There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. A new Tirelat alphabet: Kjaginic
From: Herman Miller
1b. Re: A new Tirelat alphabet: Kjaginic
From: Logan Kearsley
1c. Re: A new Tirelat alphabet: Kjaginic
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
1d. Re: A new Tirelat alphabet: Kjaginic
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
2a. "Futurese" (American English in 3000CE)
From: Larry Sulky
2b. Re: "Futurese" (American English in 3000CE)
From: Logan Kearsley
3a. Re: painting the door green
From: Eugene Oh
3b. Re: painting the door green
From: Mark J. Reed
4a. Re: Another Sketch: Palno
From: Alex Fink
4b. Re: Another Sketch: Palno
From: Alex Fink
4c. Re: Another Sketch: Palno
From: Logan Kearsley
4d. Re: Another Sketch: Palno
From: Jim Henry
5a. Re: Not YAEPT: English diphthongs
From: Daniel Prohaska
5b. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
From: Lars Finsen
5c. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
From: Michael Poxon
5d. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
From: Peter Collier
5e. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
From: Mark J. Reed
5f. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
From: Lars Finsen
5g. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
From: Peter Collier
5h. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
From: Ina van der Vegt
5i. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
From: Mark J. Reed
5j. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
From: Philip Newton
6a. Re: YAEPT: English diphthongs
From: deinx nxtxr
7a. Re: Language Sketch: Gogido
From: deinx nxtxr
8. Uriania update.
From: Lars Finsen
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. A new Tirelat alphabet: Kjaginic
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:10 pm ((PDT))
http://www.io.com/~hmiller/png/kjaginic.png
Since the Vlika script, which I originally developed as a writing system
for Tirelat, has been reused as a Zireen script, I needed a new writing
system for the Sangari subset of the Tirelat language. I'll probably
continue using the Latin alphabet for the language in the larger sense,
which started out as a personal language associated with this world, but
a native Sangari writing system would be useful to have. For a while I
was considering Tharkania, the writing system of the Jaghri language
(especially since I've been thinking of Jaghri as potentially a Sangari
engelang). But Tharkania isn't a very nice-looking script. So I've been
adapting it, bending the strokes and redesigning parts of the system to
be more in the direction of Ljörr (the writing system developed for
Jarda). The result is "Kjaginic", which means "bent letters". I have a
font for this script on my Google page.
http://teamouse.googlepages.com/home
http://teamouse.googlepages.com/Kjaginic.ttf
I may continue to make changes and add letters to the script, but the
current version is usable for Tirelat. Like Tharkania and Ljörr (or
Tolkien's Tengwar and Cirth, or Bell's Visible Speech), Kjaginic is
based on the phonetic features of sounds. The different orientations of
the corners represent points of articulation, roughly speaking (the
symbols for [t`] and [d`], sounds not used in Tirelat, are adopted for
[ts] and [dz]). The different shapes of the curved diagonal strokes
represent stops, nasals, fricatives, and approximants (with extra
strokes added for trills and laterals). Voiceless sounds have a vertical
stroke added to end of the horizontal stroke.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: A new Tirelat alphabet: Kjaginic
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:50 pm ((PDT))
> I may continue to make changes and add letters to the script, but the
> current version is usable for Tirelat. Like Tharkania and Ljörr (or
> Tolkien's Tengwar and Cirth, or Bell's Visible Speech), Kjaginic is based on
> the phonetic features of sounds. The different orientations of the corners
> represent points of articulation, roughly speaking (the symbols for [t`] and
> [d`], sounds not used in Tirelat, are adopted for [ts] and [dz]). The
> different shapes of the curved diagonal strokes represent stops, nasals,
> fricatives, and approximants (with extra strokes added for trills and
> laterals). Voiceless sounds have a vertical stroke added to end of the
> horizontal stroke.
Looks nice.
Like most feature-based systems, though, it seems to suffer from lots
of letters looking very similar. Not an insurmountable problem,
obviously (and, hey, Latin gets along with d, b, and p), but might
further changes include font-alterations to make the letters more
distinct (like the use of serifs in Latin script)?
-l.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: A new Tirelat alphabet: Kjaginic
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:55 am ((PDT))
On 2008-08-26 Herman Miller wrote:
> Like Tharkania and Ljörr (or Tolkien's Tengwar and Cirth, or Bell's
> Visible Speech), Kjaginic is based on the phonetic features of
> sounds. The different orientations of the corners represent points of
> articulation, roughly speaking (the symbols for [t`] and [d`], sounds
> not used in Tirelat, are adopted for [ts] and [dz]). The different
> shapes of the curved diagonal strokes represent stops, nasals,
> fricatives, and approximants (with extra strokes added for trills and
> laterals). Voiceless sounds have a vertical stroke added to end of
> the horizontal stroke.
>
I like the consonant signs very much, but beside them
the very angular and vertical vowel signs strike me the
wrong way: frankly the two look like they belong to
two different writing systems or calligraphic styles
entirely. I keep seeing for my mind's eye vowel shapes
with rounded hooks rather than angles, somewhat like
Visible Speech vowels. I've tried to create an
image, using Mark Shoulson's VS font at
<http://tinyurl.com/6jjuco>. I could well imagine
the existence of an alternative style where the
rounded bends of the consonants are replaced by
angles and the vowels are angular too, perhaps
used for titles or similar to italics/katakana.
/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 (4)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: A new Tirelat alphabet: Kjaginic
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:28 pm ((PDT))
Hallo!
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:10:08 -0400, Herman Miller wrote:
> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/png/kjaginic.png
The consonant letters are well-designed and beautiful.
I like the featurality of the script, too. The vowel
letters, however, do not match the style of the consonants
very well - but they are not bad either.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. "Futurese" (American English in 3000CE)
Posted by: "Larry Sulky" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:51 pm ((PDT))
Interesting:
http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/futurese.html
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: "Futurese" (American English in 3000CE)
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:05 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:51 AM, Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting:
>
> http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/futurese.html
>
Found that a few months ago. I like it. Ends up just close enough that
you can still see the relation, and different enough that it's
obviously become a new language. Possibly a useful teaching-tool for
demonstrating linguistic evolution.
I suppose I'm impressed largely because it's had a lot more work put
into it than any of my occasional future-english sketches (which so
far have never made it off one page on a clipboard).
-l.
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: painting the door green
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:32 pm ((PDT))
Then again, I interpreted the "Store empty" sentence the way you intended it
understood (another example haha).
Eugene
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 5:41 AM, René Uittenbogaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> 2008/8/24 Lars Finsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 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
>
> Predicative seems indeed to be the English term for the "bepaling van
> gesteldheid", thanks.
> It seems to be a collective term for both "depictive" and
> "resultative", and "resultative" was the exact term I was looking for.
>
> 2008/8/24 Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 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".
>
> Yes, I indended it as a resultative - the direct Dutch analogous
> sentence works as such for me, and I assumed that in English it would
> work the same way. Interesting to hear that it doesn't.
>
> Thanks everyone for the replies :)
>
> René
>
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: painting the door green
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:57 am ((PDT))
One way iml of achieving the intended meaning would be "she bought the
store out". Which is different from "she bought out the store", which
implies some sort of high finance transaction.
On 8/26/08, Eugene Oh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then again, I interpreted the "Store empty" sentence the way you intended it
> understood (another example haha).
> Eugene
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 5:41 AM, René Uittenbogaard
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> 2008/8/24 Lars Finsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > 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
>>
>> Predicative seems indeed to be the English term for the "bepaling van
>> gesteldheid", thanks.
>> It seems to be a collective term for both "depictive" and
>> "resultative", and "resultative" was the exact term I was looking for.
>>
>> 2008/8/24 Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > 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".
>>
>> Yes, I indended it as a resultative - the direct Dutch analogous
>> sentence works as such for me, and I assumed that in English it would
>> work the same way. Interesting to hear that it doesn't.
>>
>> Thanks everyone for the replies :)
>>
>> René
>>
>
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Another Sketch: Palno
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:06 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:04:40 -0400, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Alex Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Given that clauses can be zero-converted to arguments just as atoms can, is
>> there really a distinction between atoms and predicates? Why not analyse
>> atoms as 0-ary predicates?
>
>Mm... because I didn't think of that? It probably is a valid analysis,
>if you allow single atoms to be sentences.
Indeed. And this is what I did. One of the design goals of my language was
to have one open word class, so I didn't want any distinctions based on
arity. Another, for that matter, was strict compositionality.
>> One change that doing this would make to your grammar as presented is that
>> an atom or a conjunction of atoms standing alone would become a complete
>> clause, where it's not now. But I don't see much else. Maybe you mean
>> there to be other distinctions.
>
>There is the issue of what, exactly, the sentential meaning of a
>standalone atom would be. Probably just an assertion "x exists".
That's what I had -- in fact that was the top-level meaning of an assertion
in every case, and so formally speaking all {verbs} had the semantics of a
nominalisation everywhere they were used, so that this worked out uniformly.
>I think it's useful to make the distinction between things that
>represent individual noun-like ideas, and things that describe
>relations between other simpler ideas, though.
I'm not sure about useful, but if nothing else it's probably something well
embedded in the human linguistic capacity. I was trying to go without such,
anyay.
Of course what a noun-like idea is a fuzzy boundary. {Adjectives} in langs
without a class of adjectives are treated nominally in some and verbally in
others (and we've taken opposite approaches on this, it seems -- I made
adjectives zero-ary and consequently had great amounts of the appositive
adposition).
>> How do you deal with nominal sorts of notions that "want" to have an
>> argument, or verbal sorts of notions that don't "want" any?
>
>I leave them out. Weather verbs, for example, don't exist- rather than
>saying "It's raining", you'd say "rain falls". I can't think of any
>such concept that can't be re-lexed in a more convenient fashion
>(though I'd be fascinated to be presented with some).
I don't have any convincing ones. (Anyone?)
>> I had an engelang whose grammar was of a similar sort, and eventually I got
>> really tired of the inelegance and inflexibility of different fixed argument
>> sets and return values, as it were, of various types of word. [...]
>> So klugey.
>
>Can you elaborate on what's klugey about it? Or is it just an
>un-analyzable matter of aesthetic preference?
In most part it was, if not violation of the one open word class goal, then
at least not having smoothed the distinctions between its subclasses out as
I might have wanted to. (So aesthetic, but at a higher level.)
Something more akin to the system in Rikchik (which I didn't know of at the
time) would've satisfied me better.
>> So. Do you have a way of rendering relative clauses, or anything like them?
>
>Yes. There are two ways of doing it, one which conforms to the postfix
>parse tree, and one which temporarily sets up its own parsing
>environment.
>Sample sentence: I like people who eat apples.
>Method one uses a determiner to pick out the relevant case of the
>argument that's being modified:
>I ((people these) apples-ACC eat)-ACC like.
Ah, okay. So you only provide one level of scope? the relative anaphor
(er, cataphor) points to the nearest clause containing it, always?
>Method two uses a relative pronoun to indicate that you should pause
>the current clause and start parsing a new one, and sets of the
>relative clause with commas:
>I people-ACC, who apples-ACC eat, like.
This seems to have potential for ambiguity, if one's not fastidious about
the positions of the commas (and maybe even if one is, with a more
complicated example -- I haven't convinced myself either way). Consider a
sentence of form
a who a.ACC p a.ACC p a.ACC p
where each a is an atom, and each p a predicate taking nom and acc
arguments. Does the relative clause finish after the first p, or the second?
>I'm pretty sure every case can be handled with the first form, but the
>second form I think is more generally human-comprehensible.
I wouldn't make that leap. There are plenty of natlangs with internally
headed relative clauses, which is your first strategy. Standard Average
European speaker comprehensible, maybe.
>Try this example, then:
>"Frodo of the Nine Fingers of Hobbiton"
Mm, that's cleaner.
Anyway, slightly sharper example of the "schizophrenia" I was talking about.
Suppose you have a sentence of form ... hm, what's not a too pragmatically
strained example?
arrow [hand me.ACC of].ACC through partial
Is this "an arrow is partially through my hand", taking the adjective at the
end as a clause adverbial? Or is it "there is a partial arrow through my
hand", taking the internal clause as nominal in force? Supposing it's just
one of these, how would you say the other?
Alex
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Another Sketch: Palno
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:18 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 02:06:01 -0400, Alex Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Anyway, slightly sharper example of the "schizophrenia" I was talking about.
> Suppose you have a sentence of form ... hm, what's not a too pragmatically
>strained example?
> arrow [hand me.ACC of].ACC through partial
>Is this "an arrow is partially through my hand", taking the adjective at the
>end as a clause adverbial? Or is it "there is a partial arrow through my
>hand",
Best make this "the arrow through my hand is partial". Otherwise reordering
the two stacked modifiers is a way out. (That may still be your intended
solution, faik.)
Alex
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: Another Sketch: Palno
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:54 am ((PDT))
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Alex Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:04:40 -0400, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Alex Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Given that clauses can be zero-converted to arguments just as atoms can, is
>>> there really a distinction between atoms and predicates? Why not analyse
>>> atoms as 0-ary predicates?
>>
>>Mm... because I didn't think of that? It probably is a valid analysis,
>>if you allow single atoms to be sentences.
>
> Indeed. And this is what I did. One of the design goals of my language was
> to have one open word class, so I didn't want any distinctions based on
> arity. Another, for that matter, was strict compositionality.
Another possible arrangement (though one that doesn't help with
further reducing the number of classes) would be to consider
noun-like-things to have infinite arity, verb-like-things to have
restricted arity, and modifier-like-things to have zero arity.
Noun-like-things (including complete clauses) would take
modifier-like-things as arguments and return a reference to a more
specific instance of the noun-like-thing.
>>I think it's useful to make the distinction between things that
>>represent individual noun-like ideas, and things that describe
>>relations between other simpler ideas, though.
>
> I'm not sure about useful, but if nothing else it's probably something well
> embedded in the human linguistic capacity. I was trying to go without such,
> anyay.
One of my design goals here is to see how easily comprehensible I can
make it with the minimum of disruption to the basic underlying logic,
so some concessions to things that are embedded in the human
linguistic capacity are good.
> Of course what a noun-like idea is a fuzzy boundary. {Adjectives} in langs
> without a class of adjectives are treated nominally in some and verbally in
> others (and we've taken opposite approaches on this, it seems -- I made
> adjectives zero-ary and consequently had great amounts of the appositive
> adposition).
That was more first approach, but I did not like the deep nesting
structures and/or extended conjunctions necessary to apply multiple
descriptors. And saves on a morpheme and makes the structure simpler
if descriptors are treated as 1-ary predicates.
>>> I had an engelang whose grammar was of a similar sort, and eventually I got
>>> really tired of the inelegance and inflexibility of different fixed argument
>>> sets and return values, as it were, of various types of word. [...]
>>> So klugey.
>>
>>Can you elaborate on what's klugey about it? Or is it just an
>>un-analyzable matter of aesthetic preference?
>
> In most part it was, if not violation of the one open word class goal, then
> at least not having smoothed the distinctions between its subclasses out as
> I might have wanted to. (So aesthetic, but at a higher level.)
>
> Something more akin to the system in Rikchik (which I didn't know of at the
> time) would've satisfied me better.
The Rikchik system does seem similar to what I'm using; I have 3
arities where Rikchik has 8 or 9, and I use case marking instead of
theta-role marking, but the basic logic is I think the same.
>>> So. Do you have a way of rendering relative clauses, or anything like them?
>>
>>Yes. There are two ways of doing it, one which conforms to the postfix
>>parse tree, and one which temporarily sets up its own parsing
>>environment.
>>Sample sentence: I like people who eat apples.
>>Method one uses a determiner to pick out the relevant case of the
>>argument that's being modified:
>>I ((people these) apples-ACC eat)-ACC like.
>
> Ah, okay. So you only provide one level of scope? the relative anaphor
> (er, cataphor) points to the nearest clause containing it, always?
Yes.
>>Method two uses a relative pronoun to indicate that you should pause
>>the current clause and start parsing a new one, and sets of the
>>relative clause with commas:
>>I people-ACC, who apples-ACC eat, like.
>
> This seems to have potential for ambiguity, if one's not fastidious about
> the positions of the commas (and maybe even if one is, with a more
> complicated example -- I haven't convinced myself either way). Consider a
> sentence of form
> a who a.ACC p a.ACC p a.ACC p
> where each a is an atom, and each p a predicate taking nom and acc
> arguments. Does the relative clause finish after the first p, or the second?
Or after the third, leaving an incomplete sentence. You can't tell
without the commas. They are absolutely required. It would be nice to
have a way around that, but I haven't found one yet.
Keeping up the mathematical/computational analogy, my justification
for this structure is that a comma + relative pronoun is like a
function call that temporarily creates a new stack frame to parse the
next bit of the sentence in, and the closing comma is like a return
statement that restores the original stack frame, but with the top
element altered.
>>I'm pretty sure every case can be handled with the first form, but the
>>second form I think is more generally human-comprehensible.
>
> I wouldn't make that leap. There are plenty of natlangs with internally
> headed relative clauses, which is your first strategy. Standard Average
> European speaker comprehensible, maybe.
I should re-phrase- neither structure is basically better or worse
than the other, but I think it's easier to untangle complex or
multiple nested instances of the second than it is to work out all of
the relations in more complex and multiply nested instances of the
first.
That could just be me; maybe some other people do have less difficulty
following the parse tree for the first form.
> Anyway, slightly sharper example of the "schizophrenia" I was talking about.
> Suppose you have a sentence of form ... hm, what's not a too pragmatically
> strained example?
> arrow [hand me.ACC of].ACC through partial
> Is this "an arrow is partially through my hand", taking the adjective at the
> end as a clause adverbial? Or is it ["the arrow through my hand is partial"]
> , taking the internal clause as nominal in force? Supposing it's just
> one of these, how would you say the other?
That would be "an arrow is partially through my hand."
"The arrow through my hand is partial" could be said in several ways:
"[[arrow this] [hand me.ACC of].ACC through] partial"
"arrow, REL [hand me.ACC of].ACC through, partial"
Or, as "there is a partial arrow through my hand":
"arrow partial [hand me.ACC of].ACC through"
Generally, when applying a predicate to a predicate argument, it's
supposed to apply to the relationship (the composite object of all of
the arguments and how they are related to each other) defined by the
predicate argument. So, when modifying a through-relation with
'partial', you have to get 'partially through'. There are situations
where pragmatics says that it only makes sense for the new relation to
apply to a sub-part of the predicate argument, and that gets you a
de-facto semantic distinction between adverb-like predicates and
adjective-like predicates, but it's a very fuzzy one.
-l.
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: Another Sketch: Palno
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:02 pm ((PDT))
On 8/26/08, Alex Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:04:40 -0400, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >I leave them out. Weather verbs, for example, don't exist- rather than
> >saying "It's raining", you'd say "rain falls". I can't think of any
> >such concept that can't be re-lexed in a more convenient fashion
> >(though I'd be fascinated to be presented with some).
>
> I don't have any convincing ones. (Anyone?)
This morning I woke, looked at the clock, and thought
"Jam okas!" [It's already eight!] In gjâ-zym-byn the
same thought would have been longer (for multiple
reasons); because of its default subject rule (first person,
or the same as the subject of the last sentence) it
doesn't allow impersonal verbs.
ðy-dâ-gla-van gwe sun kÇ.
five-three-ORD.T-V.STATE already region this
The local region is the topic of which the temporal
verb is predicated, as in some weather-verb
situations {purj} ("environment") is the topic.
I render "it's raining" much the same as Logan's Palno,
bly-van pwim.
fall-V.STATE water
but some other weather verbs, like "it's hot",
seem to want {purj} as their subject.
jâln-van purj.
hot-V.STATE environment
Contrast,
ðy-dâ-gla i gwe sun kÇ, mÇj kâlifornje-wam mi-i ðy-gla-van zen.
It's already eight here, but only five in California.
[lit., "but California only five-o'clocks."]
These particular kinds of sentence would be terser
if gzb allowed impersonal verbs like Esperanto, but
I suspect the corpus as a whole would be less terse;
sentences whose subject is the same as the previous
sentence probably occur more often that sentences
whose verb would be impersonal in E-o or a similar
language, especially since the primary use for gzb
is me keeping my journal.
On 8/26/08, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or after the third, leaving an incomplete sentence. You can't tell
> without the commas. They are absolutely required. It would be nice to
> have a way around that, but I haven't found one yet.
How are the written commas represented in speech?
Timing, stress, intonation...? Some conlangs have
parenthetical or comma grammatical particles; parenthetical
particles are better for disambiguating arbitrarily complex
sentences, but I'm not sure they're natural enough for
humans to learn to use them in realtime.
--
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 (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Not YAEPT: English diphthongs
Posted by: "Daniel Prohaska" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:22 am ((PDT))
I speak the English of the Greater Manchester area and I've got monophthings
in words such as <great> [grE:t], <face> [fE:s], <boat> [bO:t], <nose>
[nO:z]; I've got the diphthongs /ai/ in <side> [sa:Id], /au/ in <about>
[8"b3Y?]; /oi/ in <boy> [bO:I], and various schwa-diphthongs where
historical post-vocalic /r/ was dropped. Some words that I would assign to
the phoneme /ai/ have a monophthongal allophone as I frequently say [a] for
unstressed <I>. I've also got two syllables in words like <fire> ["faIj8].
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark J. Reed
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 12:05 AM
"In English, three of the so-called "long vowels" (FACE, PRICE, and GOAT)
are usually realized as diphthongs, but most speakers are unaware of the
fact. Meanwhile, there are at least two diphthongs (CHOICE, MOUTH) that
seem to be generally perceived as such. What do we know about this
perceptual distinction? Is it purely a learned thing, or do even uneducated
speakers think that there's a qualitative difference between those sets of
sounds?
I've always heard CHOICE, in particular, as almost bisyllabic."
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
Posted by: "Lars Finsen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:26 am ((PDT))
Den 26. aug. 2008 kl. 13.21 skreiv Daniel Prohaska:
> I speak the English of the Greater Manchester area and I've got
> monophthings in words such as <great> [grE:t], <face> [fE:s],
> <boat> [bO:t], <nose> [nO:z];
I think a great many English and Scottish dialects have monophthongs
in these words. Irish, too, I suppose. But I have heard re-
diphthongising variants that sound something like [grE{t] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I believe I've heard [griEt] as well. Where do we locate those? If
I'm not dreaming them?
LEF
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
Posted by: "Michael Poxon" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:01 am ((PDT))
Yes, these variations certainly occur in Geordie dialect (Newcastle area) so
/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/, /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ and so on, though in practice, any
final unvoiced stop tends
to be replaced by the glottal stop.
Mike
>
> I think a great many English and Scottish dialects have monophthongs in
> these words. Irish, too, I suppose. But I have heard re- diphthongising
> variants that sound something like [grE{t] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] I believe
> I've
> heard [griEt] as well. Where do we locate those? If I'm not dreaming
> them?
>
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
5d. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
Posted by: "Peter Collier" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:13 am ((PDT))
I was going to suggest Geordie - and possibly some Northern Irish too?
P.
Michael Poxon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, these variations certainly occur in Geordie dialect (Newcastle area) so
/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/, /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ and so on, though in practice, any
final unvoiced stop tends
to be replaced by the glottal stop.
Mike
>
> I think a great many English and Scottish dialects have monophthongs in
> these words. Irish, too, I suppose. But I have heard re- diphthongising
> variants that sound something like [grE{t] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] I believe
> I've
> heard [griEt] as well. Where do we locate those? If I'm not dreaming
> them?
>
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
5e. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:22 am ((PDT))
Apologies to everyone for the YAEPT. I really somehow thought I could
skirt the topic without getting into one. Ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha.
Ha.
But I thought the PRICE vowel was historically a monophthong,
specifically [i:]. If not, why did it get spelled that way?
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
5f. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
Posted by: "Lars Finsen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:34 am ((PDT))
Den 26. aug. 2008 kl. 16.00 skreiv Michael Poxon:
> Yes, these variations certainly occur in Geordie dialect (Newcastle
> area) so /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/, /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ and so on,
Yes, no doubt it's with my friends who live in Sunderland that I've
heard it.
> though in practice, any final unvoiced stop tends to be replaced by
> the glottal stop.
You're right, they do that, too.
BTW, I must say I have a grEEt admiration for those that can hear the
difference between an /E/ and an /e/.
LEF
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
5g. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
Posted by: "Peter Collier" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:47 am ((PDT))
"Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Apologies to everyone for the YAEPT.
I really somehow thought I could
skirt the topic without getting into one. Ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha.
Ha.
But I thought the PRICE vowel was historically a monophthong,
specifically [i:]. If not, why did it get spelled that way?
Wishful thinking regarding the YAEPT!
But to return to the question in point, the monophthong > diphthong change is
down to the GVS, pure and simple, no?
Orthographically, the silent <e> persists because it keeps the first syllable
open, and thus 'long' (originally > modern diphthong). cf <pric(k)>: closed
syllable, short vowel.
Or, as my infant school wife teaches, "magic e makes the letter say its name"
(i.e. silent <e> turns the preceeding 'ih' to 'eye'). For some reason, 7 year
olds seem to understand 'magic e' better than a description of open and closed
syllables...
P.
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
5h. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
Posted by: "Ina van der Vegt" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:30 am ((PDT))
I'm pretty sure it was, as the Dutch version (Ethymologically related)
of the word Price (Prijs) is spelled with 'ij', which I've always heard
was originally a spelling for [i:], and still is pronounced that way in
some local dialects.
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 11:22 -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> But I thought the PRICE vowel was historically a monophthong,
> specifically [i:]. If not, why did it get spelled that way?
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
5i. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:44 am ((PDT))
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Peter Collier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But to return to the question in point, the monophthong > diphthong change
> is down to the GVS, pure and simple, no?
Yes, that's what I thought. But Tristan's reply . . . of course, he's
not reading this anymore at this point . . . listed PRICE as one of
the vowels that was traditionally diphthong. At least, in "EMnE",
whatever that means.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
5j. Re: YAEPT after all: English diphthongs
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:55 am ((PDT))
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 18:44, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At least, in "EMnE", whatever that means.
"Early Modern English", I would think.
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: YAEPT: English diphthongs
Posted by: "deinx nxtxr" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:49 am ((PDT))
> From: Constructed Languages List
> This probably necessarily gets into nitty-gritty comments
about
> particular realisations in different English dialects. For
instance, in
> AusE they're all perceived as diphthongs and "ai"/"ay" for
instance
> seems like a perfectly logical spelling for a sound that's
obviously
> &+i in sequence. So I think the "Not" was a bit optimistic.
>
> It's worth noting that FACE PRICE GOAT are all pronounced as
> monophthongs in at least one American dialect;
Which one? I don't know of any that would make all three
monophthongs. "Long I" as /A/ is mainly in the South. The
other two occur as monophthongs in my native dialect, but that
tends to happen most in casual speech.
> ...
> With that tho, I'm going NOMAIL for somewhere between a couple
days and
> a couple months as I travel to the northern hemisphere again
later
> today. Feel free to email me direct but don't necessarily
expect a
> prompt response (this email address redirects to my main one,
which I
> never deliberately give out, so it's fine).
And here I am trying to get out of the Northern Hemisphere.
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. Re: Language Sketch: Gogido
Posted by: "deinx nxtxr" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:05 am ((PDT))
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Henry
> > Perhaps it would be useful to make a distinction between
adverbial
> > prepositional phrases and adjectival prepositional phrases
(I'm not
> > doing that here, because Gogido has no distinction between
adverbs and
> > adjectives, but it could be a neat feature for some other
language).
>
> I think Larry Sulky made that distinction in his Konya and/or
Ilomi, with
> an inflection or derivation of the prepositions. He thought
it would help
> resolve ambiguity to always mark whether a prepositional
phrase
> applies to its immediate preceding noun, or to the verb
wherever
> it might be.
Sasxsek too doesn't distinguish adverbs from adjectives because
they are considered the same class. To distinguish whether a
qualifier applies to another qualifier rather than the head
noun/verb, I simply double the "-i" suffix (which also means
inserting an epenthetic <r>) so you may have something like
this.
timiri bruni haus = dark brown house ("dark"
applies to "brown")
timi bruni haus = dark brown house (the house is dark
AND brown)
> Similarly, it might make sense to have a way to
> mark whether a given prepositional phrase applies to the
immediately
> preceding noun or to some other earlier noun...? I'm not sure
how
> often real ambiguity as opposed to theoretical would result
without
> such marking; e.g. in "she killed him with the gun in the
library",
> "in the library" could theoretically apply to "gun" but
> obviously, from the pragmatics of the situation, applies to
"killed".
This is a case where I think proximity plays a role, but we're
probably more likely to say "from the library" if we are
referring to the origin of the gun.
> > *On the subject of theta-role marking, I had another idea
> for sentence
> > structure which I don't think I've seen before, and I wonder
what
> > langs, if any, employ it. The idea is to have the theta-role
> > assignment order be integrated into the meaning of every
verb. Or,
>
> Sounds like Lojban, maybe Loglan as well. I'm not sure, but
I
> think it's one of the aspects of the language that make it
particularly
> hard to learn, memorizing the purely word-order based argument
> structure of each predicate word.
This is the one thing I hate about Lojan/Loglan. Learning the
vocabulary also means learning the argument list for each one.
There is a certain pattern that most fall into, but it's still
not very intutive. I have a loglang of my own in the works
where I take it down to where each lexical has only one
argument.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8. Uriania update.
Posted by: "Lars Finsen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:42 pm ((PDT))
Hi,
I have written a bit of text in the Uriania pages in spare moments
lately. Still a long, long way to go, and precious little on the
linguistics side yet. Right now I'd like to direct you to the page on
Urianian politics: http://www.ortygia.no/uriania/politikk-eng.html
that I've completed recently. It gives you some manner of
introduction to Urianian social life and some bits of history as
well. I do plan to enter the results of all the elections, but I need
to rework those that I already have. They are made in the naivety of
my youth and need some adjustments to fit into the real Urianian
reality. Besides, I don't have any election results since 1980.
I'd be glad if you have some criticism. Any glaring omissions in the
party list?
LEF
Messages in this topic (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
