There are 7 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Romance miscellanea (was: Werewolf)
From: R A Brown
2. Re: Weekly Vocab #1.1.4 (repost #1)
From: caeruleancentaur
3a. Zipfs Law may be a statistical artifact
From: John Chalmers
3b. Re: Zipfs Law may be a statistical artifact
From: Philip Newton
4a. OT: Dictionaries: why two sections??
From: Henrik Theiling
4b. Re: OT: Dictionaries: why two sections??
From: Paul Bennett
4c. Re: OT: Dictionaries: why two sections??
From: Gary Shannon
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1. Romance miscellanea (was: Werewolf)
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:30 am (PDT)
Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
>
> I (BPJ) asked:
>
>>> Might LUPONE be a possible formation?
>
> And Ray replied:
>
>> ?Vulgar Latin *lupone would presumably mean "wolflet', methinks.
>
> I was thinking of the use of -ONE as an augmentative/deprecative.
I know in Italian -one has an augmentative role but in Gaul it seems to
have had a diminutive role. I am far from certain whether -ONE had a
clear, single role in VL.
>>> I guess one might get
>>> _lobóu_ from LUPU HOMO in R3, but how realistic would *that* be?
>>
>> One could imagine *luphomo (gen. *luphominis) - where |ph| = [p_h] -
>> being formed as a calque of the Greek 'lykanthropos'. This would have
>> given a Vulgar Latin *lupOmne
>
> But would [h] really be preserved long enough for
> any *luphomine with [p_h] to arise in VL?
No - *luphomo as such could only have been coined as calque in the
literary language. That no such calque is found is probably due to the
fact that the educated were fairly bilingual and would readily have used
the Greek word if necessary. After all we don't feel the need to form
English calque form the French 'rendez-vous'.
If such a calque had been formed and had it made its way into VL, it
would have had the form *lu'pOm(i)ne
>>
>>> assuming HOMINE > *omne > *omme > /uom/, provided that
>>> M'N > mm *is* a realistic change for a Romance language
>>
>> It happened in Old French, i.e. (h)omme = 'man'
Also, of course, _da(m)me_ <-- dom(i)na (I've never found a satisfactory
explanation for the vocalism of French. (Both spellings - damme, dame -
are found in Old French)
>
> And apparently _nm > *mm_ too since ANIMA > Fr. _âme_,
_anme_ is found in Old French.
> with regressive assimilation, which is actually more
> readily expectable than progressive assimilation of
> _mn/m'n > *mm_ -- though I don't see where the circum-
> flex in _âme_ comes from, since there never was any
> /s/ in that word; perhaps there was a back nasal [A~]
> in OF which denasalized to a back /A/ spelled _â_?
Not all circumflexes weep over lost S - nor are all lost Ss remembered
by a circumflex e.g. école <-- sc(h)ola. |â| denoted, as you rightly
say, /A/ which was still distinguished from /a/ when I learnt French in
the 1950s (I understand that the distinction is now generally ignored in
21st cent France).
Yes, _anme_ was of course /a~m@/ (no regressive assimilation of
consonants). /a~/ became pronounced as [A~] and the rest is as you say
above.
>>> -- I want it to be but I'm not so sure! What's the track by which
>>> HOMINE became _homme_ but HOMO became _on_ in French?
>>
>>
>> The nom. (h)Omo --> /Om/ --> /0~/. The later was spelled _(h)om_ in Old
>> French. But the sound /O~/ could equally well be spelled *(h)on, and
>> when it became dissociated from _(h)omme_ and took on a new role as a
>> pronoun, the simple spelling _on_ was adopted. *There never was a change
>> /m/ --> /n/*
>
>
> OK, and both *mn > *mm and *nm > *mm are attested changes, which
> is well and good for me. Somehow _dom_ 'feels' better than _don_
> for R3, and even though mb > m / _# R3 would otherwise end up
> with very few words in final _-m_. In fact I have 'trouble'
> with the first person plural of verbs, where I don't want to
> lose _m_.
It wasn't lost in Gaul. The familiar French -ons is from Latin -umus
(with both Us short), which was a popular form of the 3rd conj. where
Classical Latin has -imus. In the VL of Gaul this became -om(s)s -->
-ons (and the rest, as they say, is history :)
I'm thinking that perhaps secondary final _-m_ was
> lost before primary final _-s_, so that the _m_ in HABEMUS
> wasn't final at the time the _m_ in POMUM or DECIMUM was lost.
> So I'll have to have this order of changes:
>
> (1) *abemos > *abems, *pomo > *pom
>
> (2) *pom > po
>
> (3) *abems > abem
>
> and I'm not quite sure how realistic that is,
Not unrealistic, I'd say.
> especially
> since I don't want words like SENSU > *sens to be affected
> by (3). Would something like
>
> (1') *pomo > pom
>
> (2') *abemos > abemo
>
> (3') *pom > po
>
> (4') *abemo > abem
>
> really be realistic? It feels very ad hoc...
Yep - that does feel more ad_hoc to me also.
>>> And what's the story behind DOMINU > _Dom_ as an ecclesiatical
>>> appellative (if that is the right word?)
>>
>> Used AFAIK principally by the Benedictine order.
Used by the Benedictine & Cistercian orders only. And as I said in
another email, I think it was simply a shortening of the medieval Latin
_Domnus_ (also occasionally found even in Classical Latin), rather than
a borrowing from any Romancelang.
> In my ignorance I used 'ecclesiatical' in the general
> sense of 'used by some ordained Catholics'.
Used for all monks of the Benedictine order; I believe the Cistercians
use it only for abbots.
--
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 (56)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. Re: Weekly Vocab #1.1.4 (repost #1)
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:24 am (PDT)
Senjecas:
1. rabbit = us-£êmbes (ear-jumper) Oryctolagus cuniculus; bunny =
us£êmbëles (dim.) £ = /l_0/
That bunny has a knife!
¡siim-ûr-os us-£émb-ë-l-êsïo n-êsï-' o ês-a!
cut-tool-NOM.sg ear-jump-EPEN-DIM-GEN.sg that-GEN.sg to be-IND
2. ferret: Mustela nigripes doesn't live in Europe. How about a
weasel? cêces.
This is my weasel. She likes to dance!
d-es m-úsïo cêc-es ês-a. d-és-ë snêrt-u pîîr-a.
this-NOM.sg I-GEN.sg weasel-NOM.sg be-IND. this-NOM.SG-EPEN dance-
SUP like-IND
3. knife= siimûros
The bunny with the knife is coming for me!
¡us£êmbël-es-ë síímur-sûnc-es m-umë vrênc-u pûd-a!
bunny-NOM.sg-EPEN knife-wield-NOM.sg I-ACC.sg-EPEN fetch-SUP be.busy-
IND
Chance to use my new way of expressing the progressive!
4. alien = âlïus; foreigner = bêrus < bêris (adj.) outer < be
(postp.) outside of
Does that alien eat people or not?
âlï-us n-us leûð-om êd-a-r. n-us êd-a ne-r.
alien-NOM.sg that-NOM.sg people-ACC.sg eat-IND-INTERROG that-NOM.sg
eat-IND not-INTERROG
5. ouch! / ow! = aû
Ouch! The rabbit with the knife cut off my arm!
¡aû! ¡us£êmb-es-ë síímursûnc-es m-úsïo ÿâst-om per mût-a.
ow rabbit-NOM.sg-EPEN knife-wielder-NOM.sg I-GEN.sg arm-ACC.sg.
PAST.PARTICLE cut.off-IND
6. help! = tsêlbe
Help! I'm bleeding to death!
¡tsêlb-e! ¡m-us méérëst-ë-vi êsr-a!
help-IMPER I-NOM.sg fatal-EPEN-ADV bleed-IND
7. aaaa! (a scream of terror)
Aaaaa! The rabbit is coming back!
¡?! ¡us£êmb-es pu-güêm-a!
rabbit-NOM.sg back-come-IND
8. aaaargh! (a scream of pain / failure / death) = aû
Aaaargh! It cut off my other arm!
¡aûûûû! ¡n-es ânïo ÿâst-om per mût-a!
ow ¡it-NOM.sg other arm-ACC.sg PAST.PARTICLE cut.off. IND
9. grrrr! (an intimidating growl) nurrrrrr
Grrrr! I will step on that rabbit!
¡nurrrr! ¡m-us us£êmb-em n-em pos pêd-a!
grrrrrr I-NOM.sg rabbit-ACC.sg that-ACC.sg FUT.PARTICLE step.on-IND
10. blood = êsros
The rabbit cut off my legs. Look at the pretty pools of blood.
us£êmb-es côst-on per mût-a. eenô mêngo lâcü-on êsr-om.
rabbit-NOM.sg leg-ACC.pl PAST.PARTICLE cut.off-IND. behold pretty
pool-ACC.pl blood-ACC.sg
jinrikisha = µir-ápel-rêðnos = man-power-cart
get = reach with a blow or hit in a particular spot
The rock caught her in the back of the head.
ônd-os cáfl-ë-gurn-ôsïo ántïa n-um per pââlg-a.
rock-NOM.sg head-EPEN-back-GEN.sg against she-ACC.sg PAST.PARTICLE
hit-IND
The blow got him in the back.
pââlg-os gurn-ôsïo ántïa n-um per pââlg-a.
blow-NOM.sg back-GEN.sg against he-ACC.sg. PAST.PARTICLE hit.IND
The punch caught him in the stomach.
pââlg-os qélond-ôsïo ántïa n-um per pââlg-a.
punch-NOM.sg stomach-GEN.sg against he-ACC.sg. PAST.PARTICLE hit.IND
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Zipfs Law may be a statistical artifact
Posted by: "John Chalmers" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:11 pm (PDT)
See the argument, rather far down the page, at http://longtail.com/
--John
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/06
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Zipfs Law may be a statistical artifact
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:46 pm (PDT)
On 9/23/06, John Chalmers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See the argument, rather far down the page, at http://longtail.com/
I expect you're referring to this blog entry:
http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/2006/09/is_zipfs_law_ju.html
(BTW, please fix your reply-to when posting the the list, or at least
point out that's you're overring reply-to. Thanks!)
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. OT: Dictionaries: why two sections??
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:54 pm (PDT)
Hi!
Do you often open a dictionary, try to find a word and when you reach
the corresponding page and line, you notice that all words around are
in the wrong language? And then you notice that you started in the
wrong one of the two sections of the dictionary, namely exactly the
wrong direction of translation? And have to do the lookup again in
the other direction?
It happens to be very often. I want to look up 'schimmelig' in a
Latin-German, German-Latin dictionary and then at sch..., there are
only Latin words around! Oh, yes, wrong section. Use German-Latin
instead of Latin-German.
Why are there two sections?? It is unnatural! Let all the words be
in one list, no matter what language they are in!
Did anyone encounter this problem before? Did anyone have the same
solution? :-)
**Henrik (with way too many dictionaries around him)
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: OT: Dictionaries: why two sections??
Posted by: "Paul Bennett" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:32 pm (PDT)
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:41:18 -0400, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Why are there two sections?? It is unnatural! Let all the words be
> in one list, no matter what language they are in!
>
> Did anyone encounter this problem before? Did anyone have the same
> solution? :-)
Harrap's published in 1991 a 5-language dictionary (English, French,
German, and I think Spanish and Italian), that was arranged in straight
alphabetical order per headword. Better yet, it was tabular, with one
column per language and one row per headword, clearly marked and laid out.
It wasn't as detailed as many good two-language dictionaries, but you got
the word, part of speech, gender, declension, and any irregularities. I
don't recall how many entries had multiple destination-language
alternatives for each headword, but I don't recall it being deficient.
Unfortunately, a few minutes' research shows that it is out of print now,
and reasonably collectable. Amazon carry it used from $50 up to over $80.
I think I paid about nine pounds for mine, brand new. Alas, I left it
behind when I came to the USA.
Paul
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: OT: Dictionaries: why two sections??
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:45 pm (PDT)
--- Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Do you often open a dictionary, try to find a word and when you reach
> the corresponding page and line, you notice that all words around are
> in the wrong language?
The most obvious solution is two entirely separate dictionaries bound in
contrasting colors. You want German to Latin you pick up the red volume; you
want Latin to German you pick up the green volume. Put the one you'll be using
on your desk and put the one you don't need right now out of reach on a high
shelf. :-)
--gary
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
