There are 10 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
From: R A Brown
1b. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
From: R A Brown
1c. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
From: H. S. Teoh
1d. Infinitives & gerunds (was: How to kick the infinitive habit)
From: R A Brown
1e. Re: Infinitives & gerunds (was: How to kick the infinitive habit)
From: H. S. Teoh
2a. Re: Book on constructive linguistics
From: Sai Emrys
2b. Re: Book on constructive linguistics
From: Sai Emrys
3. Constructive Linguistics 101: Auxlang
From: Sai Emrys
4. Constructive Linguistics 101: Artlang
From: Sai Emrys
5. Constructive Linguistics 101: Engelang
From: Sai Emrys
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Oct 3, 2006 2:21 am (PDT)
Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Hi!
>
> H. S. Teoh writes:
[snip]
>>It's not completely free of auxilliaries, though. It does use a verb
>>for "to like/want": uenai + infinitive/gerundive. E.g.:
>>
>> tara' kei uenai ibuneis ka'aman ia.
>> (she ORG) want (AUX_CVY:mushroom eat:INF_RCP) COMPL
>> She wants to eat the mushroom.
>>
>>Again, with first-level parse tree indicated by parentheses. (The phrase
>>_ibuneis ka'aman_ is an infinitive.)
>>
>> tara' kei uenai ika'am nihuu ibuneis so ia.
>> (she ORG) want (GND-eat AUX_RCP:1ps AUX_CVY:mushroom CVY) COMPL
>> She wants me to eat the mushroom.
>> Or, She likes my eating mushrooms.
>>
>>Now, I'm not sure how close TF's infinitives are to "typical"
>>infinitives: they inflect for case and indicates the role of the subject
>>in the sub-clause.
What, pray, is a "typical" infinitive?
> Sounds like a gerund (also the examples above seem to indicate a
> gerund-like nature). And GND is for gerund I suppose, so what's the
> difference to INF?
None - 'tis only the baleful influence of Latin grammar.
In Latin, as I have explained, although the infinitives were neuter
verbal nouns (e.g. ), they could be used only as nominatives &
accusatives, and the latter only if not preceded by a preposition. To
'fill in the rest of the gaps', the gerund was used. But *this is
peculiar to Latin only*!
In ancient Greek the infinitive was invariable, but could be (and indeed
often was) preceded by the definite article and used in nom., acc. gen.
or dative cases). But there is no inherent reason why the infinitive
itself cannot have case endings - it does, for example, in Turkish. I
quote from http://www.turkishlanguage.co.uk/infinitive.htm :
"The Turkish Infinitive has four forms of the infinitive, all of which
can be used as nouns and can therefore take case endings and personal
pronouns when required. The Standard Infinitive ending in -mek or -mak."
As for infinitives indicating the 'subject', Turkish & Hungarian
infinitives can have possessive suffixes which do just this; but even
closer to home, so to speak, is Portuguese with its 'personal
infinitives'. The Portuguese 'infinitive subject' endings are:
1st sing. -
2nd sing. -es
3rd sing. -
1st pl. -mos
2nd pl. -des
3rd pl. -em
e.g.
Cheguei sem saberem = I arrive without their knowing.
I-arrived without know-INF-1S
As the 1st & 3rd persons have no ending, it is necessary to use subject
pronouns, e.g.
Chegaram sem eu saber = they arrive without my knowing
They-arrived without I-NOM know-INF
As I wrote in an earlier mail, if you have only one type of verbal noun
in your language. you may call it a 'gerund' but IMO you have an
infinitive called by a different name :)
This thread has shown us that there are natlangs, as well as conlangs,
that have *no* infinitive habit and, therefore, cannot kick it.
But there is a habit I dearly think should have been kicked long ago:
that of regarding only a sequence such as 'to come' as "the infinitive"
in English. Trask says of this habit:
"...but this view is indefensible."
Amen!
The word 'come' in sentences such as "I can come tomorrow", "She must
come and see this" etc is infinitive. The English infinitive is often,
it is true, preceded by _to_ just as, in German, the infinitive may be
preceded by _zu_. But in neither language is _to_ (zu) required in all
circumstances.
(The mail that started the thread seems confused on this point.)
--
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 (26)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Oct 3, 2006 2:51 am (PDT)
H. S. Teoh wrote:
[snip]
>
> The infinitive is perhaps closer to a relative verb: the case
> inflections are to indicate the subject NP's role in the sub-clause. In
> fact, the infinitive forms are identical to the forms used in relative
> clauses. The gerundive, OTOH, behaves like a NP, complete with the usual
> trailing case particle (always neuter in this case).
Ooh - seems confusing to me. I can understand that _participial_ clause
could be used instead of a relative clause. In ancient Greek, definite
article + participle is frequently used where Latin & English require a
relative clause.
But the gerundive a NP! This is a bit hard for us who have been brought
up with the Latin gerundive which is a verbal _adjective_. Are you sure
you're using the best terminology.
> The infinitive is used when the subject NP inside the sub-clause is the
> same as the subject NP of the main clause.
Sort of like we find in certain constructions in ancient Greek :)
> The gerundive is used when
> the action is independent of the subject NP of the main clause.
OK - but why isn't it called a gerund?
> More examples of the infinitive:
>
> huu sa tapa tun na ibuneis arapan bata.
> 1sp CVY go slope RCP CVY:mushroom pick_up:RCP COMPL
> I go to the slope (of a mountain) to pick mushrooms.
Ah! An infinitive to show purpose. Not uncommon - but there are
languages with infinitives that do not allow them to be used this way. I
guess possibly the most well known is Classical Latin. You could *not*
use the infinitive in such a sentence. In the other hand you could have:
(a) Ad cliuum collis eo ut fungos carpam.
ut + subjunctive
(b) Ad cliuum collis eo ad fungos carpendum.
ad + gerund, 'fungos' (acc.) being the direct object of 'carpendum' (Oh
- a split gerund :)
(c) Ad cliuum collis eo ad fungos carpendos.
ad + gerundive, where 'ad' governs the accusative 'fungos' & the
gerundive (adjective) "agrees with" fungos.
(d) Ad cliuum collis eo fungos carptum.
supine (carptum) with 'fungos' as its direct object.
Ain't language wonderful :-D
BTW some prescriptive grammars will tell you that (b) is 'ungrammatical'
and that you must use (c). But the ancient authors themselves were not
aware of that rule ;)
[Rest of the interesting stuff snipped]
Thinks: must have another look at Tatari Faran - it looks interesting :)
--
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 (26)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: How to kick the infinitive habit
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Oct 3, 2006 10:42 am (PDT)
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 10:40:02AM +0100, R A Brown wrote:
> H. S. Teoh wrote:
> [snip]
> >The infinitive is perhaps closer to a relative verb: the case
> >inflections are to indicate the subject NP's role in the sub-clause.
> >In fact, the infinitive forms are identical to the forms used in
> >relative clauses. The gerundive, OTOH, behaves like a NP, complete
> >with the usual trailing case particle (always neuter in this case).
>
> Ooh - seems confusing to me. I can understand that _participial_
> clause could be used instead of a relative clause. In ancient Greek,
> definite article + participle is frequently used where Latin & English
> require a relative clause.
>
> But the gerundive a NP! This is a bit hard for us who have been
> brought up with the Latin gerundive which is a verbal _adjective_. Are
> you sure you're using the best terminology.
Maybe not. In which case, I'd like to be enlightened as to what is
better terminology to describe what TF is doing. :-)
Maybe "participle" is a better term for the "infinitive"? Or maybe not.
And perhaps I should just call the "gerundive" a plain ole gerund,
because that's really what it is, except that the nouns that modify it
appear in secondary forms. (Tatari Faran NPs are marked for one of 3
cases, but there are two different ways of doing this, one for marking
NP's in the main clause, and the second for marking NP's in
embedded/subordinate clauses. The former uses the formula "noun +
(adjectives) + case particle", whereas the latter "prefix + noun +
(adjectives)". Thus, NP's in the main clause are overtly different from
NP's in embedded/subordinate clauses. The arguments to a gerundive, or a
gerund, are marked using the latter.) Thus, it is possible to speak of a
gerundive phrase (or gerund phrase?) comprising of the gerund itself
plus its arguments, which are overtly distinct from the other NP's in
the main clause. What is the best terminology to describe this?
> >The infinitive is used when the subject NP inside the sub-clause is
> >the same as the subject NP of the main clause.
>
> Sort of like we find in certain constructions in ancient Greek :)
Article + infinitive?
> >The gerundive is used when the action is independent of the subject
> >NP of the main clause.
>
> OK - but why isn't it called a gerund?
Maybe it should be? :-) The main thing, I think, is that TF gerunds can
take NP arguments, although now that I think of it, it's really not that
different from, say, phrases like "the sinking of the ship" in English,
where the genitive function of "of the ship" marks it as modifying the
gerund rather than the clause as a whole.
So maybe I should just call it a gerund.
> >More examples of the infinitive:
> > huu sa tapa tun na ibuneis arapan bata.
> > 1sp CVY go slope RCP CVY:mushroom pick_up:RCP COMPL
> > I go to the slope (of a mountain) to pick mushrooms.
>
> Ah! An infinitive to show purpose. Not uncommon - but there are
> languages with infinitives that do not allow them to be used this way.
Interesting. There is actually another way to indicate purpose in TF,
using the postpositional _utu_ ("for the purpose of"):
huu sa tapa tun na ibuneis arapan utu bata.
1sp CVY go slope RCP (CVY:mushroom pick:RCP for) COMPL
I go to the slope for the purpose of picking mushrooms.
One could argue that the so-called "infinitive" in the previous example
is really just an abbreviated form of this latter construction, with
_utu_ elided.
> I guess possibly the most well known is Classical Latin. You could
> *not* use the infinitive in such a sentence. In the other hand you
> could have:
> (a) Ad cliuum collis eo ut fungos carpam.
> ut + subjunctive
>
> (b) Ad cliuum collis eo ad fungos carpendum.
> ad + gerund, 'fungos' (acc.) being the direct object of 'carpendum'
> (Oh - a split gerund :)
Cool. :-)
> (c) Ad cliuum collis eo ad fungos carpendos.
> ad + gerundive, where 'ad' governs the accusative 'fungos' & the
> gerundive (adjective) "agrees with" fungos.
Ahh, I see.
> (d) Ad cliuum collis eo fungos carptum.
> supine (carptum) with 'fungos' as its direct object.
>
> Ain't language wonderful :-D
Interesting indeed. I think one degree of freedom in natlangs that is a
bit lacking in TF is the number of ways of express the same thing. I'm
working on it, though. :-)
> BTW some prescriptive grammars will tell you that (b) is
> 'ungrammatical' and that you must use (c). But the ancient authors
> themselves were not aware of that rule ;)
Hehe... makes one wonder where the prescriptivists got that 'rule' from.
:-)
> Thinks: must have another look at Tatari Faran - it looks interesting
> :)
[...]
Thanks. :-)
T
--
Without outlines, life would be pointless.
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Infinitives & gerunds (was: How to kick the infinitive habit)
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Oct 3, 2006 12:07 pm (PDT)
I've changed the subject line, as this part of the thread is clearly not
about kicking the infinitive habit. Rather, it is about interesting and
different uses of infinitives :)
H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 10:40:02AM +0100, R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>>But the gerundive a NP! This is a bit hard for us who have been
>>brought up with the Latin gerundive which is a verbal _adjective_. Are
>>you sure you're using the best terminology.
>
> Maybe not. In which case, I'd like to be enlightened as to what is
> better terminology to describe what TF is doing. :-)
>
> Maybe "participle" is a better term for the "infinitive"? Or maybe not.
Having looked more carefully at your examples, and looking at the TF
grammar http://conlang.eusebeia.dyndns.org/fara, I think they are indeed
infinitives - but TF's way of handling relative clauses is certainly
unusual! But why not? :)
Just to recap your examples from your previous mail:
{quote}
tara' kei uenai ibuneis ka'aman ia.
(she ORG) want (AUX_CVY:mushroom eat:INF_RCP) COMPL
She wants to eat the mushroom.
.....
huu sa tapa tun na ibuneis arapan bata.
1sp CVY go slope RCP CVY:mushroom pick_up:RCP COMPL
I go to the slope (of a mountain) to pick mushrooms.
{/quote}
I have no problem with these. The words concerned are clearly nouns as
they have the noun case postclitics; but they also have verbal functions
in that they have their own verb arguments. that is, they are verbal
nouns - i.e. infinitives.
But:
{quote}
Notably, the infinitive clause is identical in form and construction to
a relative clause modifying a noun:
baan ikaren muras kuinin sei tanap buta' fei imi tsi.
(old_lady (CVY:shoe black own:RCP) CVY) dwell hut that in COMPL
The old lady who owns the black shoes lives in that hut.
{/quote}
Well, yes, this is TF's infinitive. It is AFAIK a quite unique way of
handling relative clauses - as I said, I familiar with the idea of using
a participle clause to express this idea (The old lady, the [one] owning
the shoes, lives in that hut), but you haven't use a participle. It's
certainly an interesting way of dealing with things :)
> And perhaps I should just call the "gerundive" a plain ole gerund,
> because that's really what it is, except that the nouns that modify it
> appear in secondary forms.
Yes, I think it would be better called just the plain ole gerund :)
They are definitely verbal nouns, as far as I can see, so I definitely
think 'gerund' would be a better term.
([snip]
> NP's in embedded/subordinate clauses. The arguments to a gerundive, or a
> gerund, are marked using the latter.) Thus, it is possible to speak of a
> gerundive phrase (or gerund phrase?) comprising of the gerund itself
> plus its arguments, which are overtly distinct from the other NP's in
> the main clause. What is the best terminology to describe this?
gerund phrase, or maybe 'gerundial phrase'?
>
>
>>>The infinitive is used when the subject NP inside the sub-clause is
>>>the same as the subject NP of the main clause.
>>
>>Sort of like we find in certain constructions in ancient Greek :)
>
> Article + infinitive?
No - I was thinking of clauses expressed with acc+infinitive, like they
have in Latin. If the subject of the infinitive is the same as that of
the main verb, Latin a reflexive pronoun, but Greek simply used the
infin. with no 'accusative subject'.
Cf. English:
I want us to go.
But
I want to go (Not: *I want me to go)
>>>The gerundive is used when the action is independent of the subject
>>>NP of the main clause.
>>
>>OK - but why isn't it called a gerund?
>
> Maybe it should be? :-) The main thing, I think, is that TF gerunds can
> take NP arguments,
So could Latin gerunds and so do English gerunds (tho not subject
arguments, but both can take all other verbal arguments).
[snip]
> So maybe I should just call it a gerund.
Yes, I think so.
>>>More examples of the infinitive:
>>> huu sa tapa tun na ibuneis arapan bata.
>>> 1sp CVY go slope RCP CVY:mushroom pick_up:RCP COMPL
>>> I go to the slope (of a mountain) to pick mushrooms.
>>
>>Ah! An infinitive to show purpose. Not uncommon - but there are
>>languages with infinitives that do not allow them to be used this way.
>
>
> Interesting. There is actually another way to indicate purpose in TF,
> using the postpositional _utu_ ("for the purpose of"):
>
> huu sa tapa tun na ibuneis arapan utu bata.
> 1sp CVY go slope RCP (CVY:mushroom pick:RCP for) COMPL
> I go to the slope for the purpose of picking mushrooms.
>
> One could argue that the so-called "infinitive" in the previous example
> is really just an abbreviated form of this latter construction, with
> _utu_ elided.
I guess one could. In English dialect, forms like "I go to the slope of
the hill [all] for to pick mushrooms" were still around in the early
20th cent - but probably died out now :=(
[snip]
>
>>BTW some prescriptive grammars will tell you that (b) is
>>'ungrammatical' and that you must use (c). But the ancient authors
>>themselves were not aware of that rule ;)
>
> Hehe... makes one wonder where the prescriptivists got that 'rule' from.
> :-)
They have a habit of turning _tendencies_ into fixed 'rules' - even if
it means saying things like "Caesar's Latin is not as good as Cicero's"
- crazy ;)
--
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 (26)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Infinitives & gerunds (was: How to kick the infinitive habit)
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Oct 3, 2006 11:16 pm (PDT)
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 07:49:59PM +0100, R A Brown wrote:
> I've changed the subject line, as this part of the thread is clearly
> not about kicking the infinitive habit. Rather, it is about
> interesting and different uses of infinitives :)
Funny how threads mutate like that. :-)
> H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 10:40:02AM +0100, R A Brown wrote:
> [snip]
> > Maybe not. In which case, I'd like to be enlightened as to what is
> > better terminology to describe what TF is doing. :-) Maybe
> >"participle" is a better term for the "infinitive"? Or maybe not.
>
> Having looked more carefully at your examples, and looking at the TF
> grammar http://conlang.eusebeia.dyndns.org/fara, I think they are
> indeed infinitives - but TF's way of handling relative clauses is
> certainly unusual! But why not? :)
Sounds good to me. :-) It's not like TF doesn't already have unusual
features, such as the case system and the complements. One more wouldn't
hurt.
> Just to recap your examples from your previous mail:
> {quote}
> tara' kei uenai ibuneis ka'aman ia.
> (she ORG) want (AUX_CVY:mushroom eat:INF_RCP) COMPL
> She wants to eat the mushroom.
> .....
>
> huu sa tapa tun na ibuneis arapan bata.
> 1sp CVY go slope RCP CVY:mushroom pick_up:RCP COMPL
> I go to the slope (of a mountain) to pick mushrooms.
> {/quote}
>
> I have no problem with these. The words concerned are clearly nouns as
> they have the noun case postclitics;
Um... actually, they don't. The last word in each clause is the
complement, which is connected with the main verb rather than the
infinitive.
> but they also have verbal functions in that they have their own verb
> arguments. that is, they are verbal nouns - i.e. infinitives.
I'm not so sure about the noun part. The case they inflect for not
indicating their function in the main clause, but rather the function of
the subject NP (the first NP in the sentence) in the subclause.
Maybe they are more like participles than infinitives? But they can only
ever take the subject NP as subject, and they don't agree in case, but
instead mark the case of the subject in the subclause.
> But:
> {quote}
> Notably, the infinitive clause is identical in form and construction
> to a relative clause modifying a noun:
> baan ikaren muras kuinin sei tanap buta' fei imi tsi.
> (old_lady (CVY:shoe black own:RCP) CVY) dwell hut that in COMPL
> The old lady who owns the black shoes lives in that hut.
> {/quote}
>
> Well, yes, this is TF's infinitive. It is AFAIK a quite unique way of
> handling relative clauses - as I said, I familiar with the idea of
> using a participle clause to express this idea (The old lady, the
> [one] owning the shoes, lives in that hut), but you haven't use a
> participle. It's certainly an interesting way of dealing with things
> :)
I'm not so sure about analysing the relative verb here as an infinitive.
The case clitic is modifying the head noun, not the relative clause.
Maybe it's closer to a participle? Or maybe something else altogether.
The way it is constructed is that the clause sits between the head noun
and its corresponding clitic, just like any other noun modifier:
baan sei
old_woman CVY
(The) old woman
baan duru sei
old_woman slow CVY
The slow old woman
baan tara' sei
old_woman DEM CVY
That old woman
baan ikaren muras kuinin sei
old_woman CVY:shoe black own:RCP CVY
The old woman who owns the black shoes.
The syntactic nesting of this last is:
(baan ((ikaren muras) kuinin) sei)
Since the relative clause is in adjectival position, a literal
translation might be something like "the black-shoe-owning woman". Seems
more like a participle than an infinitive to me, although again, not
agreeing with the head noun in case, but instead indicating the case of
the head noun inside the subclause.
> >And perhaps I should just call the "gerundive" a plain ole gerund,
> >because that's really what it is, except that the nouns that modify
> >it appear in secondary forms.
>
> Yes, I think it would be better called just the plain ole gerund :)
>
> They are definitely verbal nouns, as far as I can see, so I definitely
> think 'gerund' would be a better term.
OK. :-)
> ([snip]
> >NP's in embedded/subordinate clauses. The arguments to a gerundive, or a
> >gerund, are marked using the latter.) Thus, it is possible to speak of a
> >gerundive phrase (or gerund phrase?) comprising of the gerund itself
> >plus its arguments, which are overtly distinct from the other NP's in
> >the main clause. What is the best terminology to describe this?
>
> gerund phrase, or maybe 'gerundial phrase'?
Ah, I like "gerundial phrase".
> >>>The infinitive is used when the subject NP inside the sub-clause is
> >>>the same as the subject NP of the main clause.
> >>
> >>Sort of like we find in certain constructions in ancient Greek :)
> > Article + infinitive?
>
> No - I was thinking of clauses expressed with acc+infinitive, like
> they have in Latin. If the subject of the infinitive is the same as
> that of the main verb, Latin a reflexive pronoun, but Greek simply
> used the infin. with no 'accusative subject'.
Ah, OK.
[...]
> >>>The gerundive is used when the action is independent of the subject
> >>>NP of the main clause.
> >>
> >>OK - but why isn't it called a gerund?
> > Maybe it should be? :-) The main thing, I think, is that TF gerunds
> > can take NP arguments,
>
> So could Latin gerunds and so do English gerunds (tho not subject
> arguments, but both can take all other verbal arguments).
Right. I guess they really should be called gerunds, then.
TF gerunds can take all sorts of arguments, and behaves more or less
like an embedded sentence (though you can't embed any more sub-clauses
in it 'cos the prefix-inflections are already being used).
E.g.:
diru kei numitai asuen na hike.
girl ORG torment younger_brother RCP COMPL
The girl torments (her) younger brother.
teira na hamra numitai'i adiru ni'asuen ko aram.
older_brother RCP see torment:GND ORG:girl RCP:young_brother ORG COMPL
The older brother sees the girl tormenting (her) younger brother.
(Lit., the older brother sees the tormenting of the younger brother by
the girl.)
[...]
> >Interesting. There is actually another way to indicate purpose in TF,
> >using the postpositional _utu_ ("for the purpose of"):
> > huu sa tapa tun na ibuneis arapan utu bata.
> > 1sp CVY go slope RCP (CVY:mushroom pick:RCP for) COMPL
> > I go to the slope for the purpose of picking mushrooms.
> >One could argue that the so-called "infinitive" in the previous
> >example is really just an abbreviated form of this latter
> >construction, with _utu_ elided.
>
> I guess one could. In English dialect, forms like "I go to the slope
> of the hill [all] for to pick mushrooms" were still around in the
> early 20th cent - but probably died out now :=(
Hmm, isn't that still around in English pidgins?
[snip]
> > Hehe... makes one wonder where the prescriptivists got that 'rule'
> > from. :-)
>
> They have a habit of turning _tendencies_ into fixed 'rules' - even if
> it means saying things like "Caesar's Latin is not as good as
> Cicero's" - crazy ;)
[...]
lol...
Speaking of which, I've been thinking about this idea of creating (or
analysing) language not in terms of grammatical rules, but of
*prototypes*. Maybe I'll write this up in a separate thread...
T
--
Life is too short to run proprietary software. -- Bdale Garbee
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Book on constructive linguistics
Posted by: "Sai Emrys" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Oct 4, 2006 12:45 am (PDT)
I have set up a webpage for this project:
http://saizai.backpackit.com/page/777717 (you'll need an invite to see
or edit the books).
As currently conceived, this will be two separate books (though they
may be published between one pair of covers).
The first is an introductory textbook on constructive linguistics (as
opposed to the traditional descriptive or presecriptive approaches).
The second is a compilation of essays on the art and philosophy of
advanced language creation.
See the website for details on each.
What I'd like are:
* a couple co leads, to guide and organize the project as a whole,
provide a clear purpose, etc
* essay contributors
* conlinguistics 101 contributors
* editors / commentators
- copyeditors per se not needed for a while yet
* conlangers!
- the conlinguistics 101 book is going to show the development of
three languages from conception to fruition. Thus, we need those
languages - AND a very clear "story" for them, i.e. a completely
transparent development. (Of course, the actual development will
probably be complex per usual, but we're creating a *story* here.)
P.S. random: "Llevenme a la iglesia ya" just came up on my playlist.
It's.... beyond words. O.O (You may recognize it as "I'm getting
married in the morning" from _My Fair Lady_)
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Book on constructive linguistics
Posted by: "Sai Emrys" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Oct 4, 2006 1:03 am (PDT)
Ooops.... here's the right link: http://saizai.backpackit.com/pub/777708
On 10/4/06, Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have set up a webpage for this project:
>
> http://saizai.backpackit.com/page/777717 (you'll need an invite to see
> or edit the books).
>
> As currently conceived, this will be two separate books (though they
> may be published between one pair of covers).
>
> The first is an introductory textbook on constructive linguistics (as
> opposed to the traditional descriptive or presecriptive approaches).
>
> The second is a compilation of essays on the art and philosophy of
> advanced language creation.
>
> See the website for details on each.
>
> What I'd like are:
> * a couple co leads, to guide and organize the project as a whole,
> provide a clear purpose, etc
> * essay contributors
> * conlinguistics 101 contributors
> * editors / commentators
> - copyeditors per se not needed for a while yet
> * conlangers!
> - the conlinguistics 101 book is going to show the development of
> three languages from conception to fruition. Thus, we need those
> languages - AND a very clear "story" for them, i.e. a completely
> transparent development. (Of course, the actual development will
> probably be complex per usual, but we're creating a *story* here.)
>
>
> P.S. random: "Llevenme a la iglesia ya" just came up on my playlist.
> It's.... beyond words. O.O (You may recognize it as "I'm getting
> married in the morning" from _My Fair Lady_)
>
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. Constructive Linguistics 101: Auxlang
Posted by: "Sai Emrys" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Oct 4, 2006 1:09 am (PDT)
This is for the auxlang in the _Constructive Linguistics 101_ book.
The purpose of this language is:
* to show an *international* auxlang approach to conlanging
* to be culturally neutral and/or universal
* to be easy learned and minimalistic
* to be regular and clear
On the meta level, this language needs to:
* have a clear story to be told, from conception to fruition
* have a clear development cycle to be explored in the textbook
* demonstrate revisions and updates over time, but in a way that still
emphasizes a coherent storyline
If you want to participate, ping me and I'll send you an invite.
- Sai
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Constructive Linguistics 101: Artlang
Posted by: "Sai Emrys" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Oct 4, 2006 1:09 am (PDT)
This is for the artlang in the _Constructive Linguistics 101_ book.
The purpose of this language is:
* to show a naturalistic approach to conlanging
* to show a clear and approachable aesthetic
* to integrate concultural considerations
* to not be a calque of English or Quenya :P
On the meta level, this language needs to:
* have a clear story to be told, from conception to fruition
* have a clear development cycle to be explored in the textbook
* demonstrate revisions and updates over time, but in a way that still
emphasizes a coherent storyline
If you want to participate, ping me and I'll send you an invite.
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5. Constructive Linguistics 101: Engelang
Posted by: "Sai Emrys" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Oct 4, 2006 1:13 am (PDT)
This is for the engelang in the _Constructive Linguistics 101_ book.
The purpose of this language is:
* to show a engineered, purpose-driven approach to conlanging
* to display major innovation in language tech, and be an example of
how to break the preconceptions of how language can work
* to still be comprehensible to our poor readers
On the meta level, this language needs to:
* have a clear story to be told, from conception to fruition
* have a clear development cycle to be explored in the textbook
* demonstrate revisions and updates over time, but in a way that still
emphasizes a coherent storyline
If you want to participate, ping me and I'll send you an invite.
- Sai
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
