There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Concise notation for event-token reification
From: Martin Baldan
2a. Re: Fourth Persons
From: Eldin Raigmore
3a. Subject/Object participles
From: Logan Kearsley
3b. Re: Subject/Object participles
From: Jim Henry
3c. Re: Subject/Object participles
From: R A Brown
3d. Re: Subject/Object participles
From: Matthew
3e. Re: Subject/Object participles
From: Jeffrey Jones
3f. Re: Subject/Object participles
From: R A Brown
3g. Re: Subject/Object participles
From: Logan Kearsley
4a. Re: Reflexive & Reciprocal Marked on the Verb
From: Jeffrey Jones
5a. Greenlandic: 4th Person?
From: Eldin Raigmore
5b. Re: Greenlandic: 4th Person?
From: Henrik Theiling
5c. Re: Greenlandic: 4th Person?
From: Lars Mathiesen
6a. Celadon
From: Eldin Raigmore
6b. Re: Celadon
From: Michael Poxon
6c. Re: Celadon
From: Lars Finsen
6d. Re: Celadon
From: Logan Kearsley
6e. Re: Celadon
From: Ryan Dobie
6f. Re: Celadon
From: Eric Christopherson
7. Re: [aboriconlangs] Greenlandic: 4th Person?
From: Henrik Theiling
8a. Re: The Linguists documentary
From: Leland Kusmer
9. Re: CONLANG Digest - 3 Sep 2008 to 4 Sep 2008 (#2008-244)
From: David McCann
10a. Syntactic Differentiation of Adverbial vs. Adjectival Adpositions
From: Logan Kearsley
10b. Re: Syntactic Differentiation of Adverbial vs. Adjectival Adposition
From: R A Brown
11a. Re: Reflexive & Reciprocal Marked on the Ver
From: Jim Henry
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1. Concise notation for event-token reification
Posted by: "Martin Baldan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Sep 4, 2008 5:07 pm ((PDT))
Hi,
I'm trying to find a concise form of event-token reification (as described
by Donald Davidson).
I'm using types to avoid the need for parens. All functions have fixed arity
and the only brackets left are those marking beginning and ending of blocks
(kind of lists. I'm using some of REBOL terminology, because the syntax ends
up looking much like REBOL, that is, Polish notation). Even those can be
reduced, by only having the block end marker. For those rare cases where a
block is passed by name instead of explicitly, a keyword overrides this
behavior.
[DISCLAMER: I don't claim to have any deep knowledge of type theory and
other stuff I may mention. I'm just playing with the idea of making an
expressive logical language based of event-token-reification (ETR), among
other things. There may be big beginner mistakes in my ideas and I'm looking
for help.]
What we want to express is a sentence like this:
"Brutus killed the emperor with a knife"
If we use ETR it may be something like this:
(exists (?e) (and (eventOfType kills ?e)(subj Brutus ?e) (obj (the emperor)
e) ((a-role w-instr knife)e) ))
Where:
(def a-role (lambda (?r ?p ?a) (exists (x) (and (?r ?x ?a)(exists (e2) (and
(eventOfType ?p ?e2)(subj ?x ?e2)) ))) ))
So, these are my types:
o: object (individual)
v: truth value (T|F)
b: block
Now let's declare the types of some symbols:
declare L#kills [a] :: b->v
declare kills [a b] :: o->o->v
declare L#isAknife [a] :: b->v
declare isAknife [a] :: o->v
declare L#isAnEmperor [ a] :: b->v
declare isAnEmperor [a] :: o->v
declare longsnt [p] :: (o->o->v)->(o->o->b->v)
declare Brutus [ ]:: o
declare subj [a b] :: o->o->v
declare obj [a b] :: o->o->v
declare w-instr [a b] :: o->o->v
declare the [p] :: (o->v)->o
declare a-role [r p] :: (o->o->v)->(o->v)->o->v
Notes:
_ I assume implicit currying of all functions.
_ I'm also assuming we have a particular interpretation, so that predicates
have the form b->v or o->v, that is, they yield a truth value without having
to apply them to a possible world or things like that. I'm not sure about
the formal semantics of the language. I have some ideas, but those are for
another thread. Of course, comments on this subject are also welcome.
_the "L#" version of a verb is the long version, which takes a block and
gives a truth value.
the sorter version has, by convention, the same name minus the "L#". The
short version is declared from de long one.
The short version only takes the arguments for subject and object (which
lets us ommit "subj" and "obj" in the sentence), and it doesn't take a
block, where the additional thematic roles would be, so it lets us ommit the
block ending mark ("end") but this makes it less expressive than the "#L"
form. That's why we also define a "longsnt" (long sentence) function, which
takes the "kills" function and returns a function that does accept a block
for additional roles.
L#kills obj the isAnEmperor subj Brutus a-role w-instr isAKnife end
_parsing: (L#kills [obj the isAnEmperor subj Brutus a-role w-instr
isAknife] )
kills the isAnEmperor Brutus
_parsing: (kills (the isAnEmperor) Brutus)
longsnt kills the isAnEmperor Brutus a-role w-instr isAKnife end
_parsing: ( (longsnt kills) (the isAnEmperor) Brutus [a-role w-instr
isAKnife] )
The types let us get rid of most brackets, but we need fixed arity
functions, and we use blocks (lists, tuples,..) for things with variable
number of items. The evaluation is Polish notation, much like in REBOL.
Since we use lots of lists, we ommit the beginning of the list and only
write "end" at the end of the block. There's a "noblk" keyword that lets us
pass a value as a list instead of writing down the list. There's also a
"bgnblk" keyword to be used in combination with that. For instance:
declare exampleBlock :: b
def exampleBlock obj the emperor subj Brutus a-role w-instr knife end
OR:
def exampleBlock noblk bgnblk obj the emperor subj Brutus a-role w-instr
knife end
And then we can use it:
L#kills noblk exampleBlock
You see, I want to treat "emperor" and "knife" as states, which can begin
and end, and have a subject (BTW, I won't enter on whether to make the
language accusative, ergative or tripartite at this moment. I keep it
accusative in these examples, for simplicity), so much of what applies to
"kills" and "L#kills" applies to them. To avoid confusion, I'll declare the
predicates "L#isAnEmperor" and "L#isAKnife", and then their short forms.
So, we can say: "Brutus killed the then-emperor with a knife":
L#kills lam-x obj the lam-x L#isAnEmperor subj x time-1* super-x end subj
Brutus a-role w-instr isAKnife end
lam-x means "lambda (x)". This way we avoid having to name a variable. We
win concision.
"super-x" refers the "x" in the next outer closure. That's a way to avoid
name collisions in nested lambda expressions. The "super-x" would have a
dedicated short word. Notice that the outer lam-x is of type o->v as
required.
time-1*: The "1" means that the beginning of the L#isAnEmperor event is in
the position "1" with respect to the L#kills event, and the "*" means that
we don't care about the relative position of the ending of the L#isAnEmperor
event,that is:
"time-1* L#kills-event L#isAnEmperor-event"
For instance, if we have two events, A and B, and the sequence is "begin-A
begin-B end-B end-A", then we say "time-15 B A". The range of 1 to 5 is due
to the fact that intervals have two points, so, begin-A could be before
begin-B (1), coinciding with begin-B (2), inside B (3), coinciding with
end-B (4) or after B (5). In the conlang implementation "time-15" would be
three short words, or maybe just one.
For this kind of situation, instead of the nested lambdas we can define a
function "the-when-role", so that in this case we would say:
L#kills the-when-role time-1* obj isAnEmperor subj Brutus a-role w-instr
isAKnife end
We can also define an "a-when-role"
L#kills the-when-role time-1* obj isAnEmperor a-when-role time-*1 subj
isTrustedByCaesar a-role w-instr isAKnife end
----------
Now MY QUESTION is:
I need a function to take a block and return another block where the items
have been recursively wrapped in inner blocks according to their types, so
that the return block is made of blocks, and each of these inner blocks,
when applied, is of type o->v. Let's call this function "smartReduce", for
similarity with REBOL's "reduce".
For instance (using "_#" for user imput and "_>" for the interpreter's
output):
_# smartReduce [obj the emperor subj Brutus a-role w-instr knife]
_> [ [obj the emperor] [subj Brutus] [a-role w-instr knife] ]
_# def exampleBlock [ obj the emperor subj Brutus a-role w-instr knife ]
_>
_# map [tail-block-concat [e]] exampleBlock
_>[ [obj the emperor e] [subj Brutus e] [a-role w-instr knife e] ]
You get the idea :)
Any help and/or feedback appreciated.
Regards,
Martin O.B.
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Fourth Persons
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Sep 4, 2008 5:11 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:48:26 -0700, Aidan Grey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>And Ojibwe is a non_HAS non-Inverse lang too.
>They use "empathetic" for the pronoun because in addition to LDR and
>logophoric roles, it implies empathy and approval. The sample sentence has a
>woman using the empathetic when referring to some kids wanting to learn
>the language, and then switching to a non-LDR/logophor/empathetic pronoun
>when they start acting like jerks (as kids are wont to do).
I see.
>As to Obviative and LDR - they don't necessarily need to be the same
>pronoun, or to be different morphemes. They're not as necessarily distinct in
>my mind. One could use an obviative pronoun as an LDR (and it IS, often, if
>there's no overt LDR) just as easily as not. LDR is a syntactic thing to me,
>and an obviative as a semantic use could easily be used syntactically as well.
>I guess my point is that the 4 points you've discussed don't NEED to be
>distinct, in the way that Perfective and Progressive are distinct, for
>example.
>One pronoun could be used for all 4 roles. Especially since there are some of
>these roles that are distinctly styntactic and other are distinctly semantic.
For my own part it is especially easy for me to see the similarity between LDRs
and "logophoric first-person"; both refer to the subject of the matrix clause.
But for obviatives and LDRs; it seems to me the subject of the main clause
might be considered _more_ topical/focal/salient, rather than _less_
topical/focal/salient than any 3rd-person in the embedded clause; so I could
see a possible conflict between obviatives and LDRs.
As for obviatives and indefinites, it might make sense to use the indefinite
pronoun for the less-salient/focal/topical 3rd-person when there are two 3rd-
person participants of equal animacy.
As for logophorics and obviatives, it might make sense to use the ordinary 3rd-
person pronoun for the "logophoric first-person" (the speaker of the reported
speech-act), and use the obviative for someone who was 3rd-person then and
is still 3rd-person now. Whether the "logophoric second-person" (the original
addressee) should be proximative or obviative might depend on whether the
other participant is the "logophoric first-person" or a third-person who was
also a "logophoric third-person".
I don't see using the indefinite pronoun as an LDR at all.
So, for each two uses (except indefinites and LDRs), I can maybe see maybe
using one pronoun for both functions.
But it's hard to see using one pronoun for three or more.
-------
Thanks!
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Subject/Object participles
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Sep 4, 2008 5:24 pm ((PDT))
Is there any language that distinguishes subject-oriented vs.
object-oriented participles separately from past/present/future/etc.?
Or, since Nearly Everything Has Been Done, perhaps I should ask what
are some languages that have that distinction, and how do they do it?
Descriptive examples-
Consider the English phrases "the running man" and "the hammered
nail". "The running man" corresponds to the sentence "the man runs",
with 'man' as the subject. "The hammered nail", on the other hand, has
nail as the object of 'hammer'. As far as I can tell, present
participles in English are always subject-oriented, while past
participles are always object oriented, and altering that requires
circumlocutions like "the nail which is being hammered" to get 'nail'
to be the object in the present tense. But one could just as well have
a system that marks the tense/aspect/etc. of a participle separately
from whether the thing it modifies is a subject or object. So, what
languages do that, and how? And is it done in natural languages, or
just conlangs?
-l.
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Subject/Object participles
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Sep 4, 2008 5:46 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nail as the object of 'hammer'. As far as I can tell, present
> participles in English are always subject-oriented, while past
> participles are always object oriented, and altering that requires
> circumlocutions like "the nail which is being hammered" to get 'nail'
> to be the object in the present tense. But one could just as well have
> a system that marks the tense/aspect/etc. of a participle separately
> from whether the thing it modifies is a subject or object. So, what
> languages do that, and how? And is it done in natural languages, or
> just conlangs?
Esperanto:
la kuranta viro = the running man
la martelata najlo = the being-hammered nail
with -int and -ont for past and future active/subject participles,
and -it and -ot for past and future passive/subject participles.
I would guess Ido and some other close imitators of Esperanto
have the same or a similar system. The other auxlangs and
engelangs I'm familiar with don't obligatorily distinguish tense
or aspect either in verbs or participles.
In fact, I think Esperanto distinguishes tense in its verb
system and aspect in its participle system; though the
participles are often glossed or introduced as past,
present and future, they (or at least the -i(n)t and -a(n)t forms)
are more like perfective and progressive aspect
than past and future tense, the way they're used. But
whether it's tense or aspect, either way there's orthogonal
marking of subject/object and of tense or aspect.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Subject/Object participles
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 1:33 am ((PDT))
Logan Kearsley wrote:
> Is there any language that distinguishes subject-oriented vs.
> object-oriented participles separately from past/present/future/etc.?
Yes - see below, for example.
[snip]
> Descriptive examples-
> Consider the English phrases "the running man" and "the hammered
> nail". "The running man" corresponds to the sentence "the man runs",
> with 'man' as the subject. "The hammered nail", on the other hand, has
> nail as the object of 'hammer'. As far as I can tell, present
> participles in English are always subject-oriented, while past
> participles are always object oriented,
This is true of the so-called "present participle" which is really
imperfective participle; but it is true of "past participle" _only_ if
the verb is transitive, in which case it is a perfect passive
participle. If, however, the verb is intransitive then the "past
participle" is a perfect _active_ participle, i.e. is
"subject-oriented", e.g.
'our departed friends' corresponds to 'our friends have departed'.
This was situation in Vulgar Latin and is the origin of the distinction
observed in most (but not modern Spanish) Romance langs, cf. French:
il est venue <-- *(ille) est venutus = he is having-come (cf. Esperanto
'li estas venita')
but:
il a lit le livre <-- (ille) habet lectum illum librum = he has the read
(having been read) book.
You will notice the lack of asterisk before the second example because
this construction, which was obviously commonplace in Vulgar Latin, is
also attested to a limited extent in the Classical language.
====================================
Jim Henry wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Logan Kearsley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>>. ......But one could just as well have
>> a system that marks the tense/aspect/etc. of a participle separately
>> from whether the thing it modifies is a subject or object. So, what
>> languages do that, and how? And is it done in natural languages, or
>> just conlangs?
>
> Esperanto:
>
> la kuranta viro = the running man
> la martelata najlo = the being-hammered nail
>
> with -int and -ont for past and future active/subject participles,
> and -it and -ot for past and future passive/subject participles.
>
> I would guess Ido and some other close imitators of Esperanto
> have the same or a similar system.
Ido certainly does and, indeed, extends this also to the infinitive,
having infinitives -ar, -ir and -or for so-called present, past and
future. I say "so-called' because, like the participles, these
distinctions denote aspect rather than time
[snip]
>
> In fact, I think Esperanto distinguishes tense in its verb
> system and aspect in its participle system; though the
> participles are often glossed or introduced as past,
> present and future,
I agree.
But it's not only in conlangs like Esperanto, Ido etc where one finds
participles denoting _aspect_ as well as voice (i.e. 'subject or object
orientation'). In ancient Greek, for example, one finds a very rich
system. Using as an example the verb _luein_ (λύειν) "to free, loosen" :
Active ('subject-oriented')
imperfective (present): luo:n
perfective (aorist): lusa:s
perfect: leluko:s
futuritive: luso:n
Medio-passive (either 'reflexive-oriented' or 'object-oriented)
imperfective (present): luomenos
perfect: lelumenos
Middle ('reflexive-oriented')
perfective (aorist): lusamenos
futuritive: lusomenos
Passive ('object-oriented)
perfective (aorist): lutheis
futuritive: luthe:somenos
(I'm sure these better term than 'futuritive', but I can't recall what
it is).
I'm sure Turkish, which makes extensive use of participles where we
would use clauses in English, has a rich system of participles which
show aspect as well as voice.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: Subject/Object participles
Posted by: "Matthew" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 4:46 am ((PDT))
R A Brown wrote:
> This was situation in Vulgar Latin and is the origin of the
> distinction observed in most (but not modern Spanish) Romance langs,
> cf. French:
> il est venue <-- *(ille) est venutus = he is having-come (cf.
> Esperanto 'li estas venita')
> but:
> il a lit le livre <-- (ille) habet lectum illum librum = he has the
> read (having been read) book.
>
> You will notice the lack of asterisk before the second example because
> this construction, which was obviously commonplace in Vulgar Latin, is
> also attested to a limited extent in the Classical language.
> ====================================
I have a problem with the phrase,/ il a lit le livre/; I can't make any
sense of it, and to me it defiantly does not seem to correspond to the
English translation.
I think that "he has the read book", in French would be /il a le livre lu
/whereas/ *il a lit le livre : he has (is reading/reads) the book/ and
if by /lit /you meant /lu/, then it would be "he has read the book". I
my self would put He has the read book (which to me seems wrong somehow
anyway) as /il a le livre qui a été lu.
/If I'm missing something, please tell me so, and if I'm right, glad I
could help :)/
/
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: Subject/Object participles
Posted by: "Jeffrey Jones" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 5:41 am ((PDT))
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 06:46:34 -0500, Matthew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> R A Brown wrote:
> > This was situation in Vulgar Latin and is the origin of the
> > distinction observed in most (but not modern Spanish) Romance langs,
> > cf. French:
> > il est venue <-- *(ille) est venutus = he is having-come (cf.
> > Esperanto 'li estas venita')
> > but:
> > il a lit le livre <-- (ille) habet lectum illum librum = he has the
> > read (having been read) book.
> >
> > You will notice the lack of asterisk before the second example because
> > this construction, which was obviously commonplace in Vulgar Latin, is
> > also attested to a limited extent in the Classical language.
> > ====================================
> I have a problem with the phrase,/ il a lit le livre/; I can't make any
> sense of it, and to me it defiantly does not seem to correspond to the
> English translation.
> I think that "he has the read book", in French would be /il a le livre lu
> /whereas/ *il a lit le livre : he has (is reading/reads) the book/ and
>i f by /lit /you meant /lu/, then it would be "he has read the book". I
> my self would put He has the read book (which to me seems wrong somehow
> anyway) as /il a le livre qui a été lu.
> /If I'm missing something, please tell me so, and if I'm right, glad I
> could help :)/
> /
This is interesting. Since I don't speak French, I thought it might be a
difference in dialect, but the dictionary definitely has lu as the past
participle,
not lit. But lit is exactly the form you'd expect if you applied the French
sound
changes to lectum! It seems the French at some point changed a lot of past
participles analogously, since lu would have to have come from *legu:tum
(which requires the infinitive to be *leguere, not legere -- something to do
with legu:mina?).
Jeff
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3f. Re: Subject/Object participles
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 5:54 am ((PDT))
Jeffrey Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 06:46:34 -0500, Matthew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> R A Brown wrote:
>>> This was situation in Vulgar Latin and is the origin of the
>>> distinction observed in most (but not modern Spanish) Romance langs,
>>> cf. French:
>>> il est venue <-- *(ille) est venutus = he is having-come (cf.
>>> Esperanto 'li estas venita')
>>> but:
>>> il a lit le livre <-- (ille) habet lectum illum librum = he has the
>>> read (having been read) book.
>>>
>>> You will notice the lack of asterisk before the second example because
>>> this construction, which was obviously commonplace in Vulgar Latin, is
>>> also attested to a limited extent in the Classical language.
>>> ====================================
>> I have a problem with the phrase,/ il a lit le livre/; I can't make any
>> sense of it, and to me it defiantly does not seem to correspond to the
>> English translation.
>> I think that "he has the read book", in French would be /il a le livre lu
>> /whereas/ *il a lit le livre : he has (is reading/reads) the book/ and
>> i f by /lit /you meant /lu/, then it would be "he has read the book". I
>> my self would put He has the read book (which to me seems wrong somehow
>> anyway) as /il a le livre qui a été lu.
>> /If I'm missing something, please tell me so, and if I'm right, glad I
>> could help :)/
>> /
>
> This is interesting. Since I don't speak French, I thought it might be a
> difference in dialect,
No it ain't - just gross careless from someone suffering
hypocaffeination at the time :(
Somewhere I recalled _lectun_ --> _lit_ - but that's the word for *bed*!!
Of course I should have written _il a lu le livre_
..and that rather spoils the Latin equivalent. It's one of the many
instances where the Vulgar Latin of north Gaul remodeled the past
participle; instead of the Latin _legere_ ~ _lectu(m)_ in North Gaul one
had _legere_ ~ *legu:tu(m)
Sadly my lapse in concentration has drawn attention away from the actual
subject of the thread. Mea culpa!
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3g. Re: Subject/Object participles
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 8:49 am ((PDT))
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> nail as the object of 'hammer'. As far as I can tell, present
>> participles in English are always subject-oriented, while past
>> participles are always object oriented, and altering that requires
>> circumlocutions like "the nail which is being hammered" to get 'nail'
>> to be the object in the present tense. But one could just as well have
>> a system that marks the tense/aspect/etc. of a participle separately
>> from whether the thing it modifies is a subject or object. So, what
>> languages do that, and how? And is it done in natural languages, or
>> just conlangs?
>
> Esperanto:
>
> la kuranta viro = the running man
> la martelata najlo = the being-hammered nail
>
> with -int and -ont for past and future active/subject participles,
> and -it and -ot for past and future passive/subject participles.
Neat.
I seem to be on a roll of being surprised by neat features of
languages I thought I knew something about but apparently didn't
lately.
> This is true of the so-called "present participle" which is really
> imperfective participle; but it is true of "past participle" _only_ if the
> verb is transitive, in which case it is a perfect passive participle. If,
> however, the verb is intransitive then the "past participle" is a perfect
> _active_ participle, i.e. is "subject-oriented", e.g.
> 'our departed friends' corresponds to 'our friends have departed'.
Aha! Good point. I probably would've figured that out if I had thought about it.
Also, thanks for the proper terminology- 'active' vs. 'passive'. Don't
know why I didn't think of that, either....
-l.
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Reflexive & Reciprocal Marked on the Verb
Posted by: "Jeffrey Jones" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Sep 4, 2008 6:39 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:38:05 -0400, Eldin Raigmore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How do your 'langs (whether nat- or con-) handle this?
> Do they just not distinguish "reflexive" from "reciprocal"?
> Do they distinguish it by marking the verb with, say, a "voice"
> or "version" of "reflexive" or "reciprocal" (not the same)?
> Or do they mark the difference elsewhere in the clause, say by either a
> reflexive pronoun or a reciprocal pronoun or both?
(cross-posted)
I have a newish exolang that I've been playing with on and off, called klop,
for
lack of something better. It doesn't have any phonology or vocabulary, so I
have to use cryptic abbreviations mixed with English glosses.
k>l see. "I see you." (direct voice)
k<l see. "You see me." (inverse voice)
kRl see. "We see each other." (reciprocal voice)
mX see. "We see ourselves." (reflexive voice)
To answer a question you didn't ask:
q=k. "Who are you?"
k=n cat. "I am a cat."
p=a eggman. "They are the eggmen."
Jeff
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Greenlandic: 4th Person?
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 7:14 am ((PDT))
The Yupik languages of Western Arctic America, or some of them, are
famous-ish for having long-distance-reflexives.
I don't know as much about the Inuit languages of Eastern Arctic
America and Greenland.
In reading "Syntactic Heads and Word Formation" by Marit Julien
(Oxford University Press, 2002) I came across the following samples.
She says they come from "West Greenlandic" by Michael Fortescue
(Croom Helm, London, 1984).
a.
Ippasaq tikip-put aqagu-lu ikinnguta-at tiki-ssa-pput.
yesterday arrive-IND.3p tomorrow-and friends-3p arrive-FUT-IND.3p
"They arrived yesterday and their friends will arrive tomorrow."
b.
Isir-puq ingil-lu-ni-lu.
com.in-IND.3s sit.down-CTMP-4s-and
"She came in and sat down."
c.
Pilirtuttumik irrui-vuq ini-mi-nul-lu majuar-lu-ni.
quickly wash.up-IND.3s room-4s.REFL-ALL-and go.up-CTMP-4s
"He washed up quickly and went up to his room."
(3p means "3rd person plural")
(3s means "3rd person singular")
(4s means "4th person singular")
(ALL means "allative")
(CTMP means "contemporative" relative tense; known elsewhere
as "simultaneous", contrasting with "anterior" and "posterior")
(FUT means "future")
(IND means "indicative")
(REFL means "reflexive")
My question is about the "-ni-" and "-ni" 4s and the "-mi- 4s.REFL
suffixes.
(1) Why are these fourth person?
(2) What does "fourth person" mean here? Does it mean obviative? Does
it mean long-distance-reflexive? Or something else?
(3) If it means "obviative", why wasn't "ikinnguta-at tiki-ssa-pput"
("friends-3p arrive-FUT-IND.3p") fourth-person in example "a"?
(4) If it means "long-distance-reflexive", why was it used in
examples "b" and "c", "ingil-lu-ni-lu" ("sit.down-CTMP-4s-and")
and "ini-mi-nul-lu majuar-lu-ni" ("room-4s.REFL-ALL-and go.up-CTMP-
4s")? Shouldn't those be 3rd person instead of Long-Distance-
Reflexive?
And, a general question about Greenlandic Inuit:
Does it have obviatives?
Does it have long-distance-reflexives?
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: Greenlandic: 4th Person?
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 8:08 am ((PDT))
Hi!
Eldin Raigmore writes:
>...
> Isir-puq ingil-lu-ni-lu.
>...
> Pilirtuttumik irrui-vuq ini-mi-nul-lu majuar-lu-ni.
>...
Was that an exact copy of what was written in that book/paper?
Because it should be -poq and -voq instead of *-puq and *-vuq.
Kalaallisut has an /a i u/ vowel system and before uvulars, /u/ is
pronounced as [o] or even [O] and thus written as _o_.
The underlying ending is often written as 'Vuq', but is realised as
either -poq or -voq or -por- or -vor- (and maybe even -pu- and -vu,
although I don't remember an example), depending on phonological
context.
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. Re: Greenlandic: 4th Person?
Posted by: "Lars Mathiesen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 8:22 am ((PDT))
It's been too many years since I read a Greenlandic grammar, so I've
forgotten the details of the 4th person marking -- but looking at the
examples, could it be that the unmarked (3p) agreement is used for 'new'
persons, and 4p is used to show that it's the same person?
Unobviative, anyone?
--
Lars
2008/9/5 Eldin Raigmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The Yupik languages of Western Arctic America, or some of them, are
> famous-ish for having long-distance-reflexives.
>
> I don't know as much about the Inuit languages of Eastern Arctic
> America and Greenland.
>
> In reading "Syntactic Heads and Word Formation" by Marit Julien
> (Oxford University Press, 2002) I came across the following samples.
>
> She says they come from "West Greenlandic" by Michael Fortescue
> (Croom Helm, London, 1984).
>
> a.
> Ippasaq tikip-put aqagu-lu ikinnguta-at tiki-ssa-pput.
> yesterday arrive-IND.3p tomorrow-and friends-3p arrive-FUT-IND.3p
> "They arrived yesterday and their friends will arrive tomorrow."
>
> b.
> Isir-puq ingil-lu-ni-lu.
> com.in-IND.3s sit.down-CTMP-4s-and
> "She came in and sat down."
>
> c.
> Pilirtuttumik irrui-vuq ini-mi-nul-lu majuar-lu-ni.
> quickly wash.up-IND.3s room-4s.REFL-ALL-and go.up-CTMP-4s
> "He washed up quickly and went up to his room."
>
> (3p means "3rd person plural")
> (3s means "3rd person singular")
> (4s means "4th person singular")
> (ALL means "allative")
> (CTMP means "contemporative" relative tense; known elsewhere
> as "simultaneous", contrasting with "anterior" and "posterior")
> (FUT means "future")
> (IND means "indicative")
> (REFL means "reflexive")
>
> My question is about the "-ni-" and "-ni" 4s and the "-mi- 4s.REFL
> suffixes.
> (1) Why are these fourth person?
> (2) What does "fourth person" mean here? Does it mean obviative? Does
> it mean long-distance-reflexive? Or something else?
> (3) If it means "obviative", why wasn't "ikinnguta-at tiki-ssa-pput"
> ("friends-3p arrive-FUT-IND.3p") fourth-person in example "a"?
> (4) If it means "long-distance-reflexive", why was it used in
> examples "b" and "c", "ingil-lu-ni-lu" ("sit.down-CTMP-4s-and")
> and "ini-mi-nul-lu majuar-lu-ni" ("room-4s.REFL-ALL-and go.up-CTMP-
> 4s")? Shouldn't those be 3rd person instead of Long-Distance-
> Reflexive?
>
> And, a general question about Greenlandic Inuit:
> Does it have obviatives?
> Does it have long-distance-reflexives?
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Celadon
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 7:17 am ((PDT))
(Should this have a tag on it? What tag?)
Etymology:
Where did the word "Celadon" come from?
If it came into English from French or Arabic or Sanskrit,
how did it get into French or Arabic or Sanskrit (as the case may be)?
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
6b. Re: Celadon
Posted by: "Michael Poxon" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 8:56 am ((PDT))
What does "celadon" mean? I've never heard of it!
Mike
> Where did the word "Celadon" come from?
> If it came into English from French or Arabic or Sanskrit,
> how did it get into French or Arabic or Sanskrit (as the case may be)?
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
6c. Re: Celadon
Posted by: "Lars Finsen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 8:58 am ((PDT))
Den 5. sep. 2008 kl. 16.17 skreiv Eldin Raigmore:
> Where did the word "Celadon" come from?
> If it came into English from French or Arabic or Sanskrit,
> how did it get into French or Arabic or Sanskrit (as the case may be)?
Wikipedia mentions several theories, of which I like Saladin the
best. Wouldn't take much corruption to turn that into celadon. Just
stress the second syllable, and there you have it.
Anyway, I really like the word, one of my favourites.
Another favourite is smegma....
LEF
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
6d. Re: Celadon
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 9:05 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Michael Poxon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What does "celadon" mean? I've never heard of it!
According to the Internet, a pale grey-green to grey-blue glaze used
for stoneware and porcelain, or a ceramic item of that color.
-l.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
6e. Re: Celadon
Posted by: "Ryan Dobie" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 9:28 am ((PDT))
If Wiktionary is a reliable source, it's also the colour of that glaze,
regardless of whether it's ceramic or not.
(color) a pale green <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/green>
colour<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/colour>or tinted with
gray <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gray>. celadon colour:
Ryan Dobie
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Michael Poxon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What does "celadon" mean? I've never heard of it!
>
> According to the Internet, a pale grey-green to grey-blue glaze used
> for stoneware and porcelain, or a ceramic item of that color.
>
> -l.
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
6f. Re: Celadon
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 9:52 am ((PDT))
On Sep 5, 2008, at 9:17 AM, Eldin Raigmore wrote:
> (Should this have a tag on it? What tag?)
> Etymology:
> Where did the word "Celadon" come from?
> If it came into English from French or Arabic or Sanskrit,
> how did it get into French or Arabic or Sanskrit (as the case may be)?
AHD says (and other dictionaries listed at etymonline.com say similar
things):
French, after C�ladon, a character in L'Astr�e, a romance by Honor�
d'Urf� (1568�1625), French writer, after Celad�n, a character in
Ovid's Metamorphoses.
Wikipedia says:
The term "celadon" for the pottery's pale jade-green glaze was first
applied by European connoisseurs of the wares. One theory is that the
name first appeared in France in the 17th century and is named after
the shepherd Celadon in Honor� d'Urf�'s French pastoral romance,
L'Astr�e (1627), who wore pale green ribbons. (D'Urfe, in turn,
borrowed his character from Ovid's Metamorphoses.) Another is that
the term is a corruption of the name of Saladin (Salah ad-Din), the
Ayyubid Sultan, who in 1171 sent forty pieces of the ceramic to Nur
ad-Din, Sultan of Syria.[2] Yet another is the word derives from the
Sanskrit sila and dhara, which mean "stone" and "green" respectively.
I can't find the etymology of Latin Celad�n/Greek Kelad�n.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7. Re: [aboriconlangs] Greenlandic: 4th Person?
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 8:18 am ((PDT))
Hi!
To answer your question:
eldin_raigmore writes:
> a.
> Ippasaq tikip-put aqagu-lu ikinnguta-at tiki-ssa-pput.
> yesterday arrive-IND.3p tomorrow-and friends-3p arrive-FUT-IND.3p
> "They arrived yesterday and their friends will arrive tomorrow."
3rd person possessive here refers to the previous clause's subject,
not to the subject of the clause it is in.
> b.
> Isir-puq ingil-lu-ni-lu.
> com.in-IND.3s sit.down-CTMP-4s-and
> "She came in and sat down."
4th person subject here refers reflexively (long-distance reflexive)
to the previous clause, coindexing the subjects (note the ellipsis in
English).
> c.
> Pilirtuttumik irrui-vuq ini-mi-nul-lu majuar-lu-ni.
> quickly wash.up-IND.3s room-4s.REFL-ALL-and go.up-CTMP-4s
> "He washed up quickly and went up to his room."
4th person subject: long-distance reflexive to previous clause (again:
ellipsis in English),
4th persion possessive: normal reflexive to subject of second clause.
> (1) Why are these fourth person?
Reflexives. Both long-distance (as subject verb ending) and normal
(as possessive).
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8a. Re: The Linguists documentary
Posted by: "Leland Kusmer" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 8:20 am ((PDT))
Yup! I'm a student at Swarthmore College, where one of the linguists in the
film (K. David Harrison) is currently a professor. He did a showing of the
film at the end of last year. It's fairly good; as you might expect, it's
intended for a non-linguistically-inclined audience, but accomplishes fairly
well exactly what it set out to do: Highlights the issues of language death
for the general public. Worth a viewing, I'd say.
-Leland
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Donald Boozer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Has anyone else heard about this film documentary coming out? The
> Linguists. The main page is http://www.thelinguists.com/ . It's about two
> guys traveling to document the endangered languages of the world. Someone at
> work clued me into it..."Aren't you into languages?" he said. Ah, yes, the
> conlang display continues to bear fruit even though it's down now.
>
> -Don
>
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
9. Re: CONLANG Digest - 3 Sep 2008 to 4 Sep 2008 (#2008-244)
Posted by: "David McCann" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 8:39 am ((PDT))
On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 13:06 -0700, David J. Peterson wrote:
> Someone just sent me an e-mail on my site asking me to relay
> a message to Jeffrey Henning. I share his frustration, because
> I haven't had much luck. Is there anyone who knows how he
> can reliably be reached right now?
>
If the worst comes to the worst, you could try various tools to search
for an email address: see http://www.emailaddresses.com/email_find.htm
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
10a. Syntactic Differentiation of Adverbial vs. Adjectival Adpositions
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 8:57 am ((PDT))
Consider the sentence "I ate the fruit on the table."
In English, this is structurally ambiguous, because the prepositional
phrase can apply to the verb or a noun- did I eat fruit which was on
the table, or did I eat the fruit while I was on the table?
I think someone mentioned a conlang that has a semantic distinction
between adverbial and adjectival prepositions; that would be
interesting to investigate. But what about using different syntax to
distinguish the two cases? Say, prepositions as noun-modifiers, and
postpositions as verb-modifiers (or vice-versa)?
Then the case where the fruit was on the table before I ate it would
be "I ate the fruit on the table", whereas the case where I ate the
fruit while I was on the table would be "I ate the fruit the table on"
/ "I the table on ate the fruit".
-l.
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
10b. Re: Syntactic Differentiation of Adverbial vs. Adjectival Adposition
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 9:49 am ((PDT))
Logan Kearsley wrote:
> Consider the sentence "I ate the fruit on the table."
> In English, this is structurally ambiguous, because the prepositional
> phrase can apply to the verb or a noun- did I eat fruit which was on
> the table, or did I eat the fruit while I was on the table?
> I think someone mentioned a conlang that has a semantic distinction
> between adverbial and adjectival prepositions;
Quite likely, tho I can't think of one immediately. But Classical Latin
certainly makes a distinction. In CL prepositional phrases may be used
only adverbially.
Therefore _poma in mensa edi_ can mean only that I got onto the table
and ate the fruit* there (the fruit may have already been on the table
waiting for me to climb beside it and eat it, or I may have brought
along to eat there).
*I assume 'fruit' is being used as a mass noun in this English sentence,
therefore I've used the neuter plural _poma_.
If I want to say I eat the fruit which was already on the table waiting
for me, then I must say: _poma quae in mensa erant edi.
> But what about using different syntax to
> distinguish the two cases? Say, prepositions as noun-modifiers, and
> postpositions as verb-modifiers (or vice-versa)?
>
> Then the case where the fruit was on the table before I ate it would
> be "I ate the fruit on the table", whereas the case where I ate the
> fruit while I was on the table would be "I ate the fruit the table on"
> / "I the table on ate the fruit".
I see; adpositional phrases use a preposition if they function
adverbially but a postposition if they function adjectivally.
Interesting idea - somehow I doubt that any natlang works like that -
but you newer know with ANADEW ;)
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
11a. Re: Reflexive & Reciprocal Marked on the Ver
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Sep 5, 2008 9:13 am ((PDT))
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Eldin Raigmore
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do your 'langs (whether nat- or con-) handle this?
> Do they just not distinguish "reflexive" from "reciprocal"?
gzb has separate reflexive and reciprocal verb suffixes,
although it doesn't otherwise mark object on the verb
(marking subject on the verb is optional, usually done only
when there is no explicit subject elsewhere in the clause).
Esperanto marks reflexive with the reflexive pronoun "si"
in the accusative,
Ili kisis sin.
They-NOM kissed themselves-ACC.
The reciprocal is:
Ili kisis unu la alian.
They-NOM kissed one-NOM the other-ACC.
--
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 (14)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
