There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Tonal inflection?
From: Dana Nutter
1b. Re: Tonal inflection?
From: Jim Henry
1c. Re: Tonal inflection?
From: deinix nxtxr
2.1. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: Jim Henry
2.2. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: deinx nxtxr
2.3. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: Mark J. Reed
3a. Re: Hebrew waw consecutive
From: J R
4a. Re: Ebb and flow
From: Philip Newton
5a. Help with grammatical term
From: Fredrik Ekman
5b. Re: Help with grammatical term
From: deinx nxtxr
5c. Re: Help with grammatical term
From: Mark J. Reed
6a. Re: Nutrition and pleasurable sense data
From: Philip Newton
6b. Re: Nutrition and pleasurable sense data
From: Philip Newton
7a. Re: Semantic typology?
From: Philip Newton
8a. Re: TAN: Day of the Republic.
From: Philip Newton
9a. painting the door green
From: René Uittenbogaard
9b. Re: painting the door green
From: Mark J. Reed
9c. Re: painting the door green
From: deinx nxtxr
9d. Re: painting the door green
From: Lars Finsen
9e. Re: painting the door green
From: Alex Fink
10.1. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
From: Philip Newton
10.2. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
10.3. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
From: Philip Newton
11.1. Re: Linguistic term for ease of changing word-class (was: 'out-' aff
From: Philip Newton
12a. Re: TECH: info on ftp
From: Philip Newton
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Tonal inflection?
Posted by: "Dana Nutter" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:26 pm ((PDT))
On 8/20/08, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I like the idea of tones for the comparatives. I could do that
> > too maybe though I'm leaning toward not having adjectives and
> > using stative verbs.
>
> Stative verbs would need to have some way of being compared,
> too. I don't know if languages with stative verbs and no separate
> class of adjectives typically have morphological comparatives
> or tend to use particles instead.
This is still just an experiment. I think maybe I'll try the
comparative tone. Maybe 55 for the superlative and 35 or 31 (more,
less) for comparatives.
> > This whole thing is just an idea I'm playing with, I don't
> > realistically expect the language to be something speakable,
> > especially with the huge number of distinctions I'm making. I'm
> > experimenting with the idea of economizing speech. I figure
> > tonal contours, roundedness and position alone will give me a
>
> Don't forget nasality and length (maybe three degrees of length
> as in Estonian?).
Yes, I have length and nasality included too.
> With about 15 basic vowels (not all the ones on the IPA chart, but a subset
> that should be comparatively easy to distinguish) times 2 for oral/nasal,
> times 3 for length, times ... hmm... let's modestly say 5 tones, you've
> got 450 syllable nuclei, not counting possible syllabic consonants
> (maybe 5 nasals and 3 lateral approximants, times 3 lengths and 5
> tones, another 120 nuclei).
I just need to decide on how many articulation points I want to use.
It will probably be at least 7. Figuring nasality, roundedness, and a
long-short distinction will give 56 possibilities, then multiply that
by the number of tonal contours which should be at least 7 (rising,
falling, high, low, medium, rising-falling, falling-rising)
> (Could the lateral approximants be nasalized and still sound
> distinct from regular nasal consonants in the corresponding POA?)
Good question, but while we're discussing this, it reminds me I could
also have prenasalized stops too.
Now for consonants. I could have maybe four articulations points:
labial, alveolar, velar, and uvular. Each will have a stops,
fricatives, implosives, clicks. Then figure in voicing, aspiration
and palatization just for a start. Given enough options, I could
pack a lot into a syllable.
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Tonal inflection?
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:29 pm ((PDT))
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Dana Nutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is still just an experiment. I think maybe I'll try the
> comparative tone. Maybe 55 for the superlative and 35 or 31 (more,
> less) for comparatives.
If you have distinct superlative and comparative (I do without
a morphological distinction in gzb, letting context disambiguate),
wouldn't you need four tone contours, for most/more/less/least? -- and
maybe a fifth tone contour for equality comparison (as X as Y)?
> Now for consonants. I could have maybe four articulations points:
> labial, alveolar, velar, and uvular. Each will have a stops,
Why not palatal? I find palatal consonants a good deal easier
to pronounce than uvular, and they sound to my ear more
distinct from alveolar consonants than velar do from uvular.
Retroflexes are a bit harder, but still easier than uvular, though
I'm not sure they sound distinct enough from palatals and
alveolars to pack them all in to the same engelang.
> fricatives, implosives, clicks. Then figure in voicing, aspiration
But not nasals or approximants? Interesting.
> and palatization just for a start. Given enough options, I could
OK, so palatal consonants would occur as palatalizations of
the velars or alveolars...? Consider labialization as well.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Tonal inflection?
Posted by: "deinix nxtxr" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:27 pm ((PDT))
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Henry
> If you have distinct superlative and comparative (I do without
> a morphological distinction in gzb, letting context
disambiguate),
> wouldn't you need four tone contours, for
most/more/less/least? -- and
> maybe a fifth tone contour for equality comparison (as X as
Y)?
Yes, there could maybe be a flat 33 for "equal" or "same".
> > Now for consonants. I could have maybe four articulations
points:
> > labial, alveolar, velar, and uvular. Each will have a
stops,
>
> Why not palatal? I find palatal consonants a good deal easier
> to pronounce than uvular, and they sound to my ear more
> distinct from alveolar consonants than velar do from uvular.
> Retroflexes are a bit harder, but still easier than uvular,
though
> I'm not sure they sound distinct enough from palatals and
> alveolars to pack them all in to the same engelang.
Palatization will be a separate feature. I have to organize it
in a manner where the function of a particular property doesn't
get lost somewhow.
>
> > fricatives, implosives, clicks. Then figure in voicing,
aspiration
>
> But not nasals or approximants? Interesting.
Nasality could disrupt the usage of voicing, but it's still a
possibility. I'm not sure I could fit approximants into the
scheme.
> > and palatization just for a start. Given enough options, I
could
>
> OK, so palatal consonants would occur as palatalizations of
> the velars or alveolars...? Consider labialization as well.
Labialization wouldn't work well when we already have labial
consonants like /p b P B/ and maybe /m/. Glottalization maybe?
I'm just sort of "thinking aloud" right now. I still have some
planning to do before I start piecing together a language, even
if it's a humanly impossible one.
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:41 pm ((PDT))
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Ollock Ackeop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:10:49 -0400, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>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]@].
> I think it's more often [h{l@'pejnjo]. It's common for English speakers to
> take Spanish [E] to [ej], since it occurs in places where [E] just doesn't
> work for many English speakers.
In most contexts foreign /e/ goes to /ej/, and in some contexts
/E/ goes to /ej/, but I don't think I've heard [h&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
around here; sometimes [h&[EMAIL PROTECTED] rather than
[h&[EMAIL PROTECTED]@], maybe.
> To summarize (before I get too much off topic garbage in here), my pseudonym
> is from a character in a game I no longer play who has evolved in my head to
My username on Yahoo and several other systems, jack_longshadow,
comes from a character I played in two very short live-action RPGs,
the most recent of which can't have been later than 1997. (His shadow
was always several times longer and wider than other people of the
same height and build in the same lighting conditions, because he'd
acquired several other people's shadows and stuck them onto his
own. I've thought off and on about writing a story about him but have
never yet worked out a good enough plot.)
--
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 (166)
________________________________________________________________________
2.2. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "deinx nxtxr" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:30 pm ((PDT))
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Henry
> >>> 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]@].
>
> > I think it's more often [h{l@'pejnjo]. It's common for
> English speakers to
> > take Spanish [E] to [ej], since it occurs in places where
> [E] just doesn't
> > work for many English speakers.
>
> In most contexts foreign /e/ goes to /ej/, and in some
contexts
> /E/ goes to /ej/, but I don't think I've heard
[h&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> around here; sometimes [h&[EMAIL PROTECTED] rather than
> [h&[EMAIL PROTECTED]@], maybe.
It's [h{lapenjoU] or [hAlapenjoU] for me, no diphthongization of
the /e/.
Messages in this topic (166)
________________________________________________________________________
2.3. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:28 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I tend to the more authentic of the available Anglicizations:
>> [halapEnjo] rather than [halapinjo]
> In what dialect is [halapEnjo] an anglicization?
Sorry, meant slashes there. And the /E/ is probably more like /ej/.
The thorough Anglicization is something like [h&[EMAIL PROTECTED])njoU] or some
such; I just meant that I use an /e/-ish vowel rather than an /i/-ish
one.
> /E/ does not occur before /n/
It does in my 'lect; "hen", "pen", etc. have no diphthongalization...
Where [E] can't occur for me is before /g/ or /N/.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (166)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Hebrew waw consecutive
Posted by: "J R" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 4:41 am ((PDT))
There are indeed sometimes differences between the two, in both vocalism and
stress. Also, the prefix itself is not always identical to that for 'and'.
When added to the suffix conjugation, the two are identical, with the same
range of allomorphy. But before the prefix conjugation, it is /wa/ (or /wa:/
before /?/ in the 1st sing.), with gemination of the following consonant
(unless it's /j/). /wa/ and /wa:/ happen to be both allomorphs of the normal
'and' morpheme, but the distribution is different, and it never triggers
gemination.
To answer Eric's question in the original thread, you CANNOT use the two
together. The waw-prefixed form must be used at the beginning of a sentence,
even if the meaning 'and' is not intended. But when you actually want to say
'and', you do not have the choice of using a normal verb form or a waw-form.
Since the waw is already there for 'and', you have to use the inverted form
of the verb; and in such a case, the one waw does double duty, serving both
as a conjunction and as an indicator that the verb's tense/aspect is not
what it appears.
Veolar, I'm not sure what the alternative is to "believing in"
waw-conversive. If you want to say it always means 'and', and the suffix
conjugation is always past/perfect, and the prefix conjugation always
non-past/imperfect, then tense/aspect would be switching all over the place
and nothing would make much sense (and the Bible is hard enough to
understand already...). I'm not an expert on this, but I thought it was
accepted by everyone. Have you heard of arguments against it? Of course
there's quibbling on the details (e.g. is it tense or aspect? - I'm not
taking a stand) but I thought that was all.
Josh Roth
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Elliott Lash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a grammar of Biblical Hebrew which discusses some differences in
> vocalism between the imperfect with waw-consecutive and the non-waw-marked
> imperfect. I don't have it with me, but I will check when I get home.
> -Elliott
>
>
> --- On Thu, 8/21/08, David McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From: David McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: Hebrew waw consecutive
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Thursday, August 21, 2008, 4:17 PM
> > On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 13:43 +0200, Veoler wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Is there some hard evidence for this? As far as I have
> > heard there was no
> > > real foundation behind waw conversive, and I
> > haven't ever seen any proof in
> > > any direction. So I'm 67% non-believer in waw
> > conversive and 33% agnostic,
> > > until I see evidence. Do you have any references about
> > the justification or
> > > reason to assume the theory?
> > >
> > > I have'nt got very far in learning Hebrew and
> > thought I should wait with
> > > this question, but since it was brought up...
> > >
> > I'm no expert on Semitic languages: a quick check shows
> > I read Gray's
> > Introduction in 1973 and Gelb on Akkadian in 1982!
> >
> > I took the example from A. B. Davidson's Hebrew
> > Grammar, but he offered
> > no comment. I've just looked at Robert Hetzron's
> > article in Major
> > Languages of the World. He regards the perfective wa- form
> > (which he
> > rightly, I think, calls a past tense) as original and the
> > non-past form
> > as derived after wa- came to be seen as a "tense
> > switcher". He suggests
> > an etymology hawaya "was". I seem to remember
> > that Akkadian forms a past
> > in u-; but if that's so, Hetzron evidently thinks it
> > unrelated. Of
> > course, we can't tell what the original vocalisation
> > was; it would be
> > too good to be true if the prefix were the only tense
> > marker.
>
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Ebb and flow
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:07 am ((PDT))
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 13:17, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The second trigger was Wenedyk, which looks just so ridiculously like
> Polish.
That was also one I was very impressed with -- not least due to the
fact that it does, indeed, look very much like Polish.
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Help with grammatical term
Posted by: "Fredrik Ekman" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:21 am ((PDT))
What would the grammatical term be for a prefix that replaces the
preposition "with"? Would "inclusive" do the trick?
Fredrik
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: Help with grammatical term
Posted by: "deinx nxtxr" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:29 am ((PDT))
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fredrik Ekman
> What would the grammatical term be for a prefix that replaces
the
> preposition "with"? Would "inclusive" do the trick?
No time to check right now but I believe that's "commitative".
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. Re: Help with grammatical term
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:45 am ((PDT))
Depends on the meaning. English "with" can be instrumental (e.g. "hit
the nail with the hammer"), etc. But if you mean specifically with as
in "together with, along with", then maybe "combinative" or
"conjunctive"? what exactly is the difference between using your
prefix and one meaning "and"?
On 8/24/08, Fredrik Ekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What would the grammatical term be for a prefix that replaces the
> preposition "with"? Would "inclusive" do the trick?
>
> Fredrik
>
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: Nutrition and pleasurable sense data
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:46 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 15:45, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> gzb has root words for "calorie" and for "glucose", from the latter of which
> terms for "sugar" and "fructose" are derived. I don't have a word yet
> for "sucrose"; it seems like it ought to be derived rather than root,
> but I'm not sure how yet. Maybe from the word for sugar and a word
> for some foodstuff that's typically made with sucrose?
Or from some foodstuff that typically contains sucrose, e.g. "beet
sugar" or "cane sugar" (depending on what you typically use)?
Compare German Traubenzucker "grape-sugar" for glucose and
Fruchtzucker "fruit-sugar" for fructose. (And, I think, Milchzucker
"milk-sugar" for lactose, though "Laktose" is probably more common,
perhaps because it's not something spoken about as often for a
vernacular word to have established itself.)
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
6b. Re: Nutrition and pleasurable sense data
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:47 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 20:43, Eldin Raigmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Vitamins)
> Vitamins are traditionally "amine" compounds (thus "-amin"), though I suppose
> not all of them are. All of them are dietarily essential (thus "vita-").
> They
> often contain essential metals that are needed in small amounts (I think one
> of
> the B vitamins contains some cobalt?)
You're probably thinking of B12, which is (I think) the group of
cobalamins -- cyanocobalamin being a popular one of those for
nutritional supplements, though IIRC it's not the only form B12 can
take.
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. Re: Semantic typology?
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:18 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 15:48, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The basic directional roots would all be 22.5 degrees clockwise
>> off from the cardinals.
>
> Nah. Far too regular. I'd start with North, Southeast, and
> West-by-Northwest, and derive the others from there. :)
Sounds a bit like Klingon, whose "cardinal" directions are tIng
"southwest", 'ev "northwest", and chan "east".
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 16:46, John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:44:32 -0400, Jim Henry wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> Finnish; clockwise from North, _pohjoinen koillinen itä kaakko etelä lounas
> länsi
> luode_. The only completely opaque ones are SE, SW and W, but eg. _itä_
> being a zero-derivation of the verbal root "to germinate" isn't exactly
> transparent, either. :)
>
> IIUC this system was standardized together from quite a few dialects, none of
> which consistently differentiated all eight terms.
I was reminded of Maltese, which has, again clockwise from North,
_tramuntana grigal ilvant xlokk nofsinhar ilbiċ punent majjistral_
(also used for the corresponding winds, e.g. _tramuntana_ = North
wind).
Of those, the only one transparent in "Maltese" (i.e. the Arabic base
of the lexicon) is nofsinhar < nofs in-nhar "middle of the day";
indirectly also xlokk < ital. scirocco < arab. šurūq "sunrise".
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8a. Re: TAN: Day of the Republic.
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:23 am ((PDT))
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 22:06, Lars Finsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are there
> any others who celebrate national or religious holidays of their conworlds?
I've got a Rhaetian calendar hanging above my own, with national and
religious holidays marked, but I wouldn't say that I celebrate them --
at most, "observe" them, but only in the sense that I see, "Oh, it's
St. Gall's feast day today; interesting".
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
9a. painting the door green
Posted by: "René Uittenbogaard" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:25 am ((PDT))
I'm looking for the English grammatical term for what is known in
Dutch as the "bepaling van gesteldheid"
<http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bepaling_van_gesteldheid>
http://tinyurl.com/6eaf8p
It is a constituent which is, among others, found in sentences like:
He is painting the door *green*.
She bought the store *empty*.
They applauded *the skin off their hands*.
The term is used for somewhat different usages as well, but I'm
looking for the English term for this particular usage. I haven't been
able to find the term on the English wikipedia. Anyone?
René
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
9b. Re: painting the door green
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:19 am ((PDT))
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 12:24 PM, René Uittenbogaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He is painting the door *green*.
> She bought the store *empty*.
I don't know the term, I'm afraid, but just FYI, the second one
doesn't work for me - IML, it can only mean "the store was empty when
she bought it", whereas I gather you intend it to mean "she bought
everything in the store", on analogy with "he drank it dry". In any
case, those feel somewhat different to me - "painting the door green"
doesn't require the painting to be completed; simply using green paint
constitutes the act.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
9c. Re: painting the door green
Posted by: "deinx nxtxr" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:26 am ((PDT))
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of René Uittenbogaard
> I'm looking for the English grammatical term for what is known in
> Dutch as the "bepaling van gesteldheid"
> <http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bepaling_van_gesteldheid>
> http://tinyurl.com/6eaf8p
>
> It is a constituent which is, among others, found in sentences like:
>
> He is painting the door *green*.
> She bought the store *empty*.
> They applauded *the skin off their hands*.
>
> The term is used for somewhat different usages as well, but I'm
> looking for the English term for this particular usage. I haven't been
> able to find the term on the English wikipedia. Anyone?
I could see different alternatives to each.
He is painting the door with green paint.
She bought the store while empty.
They applauded away the skin from their hands.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
9d. Re: painting the door green
Posted by: "Lars Finsen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:53 am ((PDT))
Den 24. aug. 2008 kl. 18.24 skreiv René Uittenbogaard:
> I'm looking for the English grammatical term for what is known in
> Dutch as the "bepaling van gesteldheid"
> <http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bepaling_van_gesteldheid>
> http://tinyurl.com/6eaf8p
>
> It is a constituent which is, among others, found in sentences like:
>
> He is painting the door *green*.
> She bought the store *empty*.
> They applauded *the skin off their hands*.
You must be thinking of the predicative. One of the first (of many)
things I have learnt on this list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Predicative_(adjectival_or_nominal)
LEF
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
9e. Re: painting the door green
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:56 am ((PDT))
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:24:54 +0200, René Uittenbogaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I'm looking for the English grammatical term for what is known in
>Dutch as the "bepaling van gesteldheid"
><http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bepaling_van_gesteldheid>
>http://tinyurl.com/6eaf8p
>
>It is a constituent which is, among others, found in sentences like:
>
>He is painting the door *green*.
>She bought the store *empty*.
>They applauded *the skin off their hands*.
>
>The term is used for somewhat different usages as well, but I'm
>looking for the English term for this particular usage. I haven't been
>able to find the term on the English wikipedia. Anyone?
I don't know what precedent there is for this in the linguistic literature,
but I call this the resultative construction. Mark Rosenfelder does the
same, as in
http://zompist.com/flaidish.htm#participle
(a few screens down from there; look for "resultative").
Alex
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
10.1. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:22 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 09:43, Eugene Oh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Probably "���" in Rhaetian, which "should be" [dS] as written, but is
conventionally pronounced [dZ] by those who can do so (though I'm sure
some will say [tS] instead). Hence, ����� and �����.
Neither [Z] nor [dZ] are native, but I imagine they might be found in
loan-words (though I haven't seen one yet -- but then, the lexicon is
still tiny.)
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (166)
________________________________________________________________________
10.2. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:41 am ((PDT))
On 2008-08-24 Philip Newton wrote:
> Probably "δσκ" in Rhaetian, which "should be"
> [dS] as written, but is conventionally
> pronounced [dZ] by those who can do so (though
> I'm sure some will say [tS] instead).
>
I guess σκ is [S] then. How come it is not
spelled σχ, assuming [X] is χ?
/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 (166)
________________________________________________________________________
10.3. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:03 pm ((PDT))
2008/8/24 Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 2008-08-24 Philip Newton wrote:
>> Probably "���" in Rhaetian, which "should be"
>> [dS] as written, but is conventionally
>> pronounced [dZ] by those who can do so (though
>> I'm sure some will say [tS] instead).
>
> I guess �� is [S] then.
Yes, quite right.
> How come it is not
> spelled ��, assuming [X] is �?
Sound changes turned word-initial *[sk] into [S], and so it made (or
seemed to make) sense to spell [S] with �� everywhere. (Exceptions are
[Sp] and [St] which are �� and ��, respectively.)
And � does indeed represent [X] (and vice-versa), but I'm not sure
what that has to do with it.
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (166)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
11.1. Re: Linguistic term for ease of changing word-class (was: 'out-' aff
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:02 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 14:04, Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Indonesian can have zero-derivation in
>> colloquial speech-- surat can mean 'to write'
>> or 'a letter', cinta 'love' can be noun or
>> verb; but correctly, when used as verbs there
>> ought to be a verbal prefix... I really suspect
>> not many languages can do this as readily as
>> English does. (German/Dutch and Romance lgs.
>> come to mind).
>
> Swedish certainly can't. In order to use a word as
> a verb you have to put a verbal ending on it, and
> only the closed class of strong verbs have any
> zero endings within their paradigm.
Similarly in German.
I imagine pretty much any noun can be verbed by tacking on -en, but
you would need an extra morpheme.
>> Sort of OT, but relevant to the question about
>> Basque verbs-- IIRC the verbs that have their
>> own synthetic conjugation (i.e. without the
>> usual person+tense aux.) are a small and closed
>> class, I think mostly intransitive. There's
>> another productive (I think) class formed from
>> NOUN + 'to do/make' (egin?); one that has stuck
>> in my mind is 'to sneeze' (sneeze + egin? +
>> aux). (My Basque grammar is one of the books in
>> storage.......)
>
> The Semitic component of Yiddish vocabulary works
> similarly IIRC, using a Semitic verbal noun + a
> Germanic verb like 'be, have, do' rather than
> tacking Germanic endings to Semitic verbs.
ISTR having read about the word "geganvet", meaning "stolen" and
written gimel-`ayin-gimel-nun-bet-`ayin-tet, i.e. ge-gnb-et, with a
Germanic prefix and suffix and a Semitic triliteral root -- spelled as
in the original, rather than phonetically -- in the middle. (I've no
idea how representative that is, though.)
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (66)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
12a. Re: TECH: info on ftp
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:11 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 07:57, Eric Christopherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Binary (non-ASCII) files can be transmitted just fine with FTP. In older
> clients, you had to specifically invoke binary mode, because otherwise they
> would assume files transferred were text. (I'm not sure why the distinction
> was made, although I think FTP clients in text mode do automatically convert
> the newline characters to whatever's appropriate.)
*nod* I believe that was one main reason for that transfer mode.
And on older system with strong file typing (such as VMS, I believe),
it also set up the receiving file to be of type "lines-of-text" rather
than "stream-of-bytes".
> Newer ones I think default to binary.
That's my impression, too.
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
