There are 24 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. coexisting case question
From: René Uittenbogaard
1b. Re: coexisting case question
From: Eugene Oh
1c. Re: coexisting case question
From: Eric Christopherson
1d. Re: coexisting case question
From: Alex Fink
1e. Re: coexisting case question
From: R A Brown
1f. Re: coexisting case question
From: Henrik Theiling
1g. Re: coexisting case question
From: Henrik Theiling
1h. Re: coexisting case question
From: Eldin Raigmore
1i. Re: coexisting case question
From: Henrik Theiling
1j. Re: coexisting case question
From: Eric Christopherson
2a. Re: Maximal flexibility with self-segregating morphology
From: Logan Kearsley
2b. Re: Maximal flexibility with self-segregating morphology
From: Jim Henry
3a. CHAT: Book recommendations?
From: J R
3b. Re: CHAT: Book recommendations?
From: Eugene Oh
3c. Re: CHAT: Book recommendations?
From: Logan Kearsley
3d. Re: CHAT: Book recommendations?
From: Eldin Raigmore
3e. Re: CHAT: Book recommendations?
From: R A Brown
3f. Re: CHAT: Book recommendations?
From: Tim Smith
4a. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
From: Jim Henry
4b. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
From: Eldin Raigmore
4c. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
From: Eldin Raigmore
4d. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
From: Logan Kearsley
5a. Re: Greenlandic: 4th Person?
From: Eldin Raigmore
6a. Re: Syntactic Differentiation of Adverbial vs. Adjectival Adposition
From: Jim Henry
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. coexisting case question
Posted by: "René Uittenbogaard" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 3:36 pm ((PDT))
My question concerns the case of which I've forgotten the name,
let me call it the "reverse genitive" case just for convenience.
The idea behind it was that the possessed thing is in the "reverse
genitive" case and the possessor in the appropriate case in the
sentence:
I-NOM look_at palace-ACC king-GEN.
I'm looking at the palace of the king.
vs.
I-NOM look_at palace-REVGEN king-ACC.
I'm looking at the palace of the king.
Now my question is: would it be very unlikely for a language to use
this "reverse genitive" case only for quantities, and the usual
genitive otherwise, so that the following constructs coexisted:
For "usual" genitives:
I-NOM hold book-ACC lady-GEN.
I am holding a book of the lady.
But for quantities:
I-NOM hold glass-REVGEN wine-ACC.
I am holding a glass of wine.
We might even label this last example as "quantitative case".
What's in a name, but it looks a lot more plausible like this :)
I-NOM hold glass-QUANT wine-ACC.
I am holding a glass of wine.
Thanks in advance,
René
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: coexisting case question
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 9:53 pm ((PDT))
Arabic calls it the "construct case", IIRC.
The quantitative case exists as adverbs in Chinese and Japanese, as well as
Korean.
Hon o issatsu yomu
Book ACC one-book read
Eugene
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:36 AM, René Uittenbogaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> My question concerns the case of which I've forgotten the name,
> let me call it the "reverse genitive" case just for convenience.
> The idea behind it was that the possessed thing is in the "reverse
> genitive" case and the possessor in the appropriate case in the
> sentence:
>
> I-NOM look_at palace-ACC king-GEN.
> I'm looking at the palace of the king.
>
> vs.
>
> I-NOM look_at palace-REVGEN king-ACC.
> I'm looking at the palace of the king.
>
>
> Now my question is: would it be very unlikely for a language to use
> this "reverse genitive" case only for quantities, and the usual
> genitive otherwise, so that the following constructs coexisted:
>
> For "usual" genitives:
> I-NOM hold book-ACC lady-GEN.
> I am holding a book of the lady.
>
> But for quantities:
> I-NOM hold glass-REVGEN wine-ACC.
> I am holding a glass of wine.
>
> We might even label this last example as "quantitative case".
> What's in a name, but it looks a lot more plausible like this :)
>
> I-NOM hold glass-QUANT wine-ACC.
> I am holding a glass of wine.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> René
>
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: coexisting case question
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 10:38 pm ((PDT))
On Sep 8, 2008, at 5:36 PM, René Uittenbogaard wrote:
> My question concerns the case of which I've forgotten the name,
> let me call it the "reverse genitive" case just for convenience.
It sounds like you're thinking of the construct state of the Semitic
languages. Note that I didn't say case; AIUI it is a category
separate from the case system.
> The idea behind it was that the possessed thing is in the "reverse
> genitive" case and the possessor in the appropriate case in the
> sentence:
>
> I-NOM look_at palace-ACC king-GEN.
> I'm looking at the palace of the king.
>
> vs.
>
> I-NOM look_at palace-REVGEN king-ACC.
> I'm looking at the palace of the king.
I don't know of a language that would put the possessed in the
construct state AND allow the possessor to take various cases. IIRC
in Arabic the possessor, when marked for case at all, is always put
in the genitive. Anyone know for sure?
But it does sound like a cool idea!
> Now my question is: would it be very unlikely for a language to use
> this "reverse genitive" case only for quantities, and the usual
> genitive otherwise, so that the following constructs coexisted:
>
> For "usual" genitives:
> I-NOM hold book-ACC lady-GEN.
> I am holding a book of the lady.
>
> But for quantities:
> I-NOM hold glass-REVGEN wine-ACC.
> I am holding a glass of wine.
>
> We might even label this last example as "quantitative case".
> What's in a name, but it looks a lot more plausible like this :)
This actually looks like what's called the partitive case in Finnish
and maybe some other languages.
I don't see any reason why a language couldn't employ this division
of labor. I am considering something similar in a language I'm
(slowly) working on that has a construct state.
As for natlangs, Ainu has something that looks to me a lot like a
construct state, and besides that you can also form possessives by
affixing pronominal prefixes or nouns to the verb <kor>, which means
"to have". Which construction you use depends to some extent on
whether the possession is inalienable, but there are exceptions to that.
>
> I-NOM hold glass-QUANT wine-ACC.
> I am holding a glass of wine.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> René
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: coexisting case question
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 11:50 pm ((PDT))
Double-barreled reply here.
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 12:52:58 +0800, Eugene Oh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The quantitative case exists as adverbs in Chinese and Japanese, as well as
>Korean.
Adverbs?! That's an analysis of the counters I've never seen before. Whose
is it? How's it justified?
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 00:38:29 -0500, Eric Christopherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Sep 8, 2008, at 5:36 PM, René Uittenbogaard wrote:
>
>> My question concerns the case of which I've forgotten the name,
>> let me call it the "reverse genitive" case just for convenience.
>
>It sounds like you're thinking of the construct state of the Semitic
>languages. Note that I didn't say case; AIUI it is a category
>separate from the case system.
Right, in Semitic. Many many langs do the same thing with their 'possessed
by a third person' marking as well ('his/her/its X'), in a paradigm that
also includes first and second persons as well. (And in these you often get
nice lexicalisations of the possessed form with particular narrow senses:
"its wind" -> "breath", "its water" -> "sap", whatever.)
>I don't know of a language that would put the possessed in the
>construct state AND allow the possessor to take various cases. IIRC
>in Arabic the possessor, when marked for case at all, is always put
>in the genitive. Anyone know for sure?
>
>But it does sound like a cool idea!
It seems to me like something some language probably does, somewhere. After
all, possessor raising is something plenty of languages do -- English "he
hit _me_ on the leg" with the same semantic force as "he hit _my leg_" is an
example -- and with appropriate case marking you'd get this pattern.
>> But for quantities:
>> I-NOM hold glass-REVGEN wine-ACC.
>> I am holding a glass of wine.
>>
>> We might even label this last example as "quantitative case".
>> What's in a name, but it looks a lot more plausible like this :)
>
>This actually looks like what's called the partitive case in Finnish
>and maybe some other languages.
But it's the reverse of the partitive case, no? Just as the construct
(being agnostic as to whether that's a case or a state or what, which surely
is language-dependent) is the reverse of the genitive. It would still be
glass-ACC wine-PART using a partitive.
A quantitative case alongside a genitive sounds entirely believable to me,
anyhow.
Perhaps English "-ful" (as in "cupful") could even be construed as a parallel?
Alex
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: coexisting case question
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 2:43 am ((PDT))
René Uittenbogaard wrote:
[snip]
> Now my question is: would it be very unlikely for a language to use
> this "reverse genitive" case only for quantities, and the usual
> genitive otherwise, so that the following constructs coexisted:
>
> For "usual" genitives:
> I-NOM hold book-ACC lady-GEN.
> I am holding a book of the lady.
>
> But for quantities:
> I-NOM hold glass-REVGEN wine-ACC.
> I am holding a glass of wine.
It would be quite normal to use one construction for quantities and a
quite different one for 'possessive genitive'. Many languages do this.
For example in Welsh:
POSSESSIVE: llyfr y ferch
book the lady = the lady's book
PARTITIVE: gwydraid o wyn
glass(ful) of wine
> We might even label this last example as "quantitative case".
> What's in a name, but it looks a lot more plausible like this :)
>
> I-NOM hold glass-QUANT wine-ACC.
> I am holding a glass of wine.
..and if we consider "I am drinking a glass of wine" it is even more
plausible, as it is surely the wine I am drinking and not the cup. i.e.
the wine is logically the object.
This seems to me eminently plausible and I would be surprised if
constructions like this were _not_ found in some natlangs.
In short, using different constructions for 'possessive genitive' and
for partitives are not uncommon; so, yes, they can and do coexist in
many natlangs.
The sort of construction you suggest for quantities seem to me quite
plausible (and I'm sure is found).
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: coexisting case question
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 4:45 am ((PDT))
Hi!
Eugene Oh writes:
> Arabic calls it the "construct case", IIRC.
'Construct state'. It is a different category from 'case'. In
Arabic, nouns are inflected for both: state and case, so you can
have a word in construct state in genitive case (which Arabic also
has).
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: coexisting case question
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 4:47 am ((PDT))
Hi!
Eric Christopherson writes:
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 5:36 PM, René Uittenbogaard wrote:
>
>> My question concerns the case of which I've forgotten the name,
>> let me call it the "reverse genitive" case just for convenience.
>
> It sounds like you're thinking of the construct state of the Semitic
> languages. Note that I didn't say case; AIUI it is a category
> separate from the case system.
Oops, you already answered! Sorry for not reading all posts before
posting (I always do that, I'm affraid...).
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: coexisting case question
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 9:29 am ((PDT))
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:44:52 +0200, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>'Construct state'. It is a different category from 'case'. In
>Arabic, nouns are inflected for both: state and case, so you can
>have a word in construct state in genitive case (which Arabic also
>has).
>**Henrik
Also, Akkadian (which is another Semitic language) could have possessive
phrases in which the possessor was in the genitive case and the thing
possessed was in the construct state. (Not that I know Akkadian; I just
remember seeing that fact on the CONLANG List sometime before.)
----------------
As for Rene's other ideas; what everyone else has said (though I say it with
much less authority!) Go for it, Rene!
-----------------
>'Construct state'. It is a different category from 'case'.
Doesn't "state" also have "definite" and "indefinite", and/or
possibly "specific/referential" and "nonspecific/nonreferential", as values?
Or is
that true only in some languages with a "construct state", but not in, for
instance, Arabic? Or am I just confused?
>In Arabic, nouns are inflected for both: state and case, so you can
>have a word in construct state in genitive case (which Arabic also
>has).
I wasn't aware of that! What're a few good uses of nouns in construct state
and genitive case simultaneously?
-----
eldin
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1i. Re: coexisting case question
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 10:46 am ((PDT))
Hi!
Eldin Raigmore writes:
>...
>>'Construct state'. It is a different category from 'case'.
>
> Doesn't "state" also have "definite" and "indefinite", and/or
> possibly "specific/referential" and "nonspecific/nonreferential", as
> values? Or is that true only in some languages with a "construct
> state", but not in, for instance, Arabic? Or am I just confused?
Definite/indefinite is precisely the point here: the construct state
has the same noun form as the definite state, only instead of an
article, a different defining clause comes into play: the genitive
noun.
>...
> I wasn't aware of that! What're a few good uses of nouns in
> construct state and genitive case simultaneously?
>...
It occurs regularly in chained genitive constructions:
father's book's page
'book' would be in both construct state and genitive case.
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1j. Re: coexisting case question
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 10:54 am ((PDT))
On Sep 9, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Eldin Raigmore writes:
>> ...
>>> 'Construct state'. It is a different category from 'case'.
>>
>> Doesn't "state" also have "definite" and "indefinite", and/or
>> possibly "specific/referential" and "nonspecific/nonreferential", as
>> values? Or is that true only in some languages with a "construct
>> state", but not in, for instance, Arabic? Or am I just confused?
>
> Definite/indefinite is precisely the point here: the construct state
> has the same noun form as the definite state, only instead of an
> article, a different defining clause comes into play: the genitive
> noun.
Not quite. Feminine nouns in -a take -at in the construct, but not in
the definite. (I'm not sure if other nouns besides feminines in -a
have a different marking...)
However, AIUI a noun in the construct state is understood to be
semantically definite (there is a circumlocution that must be used to
say "a book of the father"). Construct state nouns are not allowed to
take the definite article <al->; nor can they take the final <-n>
that indefinites sometimes take.
>
>> ...
>> I wasn't aware of that! What're a few good uses of nouns in
>> construct state and genitive case simultaneously?
>> ...
>
> It occurs regularly in chained genitive constructions:
>
> father's book's page
>
> 'book' would be in both construct state and genitive case.
>
> **Henrik
Alex Fink wrote:
>>> But for quantities:
>>> I-NOM hold glass-REVGEN wine-ACC.
>>> I am holding a glass of wine.
>>>
>>> We might even label this last example as "quantitative case".
>>> What's in a name, but it looks a lot more plausible like this :)
>>>
>>
>> This actually looks like what's called the partitive case in Finnish
>> and maybe some other languages.
>>
>
> But it's the reverse of the partitive case, no? Just as the construct
> (being agnostic as to whether that's a case or a state or what,
> which surely
> is language-dependent) is the reverse of the genitive. It would
> still be
> glass-ACC wine-PART using a partitive.
Oops; you're right.
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Maximal flexibility with self-segregating morphology
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 4:39 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Altogether, this results in the most flexible self-segregating
> morphological system I have yet seen (although, it only addresses
> segregating words, rather than individual morphemes, but a
> word-internal segregation system could be superimposed fairly easily).
Having thought about this more over the course of the day, I have come
to a conclusion which I thought was rather profound, but I suspect
many people will find blatantly obvious-
there is a sliding scale of flexibility vs. ease of parsing, such that
there is no maximally flexible segregating morphology in an abstract
objective sense; rather, there's a maximally
flexible morphology with respect to the structure already imposed by a
language's phonotactics, and how much mental effort your willing to
put into parsing out words.
-l.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Maximal flexibility with self-segregating morphology
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 9:10 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rather than using any pair of vowels to mark the end of a word, what
> about having classes of vowels, with particular class pairings being
> reserved for boundary-marking, but leaving other pairing free for use
> internally? The classes don't have to based on harmony, but that seems
> a natural choice. Rather than all vowels except the last harmonizing
> with the first in a word, you could have all vowel pairs being
> harmonious or all disharmonious except the last. This also opens up
> more freedom with affixing, because the internal vowels of a word
> won't have to change to re-harmonize with the new initials or new
> terminals provided by affixes.
In languages with vowel harmony, it's usually the
affixes whose vowels alter to harmonize with the
root, not vice versa. The reverse would be an
interesting experiment; how would you handle
multiple affixes? The last suffix or the first
prefix determines the harmony pattern of the
whole word?
> Thus, you can use any single vowels you
> want internally, and you can use some types of vowel sequences.
Or maybe, as Larry suggested, use diphtongizable
vowel sequences as your final pairs and non-diphthongizable
pairs as the initial/medial pairs. Or vice versa.
That is, any pair that includes one of /i/ ~ /j/
or /u/ ~ /w/ is allowed in one position, and other
pairs that include neither of those are allowed
in the other positions.
If you have the usual 5-vowel auxlang/fauxlang
system, that would give you 16 diphthongs
and 9 non-diphthong vowel pairs; or 6 and 14
if you rule out sequences of two instances of the
same vowel (/aa/, /ee/, /ii/), or diphthongs with
the vowel and semivowel allophones of the same
phoneme (/ij/ /ji/ /uw/ and /wu/).
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. CHAT: Book recommendations?
Posted by: "J R" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 8, 2008 11:53 pm ((PDT))
I'm looking into purchasing the following, and would appreciate any
recommendations:
1. A dictionary of linguistic terms
2. A grammar of Mandarin
3. A grammar of Tagalog
4. A Russian course
(should be in English, preferably!)
thanks,
Josh Roth
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: CHAT: Book recommendations?
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 12:13 am ((PDT))
Oxford has a Dictionary of Linguistics that you might be interested in.
Eugene
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:50 PM, J R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm looking into purchasing the following, and would appreciate any
> recommendations:
>
> 1. A dictionary of linguistic terms
> 2. A grammar of Mandarin
> 3. A grammar of Tagalog
> 4. A Russian course
>
> (should be in English, preferably!)
>
> thanks,
> Josh Roth
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: CHAT: Book recommendations?
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 8:23 am ((PDT))
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:50 AM, J R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm looking into purchasing the following, and would appreciate any
> recommendations:
>
> 1. A dictionary of linguistic terms
There's a pretty good one free online at
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/
Doesn't have absolutely everything, but it comes close.
If you want something hardcopy, though, I can't really give any advice there.
> 2. A grammar of Mandarin
> 3. A grammar of Tagalog
> 4. A Russian course
>
> (should be in English, preferably!)
>
> thanks,
> Josh Roth
>
-l.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: CHAT: Book recommendations?
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 9:37 am ((PDT))
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:50:54 +0200, J R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm looking into purchasing the following, and would appreciate any
>recommendations:
>1. A dictionary of linguistic terms
>[snip]
IME Ray Brown is the best dictionary of linguistic terms on-line. He's usually
on-line but not always.
I think Ray is probably available about as often as the SIL Glossary, so
there's
no distinct advantage either way as regards availability.
Response times are usually much quicker with the SIL Glossary than with Ray.
So in fact I use the SIL Glossary more, since quick response is often what I
want.
Ray is usually more complete than the SIL Glossary, and has the very distinct
advantage of being interactive.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: CHAT: Book recommendations?
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 11:17 am ((PDT))
Eldin Raigmore wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:50:54 +0200, J R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm looking into purchasing the following, and would appreciate any
>> recommendations:
>> 1. A dictionary of linguistic terms
>> [snip]
>
> IME Ray Brown is the best dictionary of linguistic terms on-line. He's
> usually
> on-line but not always.
Always - except when on holiday (as I shall be from next week :)
But altho a little surprised & somewhat flattered by Eldin's
endorsement, I must point out that I make extensive use of:
Trask, R. L. (1993) _A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics_
Routledge: London UK, New York. ISBN 0-415-08627-2 (hbk), 0-415-08628-0
(pbk).
Crystal, D (1997, 4th Edition) _A Dictionary of Linguistics and
Phonetics_ Blackwell: Oxford UK, Cambridge MA. ISBN 0-631-20097-5 (pbk)
I find Trask less verbose and IMO sounder than Crystal, but it is
limited strictly to grammatical terms in linguistic, whereas Crystal's
book covers a larger area. Also, it may well be that newer editions of
Crystal's book now exist (I haven't checked) but, alas, Larry Trask is
no longer with us to keep his dictionary up to date.
>
> Ray is usually more complete than the SIL Glossary,
...only because my sources are more complete. But I do agree the SIL
definitions are often rather sparse.
> and has the very distinct advantage of being interactive.
True ;)
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3f. Re: CHAT: Book recommendations?
Posted by: "Tim Smith" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 11:20 am ((PDT))
J R wrote:
> I'm looking into purchasing the following, and would appreciate any
> recommendations:
>
> 1. A dictionary of linguistic terms
> 2. A grammar of Mandarin
Charles N. Li & Sandra A. Thompson
_Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar_
University of California Press, 1981 (paperback 1989)
ISBN (paperback) 0-520-00610-3
Not only is this widely regarded as the definitive reference grammar of
Mandarin, it's also been recommended on this list as a model for how to
organize a reference grammar.
- Tim
> 3. A grammar of Tagalog
> 4. A Russian course
>
> (should be in English, preferably!)
>
> thanks,
> Josh Roth
>
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 8:33 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That limits your options on root vowel patterns; you couldn't have
>> vowels before the first root consonant, unless they were part
>> of a prefix. You could have e.g.
> Mm... I'm not seeing why.
I was thinking that, with some vowel patterns beginning with
vowels before the first root consonant, and some ending with
vowels after the last root consonant, but neither of those being
ubiquitous (as in your tentative scheme outlined later on,
or in Larry's Ilomi), then there would sometimes be ambiguity
about whether a vowel belongs to the previous word
or the next. You could patch that by allowing only a
certain subset of vowels before the first root consonant,
and another subset after the last root consonant. There
are probably other ways to get around it, too. For instance,
you might use tone, stress, nasalization, or lengthening
on the first (or last) vowel of a word to distinguish it from
the non-first (or nonfinal) vowels.
--
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 (12)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 8:58 am ((PDT))
Here's how I do it;
Each "cell" in the paradigm has a mandatory template or "transfix", an optional
prefix, and an optional suffix.
Roots are mostly 3 consonants; some are 2 consonants and some are 4
consonants. (Order counts, of course: b-c-d isn't the same as c-b-d nor as b-
d-c.)
Templates include; which (if any) of the root consonants gets doubled; and
which vowels appear where. (That is, baced is different from bacid or biced or
becad; babecid is different from bacecid is different from bacedid. Though all
of those are the b-c-d root.)
Prefixes and suffixes mostly have one consonant; some have two consonants.
There are 7 places and 6 manners of articulation.
All of the consonants of any root are in the 5 most-common PoAs and the
4 most-common MoAs.
The last (or only) consonant of any prefix, and the first (or only) consonant
of
any suffix, must come from one of the 3 least-common PoAs and/or one of the
3 least-common MoAs.
The language has the following "constraints" (in an "optimality-theory" sense".)
In any word, the last consonant of the prefix can�t be the same as the first
consonant of the root.
In any word, the last consonant of the root can�t be the same as the first
consonant of the prefix.
There are high-priority constraints against any root, any prefix, or any
suffix,
containing two consecutive appearances of any consonant.
There are very-high-priority constraints against any word containing three
consecutive appearances of any consonant.
There is a high-priority constraint against any word containing two
consecutive consonants at the same place-of-articulation.
There is a low-priority constraint against any word containing two consecutive
consonants in the same manner-of-articulation.
There is a high-priority constraint against using both a two-consonant prefix
and a two-consonant suffix in the same word.
There is a medium-priority constraint against using both a prefix and a two-
consonant suffix in the same word.
There is a medium-priority constraint against using both a suffix and a two-
consonant prefix in the same word.
There is a low-priority constraint against using both a prefix and a suffix in
the same word.
There is a low-priority constraint against using a two-consonant affix.
There are low-priority constraints against the first consonant of the root
matching either consonant of a two-consonant prefix; against the last
consonant of a prefix matching either of the first two consonants of the root;
against the last consonant of the root matching either of the consonants of a
suffix; and against the first consonant of a suffix matching either of the last
two consonants of the root.
(Remember the last consonant of a prefix and the first consonant of a root
can't be the same; and the first consonant of a suffix and the last consonant
of a root can't be the same.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There is one primary paradigm that is used for all roots that satisfy all of
the
following;
� it�s exactly three consonants long
� the first and second consonants are different from each other
� the last and next-to-last consonants are different from each other
� the first consonant of the root is not the same as the last consonant
of any existing prefix
� the last consonant of the root is not the same as the first consonant
of any existing prefix
� none of the consonants is a semivowel, or a glottal, or a laryngeal,
or a pharyngeal.
(Such roots are �regular�.)
There are several secondary paradigms that are used for roots that satisfy all
but one of those rules, depending on which rule it violates, which positions
the
consonants that violate it are in, and which consonant is involved. These
might be called �regularly irregular� or �quasi-regular� roots, I guess.
Anyway,
these roots have non-defective and non-suppletive paradigms. They�re not
uncommon.
If a root breaks exactly two of the above rules, it usually can have a non-
defective paradigm only if there is some suppletion (a phonologically different
root is used to fill in the missing cells); and it usually can have a non-
suppletive paradigm only if there are some cells left empty (deficient),
resulting in a defective paradigm. They�re less common than the regular
and �quasi-regular� roots, but there are several of them.
Few roots break three of the above rules. Those that do usually have
paradigms that are suppletive, and yet are still defective even after
suppletion.
The reasons for the rules are to make it clear when the prefix ends and the
root-and-template begins, and when the root-and-template ends and the
suffix begins.
Also, if two consecutive positions in a root are occupied by the same
consonant, it will be difficult to tell whether that has occurred because some
template doubled one of the consonants; or, if one of them is doubled,
whether it was the earlier one or the later one which was doubled.
Also, if a semivowel occurs in a word, it may be difficult to tell whether it�s
a
consonant of the root or a vowel of the template.
Also, if a glottal or laryngeal or pharyngeal consonant occurs intervocalically
(between two vowels), it�s likely to be �lost�; either unheard by the
addressee, or unarticulated by the speaker.
--------------------------------------------
I'm not sure if the above morphology is exactly "self-segregating". I think
it's
pretty clear that it could easily be "self-segregating"; but I think with
creativity and a little difficulty one could make it be _not_
"self-segregating".
Word-boundaries are often easy; especially between a word ending in a one-
consonant suffix and a word beginning in a one-consonant prefix. Most
occasions where two consecutive consonants have one of the less-common
places or manners of articulation will be such word-boundaries.
Telling the difference between the root and the template is usually pretty easy.
Since there's at most one prefix, it's usually easy to tell where the prefix
ends
and the root-and-template begins.
Since there's at most one suffix, it's usually easy to tell where the root-and-
template ends and the suffix begins.
By properly managing and introducing the "quasi-regular" paradigms, one can
create a large collection of roots, templates, prefixes, and suffixes, and
still
have a "self-segregating morphology".
I don't know if anyone else's self-segregating morphology has had any
irregularity in it. A perfectly-regular morphology that's also
self-segregating
probably has to have either fewish roots or fewish cells-per-paradigm. That's
my bet; I suppose I could be wrong.
Anyway, I think that difficulty (if indeed it actually exists, as I expect) can
be "cured" by the gentle introduction of some "regular" irregularity.
------------------------------------
I hope that helps; does it?
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 9:14 am ((PDT))
By the way; in my tri-consonantal-root system conlang that I was talking
about, there's no way to tell word-class (lexical category of "part-of-speech")
at the root level. A full paradigm will contain verbs and nouns and adjectives
and adverbs; even a deficient paradigm might contain any combination of
word-classes.
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: Self-segregating Semitic Morphology
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 9:45 am ((PDT))
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Logan Kearsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> That limits your options on root vowel patterns; you couldn't have
>>> vowels before the first root consonant, unless they were part
>>> of a prefix. You could have e.g.
>
>> Mm... I'm not seeing why.
>
> I was thinking that, with some vowel patterns beginning with
> vowels before the first root consonant, and some ending with
> vowels after the last root consonant, but neither of those being
> ubiquitous (as in your tentative scheme outlined later on,
> or in Larry's Ilomi), then there would sometimes be ambiguity
> about whether a vowel belongs to the previous word
> or the next. You could patch that by allowing only a
> certain subset of vowels before the first root consonant,
> and another subset after the last root consonant. There
> are probably other ways to get around it, too. For instance,
> you might use tone, stress, nasalization, or lengthening
> on the first (or last) vowel of a word to distinguish it from
> the non-first (or nonfinal) vowels.
OK, makes sense. But that could be fixed by disallowing final vowels
as well as by disallowing initials. That would be fairly unusual,
though; I don't know of any languages that have initial vowels but not
finals.
-l.
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Greenlandic: 4th Person?
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 9:17 am ((PDT))
---In [email protected], Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, from my point if view, a coordinated clause is even 'farther'
>away than a subordinated one, since the one does not even enclose the
>other, so I have no problem with calling it long distance.
>**Henrik
That makes a certain amount of sense.
(Thanks.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Does Greenlandic distinguish clearly between co-oridination and sub-ordination?
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: Syntactic Differentiation of Adverbial vs. Adjectival Adposition
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2008 9:23 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:11 AM, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Henry writes:
>>...
>>>> There are natlangs with mixed adpositional systems, aren't there?
>> Finnish apparently is one such:
> Would you count 'ago' in English as a postposition?
That's my inclination, but I'm not strongly attached
to that theory; I'm aware that some people analyze
it as an adverb. Anyway, I use "ago" phrases
as an example when explaining the "postpositional"
card to new Glossotechnia players.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (20)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
