There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: Eric Christopherson
1.2. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
1.3. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: Mark J. Reed
1.4. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: caeruleancentaur
1.5. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: Jim Henry
1.6. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: Eugene Oh
1.7. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: Eugene Oh
2a. Re: "Register" a grammatical term
From: ROGER MILLS
2b. Re: "Register" a grammatical term
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
2c. Re: "Register" a grammatical term
From: R A Brown
2d. Re: "Register" a grammatical term
From: Jim Henry
2e. Re: "Register" a grammatical term
From: R A Brown
3a. Re: Sibilants
From: taliesin the storyteller
3b. Re: Sibilants
From: Lars Mathiesen
4a. That's the thing about....
From: Jim Henry
4b. Re: That's the thing about....
From: Michael Poxon
4c. Re: That's the thing about....
From: caeruleancentaur
4d. Re: That's the thing about....
From: Scotto Hlad
5a. USAGE: writing the date in Chinese
From: Mark J. Reed
5b. Re: USAGE: writing the date in Chinese
From: Mark J. Reed
5c. Re: USAGE: writing the date in Chinese
From: Eugene Oh
5d. Re: USAGE: writing the date in Chinese
From: Aidan Grey
5e. Re: USAGE: writing the date in Chinese
From: Mark J. Reed
5f. Re: USAGE: writing the date in Chinese
From: Mark J. Reed
5g. Re: USAGE: writing the date in Chinese
From: Mark J. Reed
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:41 pm ((PDT))
On Aug 21, 2008, at 6:08 PM, ROGER MILLS wrote:
> David Peterson wrote:
>> <<
>> Hm, after listening to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
>> v=zmIXW8SGTek&feature=related , I am beginning to wonder if the
>> voiced h is a myth. Any comments?
>> >>
>>
>> What, the sound itself? I pronounce it all the time in the English
>> word "ahead".
>>
> Oh you californians :-)))) It's voiceless (for me) in words like
> that, but try this:
>
> Start with "aha"( voicelss h) then try to keep the glottis in the
> same shape (no glottal stop permitted), eliminate the /h/, keep two
> distinct syllables "a_a". That's what we were told in Phonetics
> class...............
The wikipedia article < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Voiced_glottal_fricative > is pretty interesting. Apparently it is
not usually a true fricative, and has no place of articulation, but
is instead a kind of disembodied phonation type... that much I knew,
but the article says that in some languages (e.g. Finnish) it
actually *is* a fricative. I still don't quite understand how it
could be, though.
Messages in this topic (159)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:46 pm ((PDT))
Lars Finsen skrev:
> Den 21. aug. 2008 kl. 18.23 skreiv Mark J. Reed:
>
>> Voiced [h] is IPA [ɦ], CXS [h\]. Still glottal
>> POA, vs velar [G].
>
> Weirder and weirder. This I'm not able to
> imitate at all. Guess I have to search YouTube
> or something and find some Czechs producing the
> name of their capital.
>
> LEF
>
/h/ usually is [h\] between vowels in Swedish, and
I can't imagine that Norwegian is any different in
this regard. It is not uncommon for sub-phonemic
distinctions to be very hard to make conscious, or
to reproduce sounds which are contextual
allophones in your L_1 'out of context'.
Perhaps you are trying to make [h\] too fricative.
It is actually a rather weak approximant.
BTW the rapid pronunciation of Swedish _behöva_
'to need' ['bh\2:v\a] is very handy when teaching
Swedes to pronounce breathy-voiced consonants!
/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 (159)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:10 am ((PDT))
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Ollock Ackeop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And, for the record, I do, in fact, usually pronounce Beijing as [bei_25
> dz\i(@)N_55] in English (yes, with the tones)
I can't do tones, so . . .:\
> -- just out of my natural OCD
> habit of using native pronunciations when they are fairly close to the
> accepted English pronunciation
I have the same natural tendency, but I attempt to fight it. :)
> (I don't do it for Mexico -- that's too much
> distance -- but many of the food loanwords I'll do, like [xalapEJO] and
> [kesaDiZa].)
I tend to the more authentic of the available Anglicizations:
[halapEnjo] rather than [halapinjo], for example, and yeah, that
initial [h] might come out as a [x] if I think I can get away with it
not being too obvious, likewise the [D] in "quesadilla". But it's
still a [ja] on the end rather than [j\a] or [Za] or [dZa]...
> *my real name = George Corley
So where does "Ollock Ackeop" come from, out of curiosity?
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (159)
________________________________________________________________________
1.4. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:29 am ((PDT))
> Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps you are trying to make [h\] too fricative. It is actually a
>rather weak approximant.
I seem to remember reading somewhere (sorry that I can't remember the
source) that /h/ was an unvoiced vowel. This seems logical to me since
my lips take the position of the following vowel when I say /h/.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (159)
________________________________________________________________________
1.5. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:11 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tend to the more authentic of the available Anglicizations:
> [halapEnjo] rather than [halapinjo], for example, and yeah, that
In what dialect is [halapEnjo] an anglicization? In my 'lect and some
other 'lects I'm familiar with /E/ does not occur before /n/,
it's realized as /Ej@/ in my 'lect and /&/ in some other 'lects.
But foreign words with /e/ or /E/ plus a nasal are more apt to
get borrowed with /in/ than /&n/, maybe, as in [h&[EMAIL PROTECTED]@].
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (159)
________________________________________________________________________
1.6. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:33 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Ollock Ackeop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simple phonetic transcriptions:
>
> Coca Cola = ke3 kou3 ke3 le4
> Ramada = hua2 mei3 da2 (question, are there actually anglophones who say
> /ra'mejd@/ instead of /ra'mad@/?)
> Virginia = fu1 jin1 ni1 ya4 _or_ wei4 ji1 ni1 ya4 (not sure on the tones)
> Canada = jia1 na2 da4
> Spain = xi4 ban2 ya2
It isn't very accurate to use commercial names, as their nativisation
involves harmonising commercial aims etc. as well. Coca Cola would have been
kou3 ke3 kou3 le4 until someone spotted the opportunity.
Also, many names are Sinicised not by using the modern Mandarin
pronunciation. There is no fixed way of Sinicisation: different names will
be Sinicised differently in China, in Hong Kong, in Taiwan and in Singapore
(though the official press in Singapore likes to use the PRC version if
known). How the name turns out depends on a few factors, such as
1. when the name was borrowed
2. who first borrowed the name
3. that person's familiarity with methods of Sinicisation, past examples and
Middle Chinese/an alternative Chinese lect to Mandarin.
(tones make no difference.)
For example, the name Jiānádà [tɕanata] for Canada is only so pronounced in
modern Mandarin. When it was borrowed the characters were pronounced
[kænata] in the . America was borrowed as [amilikæ], subsequently formalised
to [jamilikæ] and sound-shifted to [jamejlitɕa]. Unwieldiness in Mandarin
aside, potential confusion also (as always in Chinese) leads to abbreviation
with clarification: hence Měiguó, literally "jamejlitɕa (country)" and
Měizhōu, literally "jamejlitɕa (continent)".
The name "Washington" is now Huáshèngdùn [hwaɕəŋtwən], but when borrowed it
used to be [waɕiŋtun], and still is in Cantonese. "Sweden" is Ruìdiǎn
[ɻweitjæn] but used to be [switjɛn] and still is in Hokkien (Min-nan) and
Teochew.
>
>
> Repurposed phonetic approximations:
> (these are characters that seem to have started as part of a
> transliteration
> and have now taken on an association with a particular country)
>
> 英 ying1 "England, Britain"
> 美 me3 "America" -- in two different senses*
> 法 fa3 "France"
> 德 de2 "Germany"
>
> Add guo2 to any of those and you have the name of the country. Add wen2 or
> yu3 and you get the local language (probably only yu3 or maybe hua4 for
> "America", since we speak a dialect of English).
Yīngguó [jiŋkwɔ], strictly speaking, refers only to Yīnggélán [jiŋkɜlan]
(England), of which it is an abbreviation. There is scarce awareness or
concern that Britain is not synonymous with England (for reasons partially
historic, partially apolitical). The correct name for Britain is (in full)
Dà Bùlièdiān [ta puljɛtjɛn] "Great Britain" jí [tɕi] "cum" Běi Àiěrlán [pej
ajɤɻlan] "N. Ireland" Liánhé Wāngguó [ljanh wɑŋkwɔ] and (commonly) just
Bùlièdiān, though this name is hardly ever used, perhaps only for
contrasting Britain with England.
>
>
> *I say this because it can mean "America" as in "the Americas" and
> "America"
> as in "The United States". I got to wondering how Latinos learning Chinese
> might feel since Spanish uses "América" for all of the Americas, such that
> it's polite for people from the United States to identify themselves as
> "norteamericano" or "estadounidense" ("gringo" if you want to be informal
> and kinda funny) -- yet I have yet to see the full name "The United States
> of America" used ANYWHERE in Chinese -- even in the opening ceremony to the
> Olympics (granted, we don't use the full names of ALL the countries in
> English either -- I've never seen "The United Mexican States" in a walk of
> nations -- and the Chinese announcer at the Beijing opening ceremonies
> announced China as simply "Zhongguo" rather than
> "zhong1hua2ren2min2gong1he2guo2" -- despite the English and French
> announcers used the whole name).
Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó tends to be used in official situations, like
summits, or where a distinction is favourable against Taiwan. The name
Yǎměilìjiā is archaic except very rarely in Hong Kong or unless the
publisher has a predilection for it.
>
>
> Anyway -- to the point. Eventually, I saw a world map in Chinese and, lo
> and behold, the United States was marked as mei3guo2, while the continents
> are bei3mei3zhou1 and nan2mei3zhou1 (_north "America" continent_ and _south
> "America" continent_, respectively). There, problem solved (aside from the
> possibility that maybe one over-sensitive South American might learn
> Chinese
> and INSIST that it's politically incorrect, but I haven't heard of any
> cases
> yet).
>
> Wow, my footnote was two paragraphs. Damn.
>
As I mentioned above, the abbreviations are now proper words in themselves.
Yǎfēilìjiā [jafeilitɕa] has also now been shortened to Fēizhōu (guess
where), as has Yàxìyà [jaɕia] to Yàzhōu, etc. etc.
One curiosity that I have never figured out (not that I thought much about
it) was where the extra syllable in the Chinese name for Russia (Éluósī
[ɤlwɔs̩]) came from.
Eugene
Messages in this topic (159)
________________________________________________________________________
1.7. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:42 am ((PDT))
The post concerned is only true for quick, casual, colloquial speech. The
<j> is not pronounced as a fricative because the lenition in this case is to
aid speech speed, which fricativisation does not help.
The example of bǐjiào given is true, however, for all varieties of Mandarin,
and other such cases include zhèyàng "like this" > jiàng, or zhèbiān "on
this side" > jiān. But it is only in casual speech. It is not part of a
sound-change, and so the altered pronunciation hardly counts yet.
Particularly not to be imitated by a foreigner trying to enunciate
carefully! No one will understand.
Eugene
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Eric Christopherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> I found a post on Language Log saying that there is quite a bit of medial
> consonant lenition in spoken Mandarin, but unfortunately it doesn't mention
> at all whether the <j> is ever pronounced as a fricative.
>
> < http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=502 >
>
Messages in this topic (159)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: "Register" a grammatical term
Posted by: "ROGER MILLS" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:07 pm ((PDT))
Dana Nutter wrote:
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Henry
>
> > I think it's in _La Bona Lingvo_ that Claude Piron wrote that
>the only
> > think keeping Indonesian from being easier than Esperanto for
>the
> > average person for whom Esperanto's phonology is a problem is
> > its complex formal/informal pronoun system.
>
>Most of my creations are auxlangs so Indonesian and other
>Austronesian languages did grab my attention when I first
>started looking at them. I actually have to agree about the
>simplicity factor. Indonesian really only has a couple of
>difficulties, one being the issue of formal and honorific forms,
>and the other being the use of measure words.
Most of the honorifics are falling by the wayside, I suspect, or occur only
in formal situations. "Saya" 'I' is actually an old humble form (< Skt.
slave IIRC); "beliau" more formal for 3d pers. than dia-- all but gone I
think. The two 'we's' Kami/kita, and 3d pl. mereka live on and have no
formal/infomral connotations.
The only problem was 2nd pers. Engkau (sg.) and kamu (pl) are definitely
intimate (family and close friends). They introduced "saudara" 'brother' <
skt. early on, but I gather it's in disrepute now; mostly I think you just
use bapak ~pak 'father' (+/- name or title, like Presiden, Jendral,
Profesor) ~ ibu, bu 'mother'. There is a word for 'unmarried girl/woman'
but usually the assumption is that you're married ;-))). I recall hearing
"anda" in very neutral situations (e.g. announcements on the train 'please
proceed to the dining car so that anda may enjoy anda's dinner'), but
everyone (30 years ago!!) thought it was really silly and sorta
mush-mouthed. Recently I see it in Indonesian spam :-(((((
Probably my last pronouncement for a while. Bye-bye........
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: "Register" a grammatical term
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:38 pm ((PDT))
On 2008-08-21 ROGER MILLS wrote:
> I've been meaning to say: I think "style(s)"
> and/or "level(s)" have sometimes been used.
I don't like "style", as there are (as far as we
know ATM) no special open-class vocabulary
associated with these pronominal/verbal
distinctions, and one may want to reserve this
word for what is more commonly referred to as
matters of style.
"Level" might work in English, but its Swedish
translation _nivå_ doesn't feel right in this
context at all (although Andreas may differ on
this point...).
Since the meaning of "register" as a grammatical
term is at least moot I now feel that I can
actually use it.
> BTW, except for dual number, all the
> distinctions you mention above exist in
> Malay/Indonesian (and in Kash, though most of
> the high-level forms are falling into disuse),
> and most certainly in Javanese, which in many
> cases even has distinct vocabulary depending on
> familiar - respectful - ultra-respectful. And I
> think some special vocab for use in the palaces
> of the few remaining Sultans, and when referring
> to the pre-Islamic gods.
I know. The presence of an inclusive/exclusive in
a language which otherwise relies so heavily on
Indo-European and European models has always been
a bit puzzling. I have long suspected that Tolkien
in his youth came across some book about, or
mention in a book about, these distinctions in
some Indonesian language, possibly Javanese, and
been intrigued by them.
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __
A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
__ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
\ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
/ / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
/ /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Roccondil\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
/_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
|| Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: "Register" a grammatical term
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:16 am ((PDT))
ROGER MILLS wrote:
> BP Jonsson wrote:
> ...The problem I have is a
>> very practical one: under one interpretation of
>> one of the many sketches of the Quenya pronominal
>> system which Tolkien left behind the pronouns make
>> the following distinctions, cutting across the
>> three numbers singular, plural and dual:
>>
>> | Person
>> | 1. inclusive 'we and you'
>> | 1. exclusive 'we but not you'
>> | 2. familiar 'thou, you'
>> | 2. polite 'sir(s), ma'am'
>> | 2. reverent 'My Lord(s)/Lady(-ies)'
>> | (when talking to him/her/them)
>> | 3. animate 's/he'
>> | 3. reverent 'my lord(s)/lady(-ies)'
>> | (when talking about them)
>> | 3. inanimate 'it'
>> | 3. impersonal '(it)'
>> | reflexive '-self'
[snip]
>
> I've been meaning to say: I think "style(s)" and/or "level(s)" have
> sometimes been used.
Maybe - but "style" does have a very wide range of other meanings. I
find in Trask that "level" is used as a linguistic term both in
derivational theory of grammar and non-derivational theories. The
definitions mention things like D-structure, S-Structure & Logical Form
(derivational theory), and e-structures and f-structures
(non-derivational theories). It's all a long way from what BPJ has in mind.
I find that SIL calls the feature BPJ refers to as "social deixis", cf:
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsSocialDeixis.htm
Crystal also uses the term "social deixis", though it doesn't appear in
Trask's dictionary.
-----------------------------------
Jim Henry wrote:
[snip]
> ....... It was in a context, I think, where
> he was arguing against revival of the obsolete-almost-as-soon-as-
> the-language-was-born intimate pronoun "ci".
It came across it in a book I came across in 1949 or thereabouts. I have
no idea whether any Esperantists still used it or not. But in text books
it seems to lived on for some time, if not in actual use.
> (He argues, IIRC,
> that Zamenhof put the intimate pronoun in to satisfy certain speakers
> of languages with formal/informal pronouns who would complain
> if it were absent, but deliberately gave it an unpleasant sound
> so no one would actually us it for very long.)
What's unpleasant about _ci_ [tsi]? To me it sounds no more or less
unpleasant than _vi_ or any of the other personal pronouns.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: "Register" a grammatical term
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:41 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 5:16 AM, R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Henry wrote:
> [snip]
>> ....... It was in a context, I think, where
>> he was arguing against revival of the obsolete-almost-as-soon-as-
>> the-language-was-born intimate pronoun "ci".
>
> It came across it in a book I came across in 1949 or thereabouts. I have no
> idea whether any Esperantists still used it or not. But in text books it
> seems to lived on for some time, if not in actual use.
I wasn't around in 1949, but my impression is that it had long since
dropped out of actual use by then. I think current introductory textbooks
tend to not mention it at all, or say it's occasionally (rarely) used
in poetry. (Piron argues against its use in poetry on more or less
wordsworthian grounds, as against other literary words that aren't used
in everyday spoken Esperanto.)
>> (He argues, IIRC,
>> that Zamenhof put the intimate pronoun in to satisfy certain speakers
>> of languages with formal/informal pronouns who would complain
>> if it were absent, but deliberately gave it an unpleasant sound
>> so no one would actually us it for very long.)
>
> What's unpleasant about _ci_ [tsi]? To me it sounds no more or less
> unpleasant than _vi_ or any of the other personal pronouns.
Piron's lamatyave, I reckon. /t_s/ sounds to me a bit less
pleasant than some other affricates, but not as unpleasant
as a lot of other phonemes. A quick look at the words
starting with |c| /t_s/ in my gzb dictionary reveals no strong
phonaesthetic commonality among them.
I can't quote Piron exactly because I loaned the book
out some years ago and never got it back. So it's possible
I'm misremembering exactly what he said.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang/fluency-survey.html
Conlang fluency survey -- there's still time to participate before
I analyze the results and write the article
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: "Register" a grammatical term
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:47 am ((PDT))
Jim Henry wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 5:16 AM, R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Jim Henry wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> ....... It was in a context, I think, where
>>> he was arguing against revival of the obsolete-almost-as-soon-as-
>>> the-language-was-born intimate pronoun "ci".
>> It came across it in a book I came across in 1949 or thereabouts. I have no
>> idea whether any Esperantists still used it or not. But in text books it
>> seems to lived on for some time, if not in actual use.
>
> I wasn't around in 1949, but my impression is that it had long since
> dropped out of actual use by then.
The book was older - I think it was almost certainly pre-WWII. I found
it one day when I was rummaging around in my grandparents' attic. It had
a great influence on the conlangs I churned out in my teens ;)
[snips]
>>> (He argues, IIRC,
>>> that Zamenhof put the intimate pronoun in to satisfy certain speakers
>>> of languages with formal/informal pronouns who would complain
>>> if it were absent, but deliberately gave it an unpleasant sound
>>> so no one would actually us it for very long.)
>> What's unpleasant about _ci_ [tsi]? To me it sounds no more or less
>> unpleasant than _vi_ or any of the other personal pronouns.
>
> Piron's lamatyave, I reckon. /t_s/ sounds to me a bit less
> pleasant than some other affricates, but not as unpleasant
> as a lot of other phonemes.
Indeed not. When one considers that Esperanto has _scii_ [stsi.i] "to
know", I find _ci_ by contrast easy and inoffensive. In any case, what
else would Zamenhof have chosen? I guess the most obvious would have
been _ti_ (like Welsh :)
But _ti-_ was already employed as a demonstrative stem. I assume
Zamenhof turned to his native Polish where in the oblique cases of _ty_
(thou), the initial _t_ becomes _c_ [ts] before _i_, so for example the
genitive is _ciebie_ (cf, dative: tobie). It seems a sensible enough
solution to me if one wants such a pronoun.
I would guess _ci_ fell out of use simple because the egalitarian spirit
among early Esperantists.
[snip]
>
> I can't quote Piron exactly because I loaned the book
> out some years ago and never got it back.
I've lost a few books that way too :)
> So it's possible I'm misremembering exactly what he said.
No worries
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Sibilants
Posted by: "taliesin the storyteller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:23 am ((PDT))
* Henrik Theiling said on 2008-08-21 15:16:23 +0200
> David McCann writes:
> > /../ and my utter bafflement as to why people are still using
> > it after a decade of Unicode and configurable keyboards.
>
> That's simple:
>
> b) I am still using my beloved Emacs for reading this list
> and Emacs still has no decent Unicode support. Shame,
> but that's reality. So I often do not see what you guys
> are writing here in IPA, depending on the mood of my
> Emacs.
I have a 100% UTF-8 system here, and that includes vim...
C'mon, you asked for it: when someone says "emacs" the laws of the
unverse demands that someone counters with "vim", or the universe might
cease to be...
The real petty is that I have to stick to Linux these days as the UTF-8
support in the BSDs is *still* flaky.
t., who when mailing from nvg.org uses mutt+vim
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Sibilants
Posted by: "Lars Mathiesen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:21 am ((PDT))
2008/8/22 taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The real petty is that I have to stick to Linux these days as the UTF-8
> support in the BSDs is *still* flaky.
Tsk. I had great plans about six years ago for fixing that in FreeBSD
and forcing it down their collective throat, but then I got married
instead.
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. That's the thing about....
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:51 am ((PDT))
How would your conlangs translate the English idiom "That's the thing
about X..."?
It seems pragmatically to be, among other things, an affirmative response when
someone has made an observation about something, and you reply with this
saying their observation is generalizable to all X where X is a superset of the
specific thing/situation they were talking about. Or you use it to
preface a general
observation about all X.
I've heard a very similar expression used in Esperanto, "Tio estas la
afero pri X...";
I'm not sure how common it is or if it's an anglicism (usonianism?) to
be avoided.
In gjâ-zym-byn I think I would render it as,
X ŝu-i Φĭ hum-ga-bô gǒ.
X property-of quality deep-METAPH-ADJ behold
Behold an important quality of X.
or, depending on the context and semantic details of the specific use of
said idiom to be translated, maybe
X ŝu-i hu gǒ.
X property-of essence behold
Behold the essence of X.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: That's the thing about....
Posted by: "Michael Poxon" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:45 pm ((PDT))
Mmm... well my lect (RP, I suppose!) doesn't have this expression at all,
never mind conlang... I think this must be an Americanism that hasn't quite
made it over her unscathed.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 6:49 PM
Subject: That's the thing about....
How would your conlangs translate the English idiom "That's the thing
about X..."?
I'm not sure how common it is or if it's an anglicism (usonianism?) to
be avoided.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: That's the thing about....
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:26 pm ((PDT))
> Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How would your conlangs translate the English idiom "That's the
> thing about X..."? It seems pragmatically to be, among other
> things, an affirmative response when someone has made an
> observation about something, and you reply with this saying their
> observation is generalizable to all X where X is a superset of the
> specific thing/situation they were talking about. Or you use it to
> preface a general observation about all X.
Off the top of my head:
Senjecas has an adjectival suffix -mh- (/m_0/) which means pertaining
to, characteristic of, of the nature of.
I would affix -mh- to the X in question and then make the word into
an abstract noun in -as, but use the partitive genitive -âsyo.
His dog bit me.
núsyo tswônes mum per dzêmva.
he-GEN.SG dog-NOM.SG I-ACC.SG past.particle bite-IND
That's the thing about dogs.
nos tswon-mh-âsyo êsa.
that-NOM.SG dog-pertaining.to-GEN.SG be-IND
That is of-dogs.
The noun tswônmhas could be translated as 'dog pertaining to thing.'
Charlie
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: That's the thing about....
Posted by: "Scotto Hlad" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:47 pm ((PDT))
Following along with the example, in Pilovese it would look like:
Sinh cin mi rodia.
(His dog me bit [imperf])
Lis cinis en comou lis cinis.
(Dogs are like dogs)
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
caeruleancentaur
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 1:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: That's the thing about....
> Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How would your conlangs translate the English idiom "That's the
> thing about X..."? It seems pragmatically to be, among other
> things, an affirmative response when someone has made an
> observation about something, and you reply with this saying their
> observation is generalizable to all X where X is a superset of the
> specific thing/situation they were talking about. Or you use it to
> preface a general observation about all X.
Off the top of my head:
Senjecas has an adjectival suffix -mh- (/m_0/) which means pertaining
to, characteristic of, of the nature of.
I would affix -mh- to the X in question and then make the word into
an abstract noun in -as, but use the partitive genitive -âsyo.
His dog bit me.
núsyo tswônes mum per dzêmva.
he-GEN.SG dog-NOM.SG I-ACC.SG past.particle bite-IND
That's the thing about dogs.
nos tswon-mh-âsyo êsa.
that-NOM.SG dog-pertaining.to-GEN.SG be-IND
That is of-dogs.
The noun tswônmhas could be translated as 'dog pertaining to thing.'
Charlie
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. USAGE: writing the date in Chinese
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:43 am ((PDT))
The subject line says it all. How does one write out the date when
writing Chinese?
If I were guessing, I would write out today's date as 2008 (in some
set of numerals), followed by the glyph for "year" (Mandarin "nian2"),
followed by 8, followed by the glyph for "month"/"moon" (Mandarin
"yue4"?), followed by 22, followed by the glyph for "sun"/"day"
(Mandarin "tai4yang2"?):
2008 年 08 月 22 日
or, to use the native numerals:
二千八年八月廿二日
So please correct me if I'm wrong about that. But even if I'm right,
then suppose I were to switch to the traditional lunisolar calendar.
That introduces two complications:
First there's the whole "how do I designate the year?" question. If I
use the non-traditional continuous numbering in common use in the West
and say that this is year 4705, that would presumably follow the same
pattern, though I wonder where an era marker would go if I wanted to
be explicit about the fact that I'm using (one of the) Huang-di eras.
But if I wanted to say that it's the stem-branch year wù-zǐ, would I
just write 戊子年?
Second: leap months. How would I refer to, say, "leap month 5" as
opposed to the preceding non-leap month 5?
Any help appreciated.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: USAGE: writing the date in Chinese
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:46 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 二千八年八月廿二日
Whups, that first character should be 兩, not 二. I always forget about
that rule.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. Re: USAGE: writing the date in Chinese
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:57 am ((PDT))
1. That would actually be 二○○八年, or, to use the full glyphs, 二零零八年, in
common parlance. You can of course also say 兩千零八年, which people do say, but
run the risk of ambiguity between 2008 and "2008 years". Note the líng.
2. Wùzǐnián is correct.
3. The third year of the Guangzong era = Guāngzōng sān nián 光宗三年
n.b. except the first year, which is referred to as yuán nián 元年
4. Leap May = Rùn wǔ yuè 潤五月. 潤月 = leap month
Eugene
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 2:46 AM, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 二千八年八月廿二日
>
> Whups, that first character should be 兩, not 二. I always forget about
> that rule.
>
> --
> Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
5d. Re: USAGE: writing the date in Chinese
Posted by: "Aidan Grey" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:33 pm ((PDT))
I think you had it right the first time - calendars always say "二" anyway. I
believe (my chinese is rusty) that 兩 is only used for actual objects and
pairs...
----- Original Message ----
From: Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 12:46:49 PM
Subject: Re: USAGE: writing the date in Chinese
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 二千八年八月廿二日
Whups, that first character should be 兩, not 二. I always forget about
that rule.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
5e. Re: USAGE: writing the date in Chinese
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:45 pm ((PDT))
2008/8/22 Aidan Grey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think you had it right the first time - calendars always say "二" anyway.
> I believe (my chinese is rusty) that 兩 is only used for actual objects and
> pairs...
Well, my Chinese is less than rusty since I don't actually know
Chinese. :) But based on the descriptions I've read, for spelling out
numbers such as "two thousand" you use 兩 instead of 二, which is only
used for 2, 20 (if you don't use the separate symbol that means 20 all
by itself) and optionally 200, which can go either way.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
5f. Re: USAGE: writing the date in Chinese
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:48 pm ((PDT))
2008/8/22 Aidan Grey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I think you had it right the first time - calendars always say "二"
I imagine the calendars use the simple series of bare digits as Eugene
did and as we do in English, e.g. "2008" - which I didn't know you
could do in Chinese. :) What I was doing was more analogous to
writing out "two thousand eight".
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
5g. Re: USAGE: writing the date in Chinese
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:46 pm ((PDT))
(snip helpful reply from Eugene)
Thank you for the very informative reply! A follow-on question: one
thing I might do in English is include additional desgnations as a
parenthetical: "4705 (wù-zǐ, yáng, earth rat)". Is there an
analogous construct in written Chinese?
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (7)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
