There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Art is when someone says 'Now' -- or is it?
From: Herman Miller
2.1. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
From: Herman Miller
2.2. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
2.3. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
From: Andreas Johansson
2.4. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
2.5. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
From: Mark J. Reed
2.6. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
From: Andreas Johansson
2.7. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
2.8. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
From: Mark J. Reed
2.9. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
From: Eugene Oh
2.10. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
From: Mark J. Reed
3.1. Re: Derived adpositions (< Linguistic term for ease of changing word
From: Dana Nutter
3.2. Re: Derived adpositions (< Linguistic term for ease of changing word
From: caeruleancentaur
3.3. Re: Derived adpositions (< Linguistic term for ease of changing word
From: David J. Peterson
3.4. Re: Derived adpositions (< Linguistic term for ease of changing word
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
3.5. Re: Derived adpositions (< Linguistic term for ease of changing word
From: caeruleancentaur
3.6. Re: Derived adpositions (< Linguistic term for ease of changing word
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
3.7. Re: Derived adpositions (< Linguistic term for ease of changing word
From: Jim Henry
4.1. Re: Linguistic term for ease of changing word-class (was: 'out-' aff
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
4.2. Re: Linguistic term for ease of changing word-class (was: 'out-' aff
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
4.3. Re: Linguistic term for ease of changing word-class (was: 'out-' aff
From: R A Brown
4.4. Re: Linguistic term for ease of changing word-class (was: 'out-' aff
From: Andreas Johansson
5a. Re: Semantic typology?
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
5b. Re: Semantic typology?
From: Mark J. Reed
5c. Re: Semantic typology?
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Art is when someone says 'Now' -- or is it?
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:07 pm ((PDT))
Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Yes. A realistic language grows with usage. However, one can
> very much strive for stability in the *rules* of the language
> (i.e., in its phonology and morphosyntax) and a restriction of
> changes to its lexicon to the *addition* of new words, such that
> old texts are never invalidated by later changes to the language.
> I already have come to regret that there are Old Albic texts in
> public existence (a Babel text buried somewhere in this list's
> archive, contributions to several translation relays, and a few
> smaller bits) that are no longer valid in the current incarnation
> of the language. Well, that's all work in progress, and the
> future new web site for Old Albic and its descendents will be
> declared "canonical" by me.
I've done relay translations in a number of different versions of
Tirelat and Minza. Lately I've been trying to bring some stability to
these languages, deciding whether to keep older features or newer ones,
and revising the existing texts to match. In the case of Tirelat, I've
taken the original alphabet I developed for it (Vlika) and given it to a
different language (Virelli), so I have to come up with a new alphabet
(possibly something like Tharkania or Ljörr).
> A conlang that has no "canon" is an unstable conlang. If you
> change the inner workings of the language all the time, you
> arrive at a corpus of ungrammatical texts. If you want to build
> up a *consistent* corpus, you must finalize at least some decisions
> in the design of the language. Words that are already in your
> dictionary stay in; grammatical rules remain valid; and all that.
Before Tirelat, I would decide on a word or a feature of grammar, and it
would pretty much remain that way. One big difference is that I did
everything with pencil and paper in the old days. I got carried away
with revisions on different versions of Tirelat and ended up with a
mess. You'd think I would've learned not to do that with Minza, but it's
been through its share of revisions.
> A conlang is indeed something like a series: at the beginning of
> the series, it is not certain which course the events take, but
> once an episode has been released, it is part of the canon and
> later episodes ought to be consistent with it. It is - or ought
> to be - the same with conlangs. What has been released by the
> author and not designated "work in progress", becomes canon, and
> later canon ought to be consistent with it. Sure, there are ways
> to "iron out" revisions. Natlangs usually have synonyms or at
> least near-synonyms; they often have several alternative ways of
> expressing the same category. In a naturalistic conlang, you
> can make use such synonymies - or dialect divisions - to
> retroactively canonize revisions: by declaring that *both* the
> old and the new version are valid. However, there are limits
> to this.
It can take a while to come up with a consistent "character" for a new
language. The current version of Tirelat is much like the version in my
translation of "Tegla Jlána" from 2001.
http://www.io.com/~hmiller/lang/Tirelat/swallow-song.html
Even the old page http://www.io.com/~hmiller/lang/Tirehlat-old.html is
still recognizable as Tirelat. But if I'd stuck with that version, some
of the features that have become most characteristic of the language
(like the verbal morphology with fused evidential+tense suffixes) might
not have come about.
By the sixth Conlang relay, I was starting to add genders to nouns.
Ispa ttehaban mi naji mikvidu myn metta fał.
("mi" and "naji" agree with "mikvidu", "metta" agrees with "fał")
But later I decided that I preferred the older version of the language
without noun genders, and the current version of the language has gone
back to genderless nouns.
Ispa tətexaban my ñaĭ mikvidu myn metti fał.
"All wells can indeed be cut into tiny pieces."
As much as I remember Tirelat having lots of revisions, the relay texts
actually aren't as far from the current version of the language as I'd
thought they might be. The same is true for the Minza relay texts. Most
of the crazy revisions must have gone on between relays.
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:34 pm ((PDT))
Roger Mills wrote:
> Michael Poxon quoted:
>>>
>>> Tangentially, how does your J-less conlang transliterate the "J"
>>> sound in
>>> "Jim" and "John"? I've done so by substituting "Z" [dz] for it in Cl.
>>> Ar.
>>>
> Kash: those would be "cim" [tSim] and "can" [tSan], but their /c/ can be
> semi-voiced. Of course any Kash resident on Earth will have learned
> proper English (they have ways....).
>
> Gwr: closer, but [dZiN], [dZaN], probably mid-tone; but if some
> (semi-)obscene or insulting homophone has a different tone, that could
> be used (maybe not in direct address, if Jim and John are fluent in
> Gwr). There are probably related languages that retain /-m/.
>
> Prevli: could pronounce [dZIm, dZan] but [dZ] is not a phoneme, it
> derives from obs. agentive gi+(h)V- and is rare.
I've been thinking about "Beijing" for some reason lately :-) and ended
up calling it Beĭżiñ-vor ['bejdz\iN,vOr] in Tirelat, ta-Beidžiŋ
[ta'bejd`z`iN] in Minza. The /ż/ in Tirelat is typically [dz] but the
following /i/ causes it to be palatalized, so it's a good match for the
Chinese [ts\]. That would also work for "Jim" Żim ['dz\im], although
"John" Żaan ['dza:n] is less recognizable. Žaan ['Za:n] is another
possibility. (That's for an American "John" -- an English "John" would
be Żon or Žon.) I could always write Džaan or Džon, although /dž/ is not
a sequence that occurs in Tirelat.
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
2.2. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:37 am ((PDT))
On 2008-08-12 Herman Miller wrote:
> That would also work for "Jim" Żim ['dz\im],
> although "John" Żaan ['dza:n] is less
> recognizable. Žaan ['Za:n] is another
> possibility.
Would /dzja:n/ be possible?
In Swedish all foreign sounds spelled _j_ tend to
become [j]. This was not always so: French words
with [Z] used to get [S] or [x] depending on
dialect. _Juste_ even got respelled _schyst_, as
it was mainly a slang word.
Beijing is still _Peking_ ['pe:kiN] in Swedish.
Now explain why _Norrköping_ can also be
pronounced ['pe:king]!
AFMOC most of them have [dZ] or [dz\] type
affricates, because I like affricates and anti-
affricates [st St s\t zd Zd z\d] etc.
The greatest hassle when adapting modern names
to Sohlob is that they must obey vowel harmony
and syllable structure, so _James_ becomes
_Djaemas_ /dz\&mas/, or possibly _Djaeyomas_
/dz\&jQmas/, _Georgia_ > _Djordjah_ or _Djurdjeh_
if you for some reason want to preserve the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
in the second syllable (which is unlikely)
or _Kartvaeldar_ /kartv&ldar/ if it's the now
afflicted Caucasian country, since I try to
use native forms (-dar/-der is a Sohlob
suffix, though), Beijing _Beyedjing_
/bi\ji\dz\iN/ Göteborg _Yaetaebor_,
Athens _Esine_ (Greece) _Aethanas_ (US)
Washington _Vosjaenton_, New York _Nuyurg_,
Paris _Perih_, Moscow _Maskofah_.
Maria _Maraeyah_, Charles _Tjarlos_ (_Tjas_?)
NB Sohlob vowel harmony is a height harmony.
The vowels of a non-compound word must be
all high or all low, and _e_ is the high vowel /i\/.
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient
à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil
ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*,
c'est qu'elles meurent." (Victor Hugo)
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
2.3. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
Posted by: "Andreas Johansson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:11 am ((PDT))
Quoting Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Beijing is still _Peking_ ['pe:kiN] in Swedish.
You'll also hear [be'jIN] based on the pinyin spelling. Don't ask me why the
accent changes.
--
Andreas Johansson
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
2.4. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:22 am ((PDT))
Andreas Johansson skrev:
> Quoting Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>> Beijing is still _Peking_ ['pe:kiN] in Swedish.
>
> You'll also hear [be'jIN] based on the pinyin spelling. Don't ask me why the
> accent changes.
Because of the period when foreign
words were assumed to be French is
only 150 years gone, give or take
50 years.
Now why don't English people hear
French words with final stress?
/BP
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
2.5. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:50 am ((PDT))
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now why don't English people hear
> French words with final stress?
We (well, if by "English" you mean "Anglophone") do. Why do you ask?
As for the capital of China, the standard AmE pronunciation is indeed
[bej'dZiN], consistently emphasized on the second syllable. The older
pronunciation (based on the Wade-Giles Romanization) seems to have
variable stress as well as a variable first-syllable vowel; I've heard
['pi:.kiN], ['pej.kiN], [pi'kiN], [pE'kiN], [p@'kiN], and even
['pi'kiN] with equal stress on both syllables (this often shows up in
the name of the dish "Peking Duck", in which case all three syllables
are usually given equal weight).
And as for attempting the actual Mandarin pronunciation, I'm out of
luck on two counts. First, my ability to produce recognizable tones
is apparently nil. Second, I have no idea how to pronounce [ɕ]; it
tends to come out as either [ʃ] (Holy American accent, Batman!) or [ʂ]
(which I have a decent handle on thanks to Klingon).
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
2.6. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
Posted by: "Andreas Johansson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:04 am ((PDT))
Quoting Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Andreas Johansson skrev:
> > Quoting Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >
> >> Beijing is still _Peking_ ['pe:kiN] in Swedish.
> >
> > You'll also hear [be'jIN] based on the pinyin spelling. Don't ask me why
> the
> > accent changes.
>
> Because of the period when foreign
> words were assumed to be French is
> only 150 years gone, give or take
> 50 years.
Hm? Pinyin has only been around for fifty-odd years.
--
Andreas Johansson
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
2.7. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:12 am ((PDT))
On 2008-08-12 Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > Now why don't English people hear
> > > French words with final stress?
>
> We (well, if by "English" you mean "Anglophone") do. Why do you ask?
Because in English many French loanwords are pronounced
with initial stress. It doesn't surprise me WRT medieval
loans, but it happens even with recent loans like
"ménage", especially in British English, in fact.
/BP
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
2.8. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:39 am ((PDT))
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Because in English many French loanwords are pronounced
> with initial stress. It doesn't surprise me WRT medieval
> loans, but it happens even with recent loans like
> "ménage", especially in British English, in fact.
If you say so, but that's not been my experience. IME, "ménage" is
always /m@'nA(d)Z/, "croissant" is /cra'sant/ ~ /cwa'sA~?/ , etc.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
2.9. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:14 am ((PDT))
Benct:
Norrköping is pronounced ['pe:kiŋ]? What??
Also, Michael:
Does Omina lack fricatives? Because to substitute [dij] for [dʒ] seemed
quite counter-intuitive to me. Unless, of course, you meant / / by [ ] and
the sequence is pronounced the same way as the Welsh example you gave below.
To Mark:
[beɪtsɪŋ] is probably the closest pronunciation you can get using English
phonemes to the actual Mandarin reading, especially taking into account the
aspiration of the English /p/.
Eugene
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> Would /dzja:n/ be possible?
>
> In Swedish all foreign sounds spelled _j_ tend to
> become [j]. This was not always so: French words
> with [Z] used to get [S] or [x] depending on
> dialect. _Juste_ even got respelled _schyst_, as
> it was mainly a slang word.
>
> Beijing is still _Peking_ ['pe:kiN] in Swedish.
>
> Now explain why _Norrköping_ can also be
> pronounced ['pe:king]!
>
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
2.10. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:07 am ((PDT))
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Eugene Oh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [beɪtsɪŋ] is probably the closest pronunciation you can get using English
> phonemes to the actual Mandarin reading, especially taking into account the
> aspiration of the English /p/.
Thanks. :) But I would prefer to use the Mandarin phonemes; I'm just
bad at pronouncing some of them. :) I can handle the initial
unaspirated [p], but [ɕ], with or without the [t], eludes me.
(Actually, I don't even see it on the IPA chart; I'm assuming it's the
same sound represented by [ç]...)
Isn't pronouncing [tɕ] as [ts] considered an effeminate speech pattern?
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Re: Derived adpositions (< Linguistic term for ease of changing word
Posted by: "Dana Nutter" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:02 pm ((PDT))
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Henry
> >> I'm not sure yet what it would mean to convert an entity or
> >> quality root into a preposition.
>
> > I have derived prepositions in Sasxsek. The suffix "-u"
makes a
> > lexical into a preposition.
>
> Only one of these is relevant to the issue with säb zjeda.
> Others are concepts that are/would be lexicalized
> in säb zjeda by a relationship or process root anyway.
> But:
>
> > bon = good
> > bonu = for the benefit of; for the sake of
> > (benefactive)
>
> This makes sense; I could generalize that and say
> that a quality root > preposition transformation makes
> a prep. meaning "object of prep. has this quality with
> respect to the head of the prep. phrase". It might
> not work with all qualities/adjectives, but it would
> work with a fair subset, I reckon.
There is certainly a bit of a verbal quality to prepositions,
but they have a different function in the sentence which is to
mark the noun's relationship.
I could say:
mo hap dorav bonu lo. = I open the door for her.
"Her" here is not the thing being opened but the reason why I
opened it.
> At present I have the benefactive preposition derived
> from a process root for "help".
To me that would more along the lines of instrumental. S:S: has
a short preposition "ju" to mark the instrumental.
> That still leaves me with one transformation out of 20
> (entity root > preposition) that doesn't seem to make
> any sense. Note that some concepts that would be noun
> roots in other languages are relationship/preposition roots
> in säb zjeda, -- kinship terms for instance. Nouns for
> persons in such relationships to other persons are
> derived from the root preposition. All entity roots
> describe concepts that don't have an inherent
> relationship to some other entity. (E.g., "father/mother of"
> is a preposition root, "person" a noun root.)
>
> I guess I could kludge in something like " [obj of prep] is
> treated like/considered as [entity] by
> [head of prep phrase]", just to avoid having a
> gap in the system, but I don't like it.
Or a relative pronoun "X *who* is the father of Y ..."
I do have another adposition "lu" which roughtly means "called
by" to equate a common noun to a specific proper noun. If I say
"kat iu mo lu vladimir ..." it would be like "My cat, Vladimir
..."
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
3.2. Re: Derived adpositions (< Linguistic term for ease of changing word
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:42 am ((PDT))
> Dana Nutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have derived prepositions in Sasxsek. The suffix "-u" makes a
> lexical into a preposition.
The current list of Senjecan postpositions can be found at
wiki.frath.net/Senjecas_postpositions.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
3.3. Re: Derived adpositions (< Linguistic term for ease of changing word
Posted by: "David J. Peterson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:10 am ((PDT))
Charlie:
<<
The current list of Senjecan postpositions can be found at
wiki.frath.net/Senjecas_postpositions.
>>
Not quite:
<http://wiki.frath.net/Senjecan_postpositions>
:)
-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 (32)
________________________________________________________________________
3.4. Re: Derived adpositions (< Linguistic term for ease of changing word
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:36 am ((PDT))
David J. Peterson skrev:
> Charlie:
> <<
> The current list of Senjecan postpositions can be found at
> wiki.frath.net/Senjecas_postpositions.
> >>
>
> Not quite:
>
> <http://wiki.frath.net/Senjecan_postpositions>
Any reason Senjecan words are blue rather than italic?
They look an awful lot like hyperlinks, but aren't...
/BP
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
3.5. Re: Derived adpositions (< Linguistic term for ease of changing word
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:11 am ((PDT))
> "David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Not quite:
>
> <http://wiki.frath.net/Senjecan_postpositions>
Whoops! Sorry about that. They're in blue to set them apart from all
the words in English. I liked the look of the blue rather than that of
the other colors. I think that the blue of the hyperlink is a lighter
blue.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
3.6. Re: Derived adpositions (< Linguistic term for ease of changing word
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:31 am ((PDT))
caeruleancentaur skrev:
>> "David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Not quite:
>>
>> <http://wiki.frath.net/Senjecan_postpositions>
>
> Whoops! Sorry about that. They're in blue to set them apart from all
> the words in English. I liked the look of the blue rather than that of
> the other colors.
Why using color at all? The philological convention
is rather to use italics for the language under analysis.
Besides not everyone sees color alike, or at all!
A workable solution would be to create a template
{{Senjecan|}} to wrap around the relevant text strings,
implementing a CSS class .Senjecan which anyone can set
to show however they like in their user CSS.
I can help you with that if you give me a list of
pages where you have used the convention.
> I think that the blue of the hyperlink is a lighter
> blue.
Again not all eyes or all screens are created equal.
I for one have trouble seeing light blue against white,
so I have set hyperlinks to show as modal blue.
/BP
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
3.7. Re: Derived adpositions (< Linguistic term for ease of changing word
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:24 am ((PDT))
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:02 AM, Dana Nutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Henry
......
> mo hap dorav bonu lo. = I open the door for her.
>
> "Her" here is not the thing being opened but the reason why I
> opened it.
The person for whose good you opened it, or the person you
helped by opening it. The underlying semantics of the gzb or säb zjeda
equivalent would be something like "I opened the door helping
her" or "I opened the door to help her" instead of "I opened the
door for the good of her" as in Sasxsek, but any of them would be
rendered in English as "for her" I reckon.
>> At present I have the benefactive preposition derived
>> from a process root for "help".
>
> To me that would more along the lines of instrumental. S:S: has
> a short preposition "ju" to mark the instrumental.
gzb derives the main instrumental postposition from a root
noun {syj} meaning "using" (which also derives the verb "to use");
säb zjeda apparently doesn't have a lexicon entry for an
instrumental prep. yet but it would be (will be, now) derived
from "shpig", v. "to use".
I've long had another instrumental postp. in gzb for using
body parts and internal faculties (memory, imagination etc.)
in contrast to external tools and materials. I've recently experimented
with deriving another instrumental postp. for using materials
that get used up during a task as opposed to tools that
typically continue to be usable for future tasks, but I'm not
settled on it yet. I doubt I'll make a postpositional distinction
between different uses of materials as in "paint a landscape
with watercolors" vs. "wash the stove with Ajax"; the former
would prob. be expressed with a modifier in {-na}, "made of",
rather than an instrumental postposition of any kind.
>> That still leaves me with one transformation out of 20
>> (entity root > preposition) that doesn't seem to make
>> any sense. Note that some concepts that would be noun
>> roots in other languages are relationship/preposition roots
>> in säb zjeda, -- kinship terms for instance. Nouns for
>> persons in such relationships to other persons are
>> derived from the root preposition. All entity roots
>> describe concepts that don't have an inherent
>> relationship to some other entity. (E.g., "father/mother of"
>> is a preposition root, "person" a noun root.)
>> I guess I could kludge in something like " [obj of prep] is
>> treated like/considered as [entity] by
>> [head of prep phrase]", just to avoid having a
>> gap in the system, but I don't like it.
>
> Or a relative pronoun "X *who* is the father of Y ..."
But would that work with entity roots that don't describe
a relationship? And any concept that does involve
a relationship (like "father") will be lexicalized as a
relationship/preposition root in säb zjeda.
Maybe the entity > preposition typecast (to use
the term deprecated by Alex, though I don't know of
a better term for it yet) means something like
"[object of preposition] is an [entity] in some unspecified
genitive-like relationship to the head of the prep.
phrase". So xejom'e (cat-PREP) would mean
something like "the pet cat of", and so forth.
But more probably "pet", if it's lexicalized as a
word rather than a phrase, would be a relationship
root; a pet, unlike animals in general, is an animal
in a certain relationship to a specific human,
much as a father, unlike men in general, is a man
in a specific relationship to his child or children
and their mother.
> I do have another adposition "lu" which roughtly means "called
> by" to equate a common noun to a specific proper noun. If I say
> "kat iu mo lu vladimir ..." it would be like "My cat, Vladimir
> ..."
gzb has an "also known as" conjunction that links two
noun phrases describing the same entity, or two clauses
that describe the same situation from different perspectives.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4.1. Re: Linguistic term for ease of changing word-class (was: 'out-' aff
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:28 pm ((PDT))
Jim Henry skrev:
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Eldin Raigmore
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I know there are languages with no class of
>> adverbs distinct from their class of
>> adjectives; but aren't many "semantic cases"
>> (that is, cases other than "syntactic cases",
>> that show something other than the "grammatical
>> relations" of Subject, Object, or Indirect
>> Object) also "adverbial cases"? Isn't a noun in
>> a case other than Nominative, Accusative,
>> Dative, or Genitive, essentially an adverb? So,
>> the "changing of a noun into an adverb" is
>> likely to
>
> It seems to me that in a verb-drop language like
> gjâ-zym-byn, or a verbless language like Kelen,
> some such cases act more like verbs in other
> language than like adverbial phrases.
Somehow the plethora of verbal nouns in Classical
Mongolian also comes to mind...
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Benct Philip
> Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> genitive "of teeth". In the days when I was
>> actually reading and writing Esperanto (some 20
>> years ago now) i often felt that
>> adjectivization ('casting to adjective') and
>> the _de_ genitive often overlapped
>> semantically.
>
> That's true.
My gut feeling always was that the plain -a
derivation ought to mean 'pertaining to' and that
-eca ought to be used a lot more than it is.
>> Från: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>> Or "made of X" or "resembling, savoring of
>>> X" (though there's also the more specific
>>> "-eca" for that), or "for the benefit of X"
>>> or "suitable for X" or "originating from
>>> X"... Issues like these were why I came up
>>> with the set of adjective-deriving suffixes
>>> I did for gzb.
>> Would you mind to give a list of those
>> suffixes?
>
> The list here,
>
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/gzb/semantic-
> .htm#p43
>
> is reasonably complete, though there are a
> couple of suffixes added in the last year or two
> that aren't documented on the website yet. I'm
> planning to rewrite the whole section on
> derivational morphology (except the section on
> numbers, which I'm fairly satisfied with)
> instead of just continuing to patch it here and
> there; I want it to be better organized and it
> seems that it would be clearer with more focus
> on how gzb works in itself and fewer digressions
> comparing suffixes to Esperanto equivalents.
Yes, it seems a little awkward to suppose that
anyone interested in gzb should know Esperanto...
> I've been re-reading Claude Piron's _Le Defi des
> Langues_, in which he talks among other things
> about his experience as a translator at the UN
> and WHO; he says most of a translator's time is
> taken up with researching ambiguities in the
> source text in areas where the target language's
> grammar or semantics requires them to be more
> specific than the source language.
Yes it works both ways. As I said natlangs allow
for both vagueness and precision, but in a random
way, so that not all possible types allow for one
or the other. I feel handicapped all the time when
translating from English into Swedish by the fact
that English has a much larger pool of nouns and
adjectives (in principle any Latin word is a
potential English word) than Swedish, though that
is mostly a matter of stylistics. Sometimes
Swedish is more specific than English as when
there is no direct equivalent of "toothy"; you'd
have to say "tandaktig", "tandlik" or "full av
tänder". To be sure you could coin "tandig" but
it would have a strong bias towards meaning the
same thing as "tandaktig". BTW it would be very
hard to translate the difference between
"tandaktig" 'of a tooth-like nature" and "tandlik"
'similar to teeth' into English in a stylistically
equivalent manner.
>> Has someone made a list of such types, whether
>> actually distinguished in natlangs or
>> semantically distinguishable or logically
>> possible?
>
> I started making a stab at it here,
>
> http://conlang.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_derivatio-
> n_methods
>
> but it's still pretty incomplete. Y'all are
> welcome to add to it.
>
Ah, thanks! (Now maybe I'll have to dig up my
wikia password...)
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte
se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires
crient à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues
ni le soleil ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où
elles se *fixent*, c'est qu'elles meurent."
(Victor Hugo)
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
4.2. Re: Linguistic term for ease of changing word-class (was: 'out-' aff
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:26 am ((PDT))
On 2008-08-11 Alex Fink wrote:
> Or, indeed, for maximal communicative
> flexibility, as an interlingua would want, I'm
> with you that
>
> > >The best thing is to do as natlangs do: allow
> > >the sender to be either vague or precise as
> > >they see fit.
>
> though natlangs don't _explicitly_ do this; it
> can be harder than is really "reasonable" to be
> vague about certain things,
True. When pointing out that natlangs are randomly
precise I should also have pointed out that they
are randomly vague!
> like sex of a singular third-person
> pronominalised referent in standard English,
IME "one" or "they" works well in most cases, but
I agree that especially the latter isn't 100%
standard, yet.
> or tense.
Oh yes. There must be some cognitive reason why so
few natlangs have a finite verb form unmarked for
tense. Indeed it seems that if they have one then
they don't mark tense at all!
> But certainly speakers will find ways to be
> vaguer or preciser than the grammaticalised
> options the language affords, if they desire to;
> and I'd think any language would allow that,
> with enough circumlocution.
Of course any natlang can say most things with
enough circumlocution -- though I suspect
discussing quantum physics in Pirahã would leave
you unbearably vague most of the time!
> > >This said vague casting in an interlingua (be
> > >it an auxlang or a translation interlingua)
> > >which may be primarily used for non-
> > >conversational written communication is
> > >probably a bad thing.
>
> Sure, as usual, natlangs and engelangs tend to
> have different clarity standards.
I beg to point out that an engelang is any
language made to meet to specific design criteria
-- which criteria might be to work exactly like a
natlang. Now that might be an interesting
project...
> > >I guess one could analyse Esperanto so that
> > >there is only one noun _o_ and one adjective
> > >_a_ which compound with different verb roots
> > >to form the syntactic equivalent of nouns and
> > >adjectives in most natlangs, or rather such a
> > >usage would be possible under the
> > >minimalistic codified grammar of Esperanto,
> > >but does not agree with actual usage, which
> > >is much more influenced by (European)
> > >natlangs, so that in practice some roots are
> > >nominal or adjectival rather than verbal.
>
> Heh, that's a cute if bordering-on-the-absurd
> analysis. Why not say there's only one verb _i_
> as well?
Because the _i_ doesn't hang on through the
various inflexions of the verb.
Uncharacteristically for Esperanto as a whole its
verbal endings are portamanteau morphs. In a truly
agglutinating Esperanto I'd expect 'is' to be _est-i-
as_ rather than _estas_. Neither is 'are'
_estajs_. Ergo Esperanto is not really
agglutinating but fusional -- it only so happens
that only verbs really inflect and all other
apparent inflexion is really compounding or
derivation. -j is actually a determiner akin to
the correlative endings and -n is a postposition.
FWIW when I tried to reform Esperanto I tried to
make verbs more aglutinating by replacing the
verbal inflexions as follows.
| -i > -er
| -as > -ar
| -is > -ir
| -os > -ur
| -us, -u > -or
Notes:
1. The similarity of -Vr to Romance infinitive
endings and Scandinavian present endings was
not accidental!
2. The vowels still had a different meaning in
these -Vr morphemes than as sole vowel finals,
but in my youthful ignorance I could not or
would not find a solution to that.
3. -ur was choosen for the future because that
syllable was used to form the Latin future
participle (and the word "future")!
4. i) The derived -Vru endings formed actor
nouns. Guess what _aktoru_ or _aktaru_ meant!
ii) Similarly -Vro were "instrument" nouns,
iii) -Vra were action nouns and
iv) -Vri were active participles. In case
anybody wonders
v) -u was the ending for living beings,
vi) -o was the ending for concrete nouns and
vii) -a was the ending for abstract
nouns. They made a lot of fuss over
concrete and abstract nouns in
Swedish school grammar!
viii) -i was the adjective ending.
ix) And oh yeah, Esperanto -aro and -ero
were replaced by -ajo and -emo, so a
_fonema_ was 'an abstract element of
sound', while I'm afraid what linguists
call a 'phone' was _fonemo_, 'a concrete
element of sound'!
x) -s became the plural ending.
1. I don't know why I conflated imperative,
volitive, subjunctive and conditional under -
or. I don't think there was any great deal of
thinking behind it!
2. I was only sixteen years old, by which fact
this attempt to make Esperanto more logical
should be judged!
> > >At least in inflecting languages the
> > >difference would seem to be that an adjective
> > >is a derivation (possibly zero-derived from a
> > >root) and as such may be inflected (for case,
> > >number, gender...) while a genitive is an
> > >inflection and as such not further
> > >modifiable.
>
> Well, yes, but syntactically there are phenomena
> like suffixaufnahme to watch for, or on the
> other side there might be no inflection on
> adjectives even if other classes are highly
> inflecting.
Actually in a language like English the genitive
takes extra inflectional morphology unlike the
adjective. Perhaps the English genitive {z} can be
seen as a highly specialized adjective derivation,
which for whatever reasons doesn't need to be
preceded by an article!
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient
à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil
ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*,
c'est qu'elles meurent." (Victor Hugo)
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
4.3. Re: Linguistic term for ease of changing word-class (was: 'out-' aff
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:26 am ((PDT))
Eldin Raigmore wrote:
> BTW thanks for your posts on that thread!
>
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:04:29 +0200, Benct Philip Jonsson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [snip]
[snip]
>> How does "caste" differ from "cast" and "type" and
>> "word class" in your terminology? Instinctively
>> I'd say that "caste" may differ from "word class"
>> in that the former is semantically defined while
>> the latter is morphologically defined, but that's
>> just my mind trying to make sense of what to me is
>> an alien terminology.
>
> I probably mis-used the adverb "linguistically" in my original statement.
>
> "Caste" and "type" are (used by me above as) nouns,
Well, they are nouns in standard English :)
> and "cast" and "type" are (used by me above as) verbs.
'type' is, of course, also commonly used as a verb with various
meanings. As it has been observed, English often uses the same word in
different grammatical categories without affixing or any other modification.
'cast' was in its basic meaning verbal ("to throw or fling") and is not
etymologically related to "caste" - the latter being derived from
Portuguese 'casta' ("breed, race" <-- Latin adjective 'castus, casta,
castum' 'pure"), while the former is from Old Norse 'kasta' ("to throw").
'cast' came also to be used nominally to mean "act of throwing or
flinging" and has since come to develop a whole range of related
meanings. But one meaning it does not have is "caste" (a social class in
India; an exclusive social class).
> "Caste" is a linguistic term;
Is it? I find no mention of it as such by Larry Trask (A Dictionary of
Grammatical Terms in Linguistics) nor by David Crystal (A Dictionary of
Linguistics and Phonetics); nor can I find it mentioned by Thom Payne
(Describing Morphosyntax).
> it's linguistic meaning is derived from its meaning in
> sociology (cf. "the caste system in India").
...which in turn is derived from its meaning denoting the social
divisions in Indian Society.
> There are some Indian languages,
> including some Dravidian languages, in which some word-classes (nouns?
> verbs?) are divided into "castes"; the high-caste ones have a somewhat
> different morphosyntax than the low-caste ones.
This seems a bit vague. Are we talking about a system in which the
different registers found, for example, in English and, I guess, most
languages have become formalized? Or what? Can you give examples to make
this clearer?
> "Word-class" is a linguistic term, too; I used it almost as a synonym for
> "part-
> of-speech". I do not know what the difference is, if any, between "part-of-
> speech" and "word-class".
Let's try Larry Trask first of all:
PART OF SPEECH
"The traditional name for *lexical category*."
LEXICAL CATEGORY
"(also *part-of-speech*, *word class*) Any one of a dozen or so classes
into which the lexical items of a language are defined by their
morphological and syntactic behaviour, such as Noun, Verb, Adjective,
Determiner and Preposition. Traditional grammar recognized only about
eight parts of speech, but all current theories of grammar have found it
necessary to increase this number by the addition of such
non-traditional categories as Determiner, Degree Modifier and
Complementizer. There is as yet no complete consensus as to precisely
which lexical categories should be recognized, though the divergence of
views is not dramatic."
WORD CLASS
"See *lexical category*."
---------------------------------------
Now David Crystal:
PART OF SPEECH
"The TRADITIONAL term for a GRAMMATICAL CLASS of words. the main 'parts
of speech' recognized by most school grammarians derive from the work of
ancient Greek and Latin grammarians, primarily the NOUN, PRONOUN, VERB,
ADVERB, PREPOSITION, CONJUNCTION and INTERJECTION, with ARTICLE,
PARTICIPLE and others often added. Because of the inexplicitness with
which these terms were traditionally defined (e.g. the use of unclear
NOTIONAL criteria), and the restricted nature of their definitions
(reflecting the characteristics of Latin or Greek), LINGUISTS tend to
prefer such terms as WORD-class or FORM-class, where the grouping is
based on FORMAL criteria of more UNIVERSALLY applicable kind."
WORD CLASS
Crystal does not give a specific entry for "word class", but under the
heading WORD he does have:
"At a more specific level, *word-classes* can be established, by
analysing the various GRAMMATICAL, SEMANTIC and PHONOLOGICAL properties
displayed by the words in the language, and grouping them into classes
on the basis of formal similarities (e.g. their INFLECTIONS and
DISTRIBUTION)."
--------------------------------
Thus, as far Trask is concerned 'part of speech' and 'word class' are
indeed synonymous. But Crystal does make a distinction between the
traditional 'parts of speech' of western grammars derived from
Graeco-Latin models and 'word classes' derived from a more modern
linguistic analysis of language.
> Parts-of-speech don't exist in every computer-programming language; COBOL
> and related languages speak of "nouns" and "verbs", but not every computer-
> programming-language does so.
Do they exist in any in the way that they exist in natural languages? I
managed to avoid programming in COBOL.
I remember one of my students many years back complaining about COBOL;
he maintained that you had to write an essay to make anything happen!
The lad got quite excited at my Prolog classes and, indeed, became quite
proficient in the language. Good lad :-)
But we've discussed before on this list how far so-called programming
'languages' can really be considered language in the sense that natural
languages are and, indeed (most?) conlangs attempt to be. One has to
remember that so much terminology in computing is _metaphorically_
derived from human behavior; thus we talk about a computer's "memory"
and we speak of programs acting "intelligently." We even talk about
computers playing chess! They do nothing of the sort; it's merely that
clever programmers have devised a set of instructions that make the
machine simulate reasonably intelligent (i.e. non-random) responses.
Ben Schneiderman (Designing the User Interface) reminds us to overcome
"the obstacle of animism" and warns that "the metaphor and terminology
of human form can still mislead ..."
As those of us who have ever attempted compiler writing will know, a
programming 'language' is essentially a *code* which makes life easier
for the programmer but which is ultimately 'translated' (i.e. decoded)
into binary digits.
> "Type" and "cast" are computer-programming-language terms. "Variable"
> names are "typed" (here "type" is a verb) or given a "data-type" (here "type"
> is
> a noun).
[etc. snip]
This is all very true - but I am very skeptical how useful these notions
are when applied to human languages. Is it useful to say that English is
weakly typed but Russian is more strongly typed? And as for casting,
well ........
> My objection to Alex's use of the word "cast" was his apparent feeling that
> in
> deciding about datatypes for computer-programming-languages, you had to
> decide one was higher than the other in order to make a "typecasting"
> function.
I agree, that's one objection. My other objection is whether the
application of programming metaphors to the processes of natural
language is either valid or helpful. My gut feeling is that thinking of
parts of speech (or word classes) as datatypes, and of processes such
denominalization and deverbalization as 'casting' are misleading.
[snip]
>
> But I also disagree that "cast", in computer-programming-language
> terminology, has anything to do with any hierarchy.
>
> "Caste" has to do with hierarchy; "cast" does not.
I agree 100%. The two words are of different origin and are not connected.
> "Type" is a poor match for "word-class", in analogizing between natlangs and
> proglangs.
I agree entirely.
> "Type" is a much better match for "gender" or "noun-class".
In view of the very wide range of meanings that 'type' has, it is IMO
better avoided even in this context.
[snip]
>
>> [snip]
>> In German and the Scandinavian languages the
>> adverbal derivation coincides with the neuter
>> nominative singular of the adjective (which
>> happens to be a zero morpheme in German but not in
>> Scandinavian).
One finds this to a limited extend in ancient Greek and Latin (the
grammar books normally say its the accusative of the neuter; but as that
is _always_ identical to the nominative, it comes to the same thing). Is
this an inherited IE phenomenon?
[snip]
>> You are definitely on to something here -- cf.
>> what I said about semantic overlap between
>> adjectivization and genitive in Esperanto.
This has long been noted.
>> At least in inflecting languages the difference
>> would seem to be that an adjective is a derivation
>> (possibly zero-derived from a root) and as such
>> may be inflected (for case, number, gender...)
>> while a genitive is an inflection and as such not
>> further modifiable.
IIRC genitives that inflect like adjectives are found in some ancient IE
derived languages of Asia Minor. In Classical Latin we have _cuius_
/kujjus/ which may behave as an invariant genitive like _eius_ ,
_huius_, _unius_ etc, or may behave as an adjective with feminine _cuia_
and neuter _cuium_.
So I don't think the above is universally true.
[snip]
["zero-derivation"]
>>> This seems to be a peculiar ability of English,
>> Agreed. A function of the fact that English nouns,
>> adjectives and verbs have so little morphology.
>
> Maybe so.
This feature of English is also found in Chinese.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
4.4. Re: Linguistic term for ease of changing word-class (was: 'out-' aff
Posted by: "Andreas Johansson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:03 am ((PDT))
Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Eldin Raigmore wrote:
> > BTW thanks for your posts on that thread!
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:04:29 +0200, Benct Philip Jonsson
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [snip]
> [snip]
[snip]
> [snip]
> >
> >> [snip]
> >> In German and the Scandinavian languages the
> >> adverbal derivation coincides with the neuter
> >> nominative singular of the adjective (which
> >> happens to be a zero morpheme in German but not in
> >> Scandinavian).
>
> One finds this to a limited extend in ancient Greek and Latin (the
> grammar books normally say its the accusative of the neuter; but as that
> is _always_ identical to the nominative, it comes to the same thing). Is
> this an inherited IE phenomenon?
FWIW, Beekes* says that the accusatives of nouns and adjectives often served as
adverbs in PIE, citing examples in Greek, Latin, Gothic, Old Church Slavonic,
and Sanskrit.
Where does, incidentally, the neuter singular indefinite -t in Scandinavian
adjectives come from?
* Comparative Indo-European Linguistics, 1995, p217-8
--
Andreas Johansson
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Semantic typology?
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:23 am ((PDT))
I always felt something was wrong with the
compass directions in Sohlodar. Now I realize
that they are shifted 45 degrees
counterclockwise, so that I have:
| Kijeb | Sohlob | English | Direction
|-----------|-----------|-----------|----------
| kimra | kember | 'north' | NW
| yasa | yah | 'east' | NE
| stirkyu | istirdj | 'south' | SE
| styungwa | aesjtong | 'west' | SW
It makes perfect sense WRT local climate too,
where the 'north' and 'east' are both more arid
and desert-like than the 'west' and 'south'. I now
see that it is the NORTH which is dry and the
SOUTH which gets more rain. Since the 'south-west'
is temperate rather than tropical Sohlodar is
probably located on the southern hemisphere of its
planet. You learn something every day!
Carl Banks skrev:
> Andreas Johansson wrote:
>> Quoting Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> [snip]
>>>> Compass directions, maybe? I would assume any
>>>> language distinguishing roots for any of the
>>>> intercardinals should also distinguish some
>>>> for the
>>> cardinals.
>>>
>>> That's a sensible hypothesis. Do you know of
>>> any languages that have roots for the
>>> intercardinals rather than deriving them from
>>> cardinals?
>>
>> I recently read an old (1928) article by L.
>> Weibull which argued that in pre-Christian
>> Scandinavia, the "north", "east", "south",
>> "west" actually designated NE, SE, SW, and NW,
>> respectively. I haven't heard of the idea in
>> anything written in the eighty years since, so
>> I guess it didn't win academical acceptance,
>> but it does render more sensible some
>> geographical informations in viking age texts.
>
> At Penn State University, where the streets are
> aligned almost exactly diagonally (45 degrees)
> relative to the cardinal directions, everyone
> uses North, South, East, and West to refer to
> the street directions: north is actually
> northwest. The campus maps are even drawn with
> northwest to the top.
>
> This leads to oddities such as the North
> Residence Halls being at almost the same
> latitude as the South Residence Halls.
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: Semantic typology?
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:01 am ((PDT))
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I always felt something was wrong with the
> compass directions in Sohlodar. Now I realize
> that they are shifted 45 degrees
> counterclockwise
Hm. Maybe whoever designed the "North" and "South" towers here in CNN
Center was originally from Sohlodar! ;)
(See
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1+CNN+Center,+Atlanta,+GA+30303&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.664131,64.248047&ie=UTF8&ll=33.758188,-84.394419&spn=0.00281,0.003921&t=h&z=18
. The "North tower" faces Andrew Young International Blvd, while the
"South tower" faces Centennial Olympic Park Dr. Successful navigation
within the building requires realigning oneself to these faux cardinal
points, so that you know which way to go when you get off the elevator
to get to, e.g., my office on "8 Southeast".)
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. Re: Semantic typology?
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:14 am ((PDT))
Mark J. Reed skrev:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> I always felt something was wrong with the
>> compass directions in Sohlodar. Now I realize
>> that they are shifted 45 degrees
>> counterclockwise
>
> Hm. Maybe whoever designed the "North" and "South" towers here in CNN
> Center was originally from Sohlodar! ;)
But of course! I wonder how the temples of the Sun and Moon
-- being pyramids -- in Sohlel were oriented...
>
> (See
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1+CNN+Center,+Atlanta,+GA+30303&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=43.664131,64.248047&ie=UTF8&ll=33.758188,-84.394419&spn=0.00281,0.003921&t=h&z=18
> . The "North tower" faces Andrew Young International Blvd, while the
> "South tower" faces Centennial Olympic Park Dr. Successful navigation
> within the building requires realigning oneself to these faux cardinal
> points, so that you know which way to go when you get off the elevator
> to get to, e.g., my office on "8 Southeast".)
>
Messages in this topic (16)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
