tongue-in-cheek, but it is a fair
point, and one which should be made to the maintainers of the
database.
For what it's worth, I just looked in Hayes 1995, and of Ancient Greek
he says (p 181): "Ancient Greek [has Fijian-like stress] in the
approach taken in Sauzet 1989 and Golston 1989. Their derivations
include a considerable tonal component as well, as Ancient Greek was a
pitch accent language. For an alternative, purely metrical approach,
see Steriade 1988b." (Fijian has a system in which a word-final heavy
syllable is stressed, else the penultimate syllable.)
According to Hayes, in Modern Greek "Main stress is lexically
determined; limited to one of the last three syllables." (p 204)
Dirk
On 9/19/06, R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Philip Newton wrote:
> > On 9/19/06, Sanghyeon Seo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.cf.ac.uk/psych/ssd/index.html
> >>
> >> It introduces a systematic way to describe stress systems.
> >
> >
> > Oooh, shiny.
>
> In places, maybe.
>
> I notice it says of Latin: "23/3 2 if heavy, else 3 if heavy, else 3"
> (The context makes it clear that 2 and 3 mean next to last and third
> from last respectively (penultimate & antepenultimate).
> Now maybe I'm getting senile, but can anyone explain how this is
> different from: '2 if heavy, else 3'?
>
> On Classical Greek we read the primary *stress* is: "12/2R". I
> understand this to mean "on last syllable if heavy, else on next to last
> if heavy, else next to last".
>
> To put it politely, this is rubbish - because:
> 1. Ancient Greek did not, as far as we know, have word stress; there
> possibly was phrasal stress, but we can merely guess how that might have
> worked.
> 2. It is clear that ancient Greek words had *pitch* accent. The pitch was:
> (a) *not* dependent upon syllable quantity, but *solely on vowel length*
> (a) high pitch could occur on any one of the vowels in the last
> *three* syllables, according to certain rules.
> 3. The modern Greek stress accent occurs (with very few exceptions) on
> the same syllable as the ancient Attic & Koine pitch accent(1). This is
> a strong indication IMHO that there was no separate word stress to
> interfere with the process whereby pitch gave way to stress.
>
> (1) In fact even for ancient Greek we know the pitch accent for only the
> Attic, Epic and Aeolic (conventionally, other dialects are usually
> printed according to the Attic system). The Koine Greek of the
> Hellenistic period used the same pitch accent as Attic Greek.
>
> There is a further cryptic sentence added to the description of ancient
> Greek, namely: "Pitch accent interacts with tones". I do not know what
> the writer means; Greek did not have a tonal system like Mandarin,
> Cantonese, Vietnamese etc. Nor do I understand how it is supposed to be
> related to the question of stress.
>
> I'm afraid the Greek entry makes me take the whole thing with a pinch of
> salt. Certainly, I think anyone using the database would be well advised
> to cross check for the languages they are interested in.
>
> BTW the entry for Welsh is correct :)
>
> --
> Ray
> ==================================
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
> There's none too old to learn.
> [WELSH PROVERB}
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Difficult language ideas
Posted by: "Leigh Richards" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:22 am (PDT)
Hi all, I'm Leigh. I've lurked for a while, but I haven't posted before.
I've toyed with a few conlangs over the years, and now I'm brainstorming on
a language for a conworld of mine.
Design goals:
1. As unambiguous as possible, especially in full sentences; it's easy to
clarify any ambiguities.
2. Hard to learn, and easy to say the wrong thing. Small and subtle changes
have a large impact on the meaning, and it's unpredictable in that guessing
something new from what you already know will rarely work.
It is a status language of sorts and effectively a conlang itself, so it
isn't meant to be simple or naturalistic. It can change, but it takes a
concerted effort by the speakers because outside forces keep it from
changing otherwise.
I don't know a lot about the normal languages of the area, but I think
they'll be similar to the Andean languages.
I have a few ideas, but my knowledge of linguistics is fairly limited. So
I'd like your input.
Suggestions? Things to include? Things to avoid?
Thanks,
Leigh
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Difficult language ideas
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:32 am (PDT)
On 9/19/06, Leigh Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all, I'm Leigh.
If I may ask - are you a female Leigh or a male Leigh? (and is it
pronounced "Lee"?)
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: Difficult language ideas
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:54 am (PDT)
On 9/19/06, Leigh Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. As unambiguous as possible, especially in full sentences; it's easy to
> clarify any ambiguities.
I would suggest studying some existing conlangs intended
to be unambiguous, such as Lojban.
> 2. Hard to learn, and easy to say the wrong thing. Small and subtle changes
> have a large impact on the meaning, and it's unpredictable in that guessing
> something new from what you already know will rarely work.
Some things to try:
- a high lexicalization density, so that most of the possible
words with a given phonological shape are actually instantiated
- a large phoneme inventory, with many actual words distinguished
by only one distinctive feature
- a large number of verb and noun paradigms, with the appropriate
one for a given word not predictable from the form or semantics of
the root
- a large number of grammatical categories to be marked
mandatorily in certain circumstances, the exact categories
required/allowed differing for different paradigms.
- some categories marked in multiple ways; e.g. distant past
tense might be marked with a prefix, recent past tense
with an initial consonant mutation, present tense with a
suffix and future tense with a modal auxiliary. Direct experience
evidentiality might be marked with a suffix, hearsay
evidentiality with an adverb, & inferential evidentiality gets
null/default marking.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: Difficult language ideas
Posted by: "Patrick Littell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:10 am (PDT)
Hi, Leigh.
I speak a little Quechua, and the most difficult syntactic thing for
me is probably placement of the evidential clitics -- the "migratory
suffixes" that indicate whether you know the information by witness,
hearsay, or conjecture. I know the basic rule, but there are
apparently complications when the topic marker -qa is introduced.
For a learner more advanced than I, I've gathered that a more
difficult problem is that certain suffix combinations have
idiosyncratic meanings that wouldn't be deduced from their parts.
(I've found the morphology to be pretty regular, but I'm a beginner
and won't have come in contact with the more advanced stuff.) This
goes along with your goal "that guessing something new from what you
already know will rarely work."
----------
Other difficult stuff: Search the archives for Suffixaufnahme and
Suffixhäufung, both of which could add significant complication to a
very suffixing language of the Andean sort.
I'm putting together a presentation in which one of the examples is
Sumerian, so I can give an example of Suffixhäufung off the top of my
head:
é shesh lugal-ak-ak-a
house brother king-of-of-in
"In the house of the brother of the king."
The genitive suffix -ak (really a clitic, in my analysis) is
"postponed" until the final word of the phrase... and when you have
nested genitives they will all "stack up" on the end.
Also, Eldin and I, and some others, had a discussion awhile back about
the Kwak'wala (Kwakiutl) and Heiltsuk, both Northern Wakashan
languages, in which case and possession aren't marked on the word they
modify, but on the *previous* word of the sentence, due again to
clitic phenomena.
While we're at it, you could put in some lexical suffixes from
Wakashan, too. They're suffixes that add meanings that in other
languages would be the domain of roots. So, in Nuuchahnulth (Nootka):
hiy'aktliqs?i
hilh -'aktli -aqs -?i
be.there-being.at.the.rear-being.in.a.canoe-DEF
"the stern"
tl'utl'uqyimlh
tl'uq -yimlh
wide-being.at.the.shoulder
"wide shoulder"
These, incidentally, also show migratory behavior, showing up
elsewhere than where you might expect them:
?iiw'aap?ish yacyut shuuwis
?iihw -'aap -?is yacyut shuuwis
large -buying -IND.3 worn shoes
"He bought big used shoes."
Anyway, any combination of these phenomena would lead to some
fantastically complicated grammar. You could also search here for
noun incorporation, which we discuss fairly frequently; it's not
characteristic of Andean languages but appears in many neighboring
regions.
Have fun,
Pat
On 9/19/06, Leigh Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all, I'm Leigh. I've lurked for a while, but I haven't posted before.
> I've toyed with a few conlangs over the years, and now I'm brainstorming on
> a language for a conworld of mine.
>
> Design goals:
> 1. As unambiguous as possible, especially in full sentences; it's easy to
> clarify any ambiguities.
> 2. Hard to learn, and easy to say the wrong thing. Small and subtle changes
> have a large impact on the meaning, and it's unpredictable in that guessing
> something new from what you already know will rarely work.
>
> It is a status language of sorts and effectively a conlang itself, so it
> isn't meant to be simple or naturalistic. It can change, but it takes a
> concerted effort by the speakers because outside forces keep it from
> changing otherwise.
>
> I don't know a lot about the normal languages of the area, but I think
> they'll be similar to the Andean languages.
>
> I have a few ideas, but my knowledge of linguistics is fairly limited. So
> I'd like your input.
>
> Suggestions? Things to include? Things to avoid?
>
> Thanks,
> Leigh
>
>
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
4e. Re: Difficult language ideas
Posted by: "Leigh Richards" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:19 am (PDT)
On 9/19/06, Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/19/06, Leigh Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi all, I'm Leigh.
>
> If I may ask - are you a female Leigh or a male Leigh? (and is it
> pronounced "Lee"?)
Female, and yes, though I have some clever friends who like to
pronounce it like 'sleigh'. Why?
By the way, sorry for the HTML. I didn't realize gmail was set to do
that (I think this fixed it? Let me know if it didn't).
In case anyone had trouble with it, the original post:
Hi all, I'm Leigh. I've lurked for a while, but I haven't posted
before. I've toyed with a few conlangs over the years, and now I'm
brainstorming on a language for a conworld of mine.
Design goals:
1. As unambiguous as possible, especially in full sentences; it's easy
to clarify any ambiguities.
2. Hard to learn, and easy to say the wrong thing. Small and subtle
changes have a large impact on the meaning, and it's unpredictable in
that guessing something new from what you already know will rarely
work.
It is a status language of sorts and effectively a conlang itself, so
it isn't meant to be simple or naturalistic. It can change, but it
takes a concerted effort by the speakers because outside forces keep
it from changing otherwise.
I don't know a lot about the normal languages of the area, but I think
they'll be similar to the Andean languages.
I have a few ideas, but my knowledge of linguistics is fairly limited.
So I'd like your input.
Suggestions? Things to include? Things to avoid?
Thanks,
Leigh
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
4f. Re: Difficult language ideas
Posted by: "Leigh Richards" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:38 am (PDT)
On 9/19/06, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/19/06, Leigh Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 1. As unambiguous as possible, especially in full sentences; it's easy to
> > clarify any ambiguities.
>
> I would suggest studying some existing conlangs intended
> to be unambiguous, such as Lojban.
Thanks, any other suggestions for languages to look at?
> > 2. Hard to learn, and easy to say the wrong thing. Small and subtle changes
> > have a large impact on the meaning, and it's unpredictable in that guessing
> > something new from what you already know will rarely work.
>
> Some things to try:
>
> - a high lexicalization density, so that most of the possible
> words with a given phonological shape are actually instantiated
>
> - a large phoneme inventory, with many actual words distinguished
> by only one distinctive feature
>
> - a large number of verb and noun paradigms, with the appropriate
> one for a given word not predictable from the form or semantics of
> the root
Paradigm here means, for example, conjugation patterns in verbs?
> - a large number of grammatical categories to be marked
> mandatorily in certain circumstances, the exact categories
> required/allowed differing for different paradigms.
>
> - some categories marked in multiple ways; e.g. distant past
> tense might be marked with a prefix, recent past tense
> with an initial consonant mutation, present tense with a
> suffix and future tense with a modal auxiliary. Direct experience
> evidentiality might be marked with a suffix, hearsay
> evidentiality with an adverb, & inferential evidentiality gets
> null/default marking.
Nice, some things I hadn't thought of there. Thanks! Any references
for unpredictable languages? I thought I'd seen a reference to a
conlang here, but my searches only turned up results about
unpredictable orthography. I may have misremembered.
Leigh
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
4g. Re: Difficult language ideas
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:54 am (PDT)
Hi!
Leigh Richards writes:
>...
> Design goals:
>...
I'd add gender to enable you to encode lexical distinctions in the
gender agreement somewhere else in the sentence, when the nouns are
homophonous. The same could be done with plurale tantum words what
happend to sound exactly like the singular of another word and are
made unambigous only be agreement effects.
E.g. German feminine and masculine nouns both have the articles 'der',
only for different cases (m: nominative, f: dative/genitive). And
'den' occurs in singular as well as plural, only with different cases.
The kind of thing I mean can be shown with prepositions taking
different cases:
mit den Jungen = with the boys
ohne den Jungen = without the boy
Note that 'den Jungen' is plural in the first phrase, but singular in
the second. And unambiguously so, since 'mit' takes dative case and
'ohne' takes accusative case. So singular vs. plural is coded (not
very overtly...) in the article triggered by agreement with the
preposition.
Another weird example playing with this:
Der Finne entspricht der Norm.
the.M.SG.NOM Finn conforms/corresponds the.F.DAT.SG norm
'The Finn conforms to the norm.'
Der Finne entspricht der Schwanz.
the.F.SG.DAT back_fin conforms/corresponds the.M.NOM.SG tail
'The tail corresponds to the back fin.'
Semantical correctness aside, the gender of 'Schwanz' or 'Norm'
determines the meaning on 'Finne' here. Which I think is quite an
obfuscation. If it was the norm in German, even more people would
hate to learn it. :-)
Word order is used for topicalisation, so it has no influence on
argument structure here.
(I think 'Finne' is 'back fin', but I don't know exactly. The general
'fin' is 'Flosse' in German.)
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
4h. Re: Difficult language ideas
Posted by: "Leigh Richards" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:06 am (PDT)
On 9/19/06, Patrick Littell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, Leigh.
>
> I speak a little Quechua, and the most difficult syntactic thing for
> me is probably placement of the evidential clitics -- the "migratory
> suffixes" that indicate whether you know the information by witness,
> hearsay, or conjecture. I know the basic rule, but there are
> apparently complications when the topic marker -qa is introduced.
>
> For a learner more advanced than I, I've gathered that a more
> difficult problem is that certain suffix combinations have
> idiosyncratic meanings that wouldn't be deduced from their parts.
> (I've found the morphology to be pretty regular, but I'm a beginner
> and won't have come in contact with the more advanced stuff.) This
> goes along with your goal "that guessing something new from what you
> already know will rarely work."
I have several online references for Quechua and Aymara (thank
goodness I can read Spanish, or I'd have a much harder time), though I
don't speak either. Do you have good resources for Quechua, online or
print (not that my library will have them, but it's worth asking
anyway)?
I'm thinking that the normal languages will be fairly regular, which
will help in making a deliberately irregular language difficult to
learn. My current idea is that they all came from a common empire-wide
language which fragmented when then the empire fell, and since then
many of them have creolized (is that a word?), which has eliminated a
lot of the irregularities. Is that practical?
> ----------
>
> Other difficult stuff: Search the archives for Suffixaufnahme and
> Suffixhäufung, both of which could add significant complication to a
> very suffixing language of the Andean sort.
Oh, cool. Search keys.
> I'm putting together a presentation in which one of the examples is
> Sumerian, so I can give an example of Suffixhäufung off the top of my
> head:
>
> é shesh lugal-ak-ak-a
> house brother king-of-of-in
> "In the house of the brother of the king."
>
> The genitive suffix -ak (really a clitic, in my analysis) is
> "postponed" until the final word of the phrase... and when you have
> nested genitives they will all "stack up" on the end.
>
> Also, Eldin and I, and some others, had a discussion awhile back about
> the Kwak'wala (Kwakiutl) and Heiltsuk, both Northern Wakashan
> languages, in which case and possession aren't marked on the word they
> modify, but on the *previous* word of the sentence, due again to
> clitic phenomena.
That's weird. I'll have to look at that.
(snip more interesting suffixing examples...)
> Anyway, any combination of these phenomena would lead to some
> fantastically complicated grammar. You could also search here for
> noun incorporation, which we discuss fairly frequently; it's not
> characteristic of Andean languages but appears in many neighboring
> regions.
I'd thought of compounding in general, especially to create compounds
that aren't always obvious from their components. I'm not too familiar
with noun incorporation. I'll have to look into that, too.
Thanks!
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
4i. Re: Difficult language ideas
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:34 am (PDT)
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:03:06AM -0400, Leigh Richards wrote:
> Hi all, I'm Leigh. I've lurked for a while, but I haven't posted
> before.
Welcome!
> I've toyed with a few conlangs over the years, and now I'm
> brainstorming on a language for a conworld of mine.
Cool.
> Design goals:
> 1. As unambiguous as possible, especially in full sentences; it's easy
> to clarify any ambiguities.
This is rather difficult to do and still be naturalistic (providing
that's a goal, of course). You could make things such that sentences may
sometimes be ambiguous, but there is always a way to completely
disambiguate (e.g., by including optional specifiers that clarify the
meaning, where such specifiers may sound verbose or burdensome when the
audience already knows enough context to infer the right meaning.)
> 2. Hard to learn, and easy to say the wrong thing. Small and subtle
> changes have a large impact on the meaning, and it's unpredictable in
> that guessing something new from what you already know will rarely
> work.
>
> It is a status language of sorts and effectively a conlang itself, so
> it isn't meant to be simple or naturalistic. It can change, but it
> takes a concerted effort by the speakers because outside forces keep
> it from changing otherwise.
Ah, I see. Sorta like an official prescribed language rather than a more
spontaneous one?
As for small changes having large impact on the meaning, maybe introduce
a lot of idioms and idiosyncrasies which requires a lot of cultural
background to correctly infer the meaning of?
A native speaker please correct me if I'm wrong, but Russian has some
expressions that are not easily inferred (you have to learn them
directly)---at least for an English speaker. E.g., there is no verb 'to
have'; instead you say 'with me is ...' (У Ð¼ÐµÐ½Ñ ÐµÑÑÑ ...); and you
don't
say 'I like X', but 'X pleases me' (X нÑавиÑÑÑÑ Ð¼Ð½Ðµ); and 'I need
X' is
stated as 'X is necessary to me' (X нÑжен мне), etc.. Of course, these
examples are easily rationalized, but in your conlang, you could have a
lot of calcified expressions that no longer make any sense when taken at
face value. The last expression in Russian (X нÑжен мне) also has a
variant where the 1st person pronoun is nominative, but it sounds
stilted. You could make your conlang such that the "straightforward" way
of saying something sounds stilted, or just plain odd, to a native
speaker.
Other examples in Russian include the verb 'to learn' (ÑÑиÑÑ), which can
mean *either* 'learn' or 'teach', depending on the cases of the argument
NP's.
> I don't know a lot about the normal languages of the area, but I think
> they'll be similar to the Andean languages.
>
> I have a few ideas, but my knowledge of linguistics is fairly limited.
> So I'd like your input.
What are some of the ideas you have? It'll be fun to discuss them.
> Suggestions? Things to include? Things to avoid?
[...]
What about an unusual syntax/typology that is internally consistent but
very strange relative to known natlang typologies? Such as...
<shameless plug>
... the Tatari Faran case system, which has no concept of subject or
object, but marks nouns with one of three cases according to semantic
relationship with the verb:
http://conlang.eusebeia.dyndns.org/fara/cases.html
</shameless plug>
As for things to avoid... this depends on your tastes (and goals),
really. I personally dislike languages where every syllable is assigned
a meaning---using this method it's very easy to make an extremely
difficult language (e.g., every syllable in a sentence completely
changes the meaning of all subsequent syllables, so that, for example,
'zapukelsu' could mean 'I like the little dog' but 'zepukelsu' means
'There will be a thunderstorm tomorrow'). The problem with this is that
a little background noise completely annuls any consistency in
communication.
A better approach, IMHO, is to introduce a lot of idiosyncratic
expressions that must be learned on a case-by-case basis, and form an
essential part of everyday language (so that unless you learn all the
weird exceptions you have no chance to communicate effectively). You
could even have (con-)historical reasons for these things, to make it
more 'plausible': say for example that the correct way to say 'I am
hungry' is something like 'children in Taza are starving', because some
major historical event makes the literal expression 'I am hungry' very
rude.
T
--
They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work. -- Russian saying
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
4j. Re: Difficult language ideas
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:47 am (PDT)
On 9/19/06, Leigh Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/19/06, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - a large number of verb and noun paradigms, with the appropriate
> > one for a given word not predictable from the form or semantics of
> > the root
>
> Paradigm here means, for example, conjugation patterns in verbs?
Yes, conjugations of verbs & declensions of nouns & adjectives....
I'm not sure if there is a special term for inflection of adverbs
and adpositions.
Another thing to think about: if the designers of the conlang
wanted it to be specially difficult, they would think of
difficulty in terms of dissimilarity from the languages they
were familiar with. So you need to figure out the kinds of
inflection, etc., found in the natural languages of the region,
and then have the conlang mark different categories, and
mark the same categories in different ways. So maybe
if the regional languages mark verbs for aspect and mood
with prefixes, you could mark them with suffixes and final consonant
or vowel mutation while marking tense, evidentiality, validationality,
attitude, location/direction and so forth with prefixes
and initial mutation. And if the regional languages are
non-tonal or have at most two or three tones, you could have
more tones in the conlang.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
4k. Re: Difficult language ideas
Posted by: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:48 am (PDT)
li [Jim Henry] mi tulis la
> On 9/19/06, Leigh Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 1. As unambiguous as possible, especially in full
> sentences; it's easy to
> > clarify any ambiguities.
>
> I would suggest studying some existing conlangs intended
> to be unambiguous, such as Lojban.
>From what little I've learned of Lojban so far, it appears it can be as
ambiguous or as precise as the speaker wants it to be. Maybe someone
who knows more than I do can clarify this better.
> > 2. Hard to learn, and easy to say the wrong thing. Small
> and subtle changes
> > have a large impact on the meaning, and it's unpredictable
> in that guessing
> > something new from what you already know will rarely work.
>
> Some things to try:
>
> - a high lexicalization density, so that most of the possible
> words with a given phonological shape are actually instantiated
>
> - a large phoneme inventory, with many actual words distinguished
> by only one distinctive feature
>
> - a large number of verb and noun paradigms, with the appropriate
> one for a given word not predictable from the form or semantics of
> the root
>
> - a large number of grammatical categories to be marked
> mandatorily in certain circumstances, the exact categories
> required/allowed differing for different paradigms.
>
> - some categories marked in multiple ways; e.g. distant past
> tense might be marked with a prefix, recent past tense
> with an initial consonant mutation, present tense with a
> suffix and future tense with a modal auxiliary. Direct experience
> evidentiality might be marked with a suffix, hearsay
> evidentiality with an adverb, & inferential evidentiality gets
> null/default marking.
I've actually start working on what could be classified as a
philosophical language. Various features are going to be used to mark
things lexically and grammatically. So far things like voiced/unvoiced,
aspirated/unaspirated consonants can indicate small differences. Tonal
qualities are added and so far are designated to indicate tense and
maybe noun inflection. This obviously is just an experiment and would
not be intended for use by humans due to the many difficulties involved.
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> 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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
