There are 20 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Roger Mills
1.2. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Garth Wallace
1.3. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Logan Kearsley
1.4. Re: Curious verb construction
From: Alex Fink
1.5. Re: Curious verb construction
From: David Peterson
2a. YAEUT: Overreflexivity
From: Daniel Bowman
2b. Re: YAEUT: Overreflexivity
From: Padraic Brown
2c. Re: YAEUT: Overreflexivity
From: Matthew Boutilier
2d. Re: YAEUT: Overreflexivity
From: Brian
2e. Re: YAEUT: Overreflexivity
From: David McCann
2f. Re: YAEUT: Overreflexivity
From: Padraic Brown
3a. OT: Bookbinding
From: Daniel Bowman
3b. Re: OT: Bookbinding
From: Padraic Brown
3c. Re: OT: Bookbinding
From: Rich Harrison
3d. Re: OT: Bookbinding
From: Ph. D.
3e. Re: OT: Bookbinding
From: David McCann
3f. Re: OT: Bookbinding
From: Ph. D.
4a. Quick question
From: J. Snow
4b. Re: Quick question
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
4c. Re: Quick question
From: Eugene Oh
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:11 pm ((PST))
Speaking of imperatives -- Indonesian has an interesting "imperative" (in that
it uses the negative imper. marker "jangan" 'do not') construction that is
similar to the "is to be":
daging itu, jangan dimakan!
meat that do-not Pass-eat
That meat is not to be eaten!
as oppposed to a straight imperative: jangan makan daging itu! or the positive
makanlah daging itu! 'eat that meat!' It seems to be most common with 'eat,
drink', but other verbs can probably be used--
kamar itu, jangan dimasuki 'that room is not to be entered'
Messages in this topic (39)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:22 pm ((PST))
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Sam Stutter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is there any particular reason why the imperative can't be used with the
> first and third persons?
Because an imperative is a direct command, and you can only directly
command your audience, which makes them the second person by
definition.
There are moods with similar force to the imperative that can be used
for the other persons (in some languages). The volitive, AIUI,
expresses that you're imposing an obligation or permission to do
something ("Let them eat cake"), which is sort of like an imperative
but third person (and weaker). The hortative is an exhortation to do
something, similar to a command but including yourself in the group
("Let's do it!"), and so is somewhat like an imperative but first
person. If a language has a mood that is used for all three, it's
called a jussive IIRC.
Messages in this topic (39)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:28 pm ((PST))
On 24 January 2012 13:05, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:06:06 -0700, Logan Kearsley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>On 24 January 2012 10:37, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:34:57 -0700, Logan Kearsley <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> Well, let me continue playing devil's advocate. For one, _nuzhno_ doesn't
>>> necessarily speak to _nado_; constructions of the same meaning don't have to
>>> be of the same syntax.
>>
>>Generally true, but constructions of the same meaning which differ in
>>only a single word in the same syntactic position *are* likely to be
>>similar.
>
> Indeed. In this case I do actually find it easy to imagine that _nado_ is
> formally and semantically similar enough to _nuzhno_ that it has been
> captured by it, and is taken by speakers as the same category, whatever that
> category is.
>
>>> But for two, if _nuzhno_ is zero-derived from a predicate adjective, why not
>>> call it as a predicate adjective in this construction?
>>
>>Because it's modifying an infinitive verb, which is what adverbs are
>>for, and not a noun, which is what adjectives are for.
>>It's supported by the fact that _nado_ can only be used with verbs,
>>and not nouns.
>
> You're taking for granted that _nado_ is a *modifier* of the infinitive
> verb. The way I was trying to parse things, it's the *head*, and the
> infinitive verb is its argument. The fact that a word takes a verb as
> argument says absolutely nothing about its syntactic class ("he wanted to
> sing", "he felt an urge to sing", "he was eager to sing", "he was down with
> singing", need I go on).
>
> In favour of the position that _nado_ should be the head is that (iinm)
> Russian has the usual IE pattern of through-going dependent marking. You
> shouldn't have to switch the main verb of a clause to infinitive 'cause you
> stuck an adverb on it! Leaving out a mere adverb from a clause shouldn't
> allow you to infer its elision (unlike in _yemu pet'_)!
Ah! I believe I have identified a point of miscommunication. I do not
dispute that _nado_ is a head. In this construction, it makes perfect
sense that _nado_ is the head, just like _nuzhno_ and _dolzhno_ would
be, and takes the infinitive verb as its subject. However, it has this
interesting feature that it can only be associated with infinitive
subjects. This is not a matter of semantic selection, because it's
synonym _nuzhno_ can be used with both verbs and nouns. Thus, it's a
purely syntactic feature, which indicates that there are two different
kinds of predicates available in Russian. Since predicates that
describe the state of nouns are called "predicate adjectives", it thus
makes sense to call the kind of predicate associated with verbs
"predicate adverbs", especially since other examples tend to be
identical in form to attributive adverbs just as you can have
predicate adjectives that are identical in form with attributives.
-l.
Messages in this topic (39)
________________________________________________________________________
1.4. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:19 pm ((PST))
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:28:30 -0700, Logan Kearsley <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Ah! I believe I have identified a point of miscommunication. I do not
>dispute that _nado_ is a head. In this construction, it makes perfect
>sense that _nado_ is the head, just like _nuzhno_ and _dolzhno_ would
>be, and takes the infinitive verb as its subject. However, it has this
>interesting feature that it can only be associated with infinitive
>subjects. This is not a matter of semantic selection, because it's
>synonym _nuzhno_ can be used with both verbs and nouns. Thus, it's a
>purely syntactic feature, which indicates that there are two different
>kinds of predicates available in Russian. Since predicates that
>describe the state of nouns are called "predicate adjectives", it thus
>makes sense to call the kind of predicate associated with verbs
>"predicate adverbs", especially since other examples tend to be
>identical in form to attributive adverbs just as you can have
>predicate adjectives that are identical in form with attributives.
Oh! Learned something new today, there; thanks for pulling me through it.
This existence of predicate adverbs is a potential parallelism that had
never even occurred to me -- I wonder why I haven't run across it in a more
visible form. Why don't we have "my eating dinner today [was] quickly" with
a predicate adverb in any language of my acquaintance?
Alex
Messages in this topic (39)
________________________________________________________________________
1.5. Re: Curious verb construction
Posted by: "David Peterson" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:34 am ((PST))
On Jan 24, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Logan Kearsley wrote:
> I do not
> dispute that _nado_ is a head. In this construction, it makes perfect
> sense that _nado_ is the head, just like _nuzhno_ and _dolzhno_ would
> be, and takes the infinitive verb as its subject. However, it has this
> interesting feature that it can only be associated with infinitive
> subjects. This is not a matter of semantic selection, because it's
> synonym _nuzhno_ can be used with both verbs and nouns. Thus, it's a
> purely syntactic feature, which indicates that there are two different
> kinds of predicates available in Russian.
Sorry to drop into this conversation out of the blue, but I have a very
specific question, and it has to do with terminology. Above, you say it's not a
matter of "semantic selection". Here I think you used "semantic" to refer to
grammatical category (i.e. if both fall under the category "adverb", they
should behave identically, but they don't, so it's not a property of
grammatical categories). You concluded, then, that it's a purely syntactic
feature. In my mind, it seems like you mixed these two terms up, but it could
be because we're using them differently.
Syntax purportedly pays no heed to semantics. Thus "I ate the apple" is just as
valid as "Microphones ate the disenfranchisement". Presumably if this were a
syntactic issue, both adverbs would be treated the same. If they're not treated
the same, it means that the lexical item itself is feeding the syntax extra
information (e.g. there's actually "adverb class A" and "adverb class B", and
"adverb class B" doesn't work in the configuration set up by the syntax). As a
result, I'd say the distinction here is purely lexical, rather than syntactic.
David Peterson
LCS President
[email protected]
www.conlang.org
Messages in this topic (39)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. YAEUT: Overreflexivity
Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:38 pm ((PST))
Greetings all,
I break a long silence to field an observation I've been making recently.
Certain reflexive verbs are being overcompensated for in speech. I've heard
people at work do this for a while, but what finally inspired me to point it
out to the list is when my wife said the following:
"He self-regulated himself."
To my grammatical sense, the sentence would normally be "He self-regulated."
However, I believe that certain verbs are getting the prefix "self" more
and more often, to the point that speakers are considering it as part of the
verb and not as a reflexive subject. So, when my wife said "He
self-regulated himself", she treated "self-regulated" as a monadic verb.
It has definitely caught on in the last year, because I have not heard it
before (and I would have remembered it if I had). It seems to be in the
same class of prescriptive "mistakes" as calling an ATM an "ATM Machine" (I
do that all the time).
I propose the term "overreflexive" for this phenomenon.
Anyone else noticed this? I live in Massachusetts, USA, so I'm curious to
know if this is a local phenomenon or if it is more widespread.
Danny
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: YAEUT: Overreflexivity
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:52 pm ((PST))
--- On Tue, 1/24/12, Daniel Bowman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I break a long silence to field an observation I've been
> making recently.
> Certain reflexive verbs are being overcompensated for in
> speech. I've heard
> people at work do this for a while, but what finally
> inspired me to point it
> out to the list is when my wife said the following:
>
> "He self-regulated himself."
>
> To my grammatical sense, the sentence would normally be "He
> self-regulated."
Interesting. For me, it should be "he regulated himself". Because self-
regulating, like self-cleaning, etc aren't really verbs. For me, there's
no "the oven self-cleaned". The oven cleaned itself.
The sentence your wife uttered makes good sense to me, because it's yet
another example of corpspeak where in this case an adjective that is based
on a verb concept is itself recycled to create a redundant verb: regulate
himself --> (he is) self-regulating --> he self-regulated himself.
> However, I believe that certain verbs are getting the
> prefix "self" more
> and more often, to the point that speakers are considering
> it as part of the
> verb and not as a reflexive subject.
Quite. I think it is part of the verb too!
> So, when my wife said "He
> self-regulated himself", she treated "self-regulated" as a
> monadic verb.
Exactly. It just so happens that "self-regulate" is synonymous to the
reflexive form of "regulate".
> It has definitely caught on in the last year, because I have
> not heard it
> before (and I would have remembered it if I had). It
> seems to be in the
> same class of prescriptive "mistakes" as calling an ATM an
> "ATM Machine" (I do that all the time).
This is because "ATM" has become a word, an adjective, in its own right.
Same goes for "pin number". You have a phone number, a locker number,
account numbers and now a pin number. You have answering machines, fax
machines, copy machines and atm machines.
> I propose the term "overreflexive" for this phenomenon.
>
> Anyone else noticed this? I live in Massachusetts,
> USA, so I'm curious to
> know if this is a local phenomenon or if it is more
> widespread.
I've never said "self-regulated himself", but find it perfectly acceptable
and sensible as an example of corpspeak. I don't talk about atm machines
or pin numbers every day, but frequently use just those terms. For me,
the acronyms have simply evolved into words.
Padraic
> Danny
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: YAEUT: Overreflexivity
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:53 pm ((PST))
>
> Anyone else noticed this? I live in Massachusetts, USA, so I'm curious to
> know if this is a local phenomenon or if it is more widespread.
>
yes!
in my college freshman health class (lame, i know, but required), our
teacher, a local indianan woman, commented on the trend for youth to act
counter to their bodily necessities (ample sleep, minimal alcohol, etc.):
"why do we choose to self-sabotage ourselves?"
she said it about five times for emphasis, and emphatic it was. i've heard
such constructions several times since but have not made explicit note of
them.
matt
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Daniel Bowman <[email protected]>wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> I break a long silence to field an observation I've been making recently.
> Certain reflexive verbs are being overcompensated for in speech. I've
> heard
> people at work do this for a while, but what finally inspired me to point
> it
> out to the list is when my wife said the following:
>
> "He self-regulated himself."
>
> To my grammatical sense, the sentence would normally be "He
> self-regulated."
> However, I believe that certain verbs are getting the prefix "self" more
> and more often, to the point that speakers are considering it as part of
> the
> verb and not as a reflexive subject. So, when my wife said "He
> self-regulated himself", she treated "self-regulated" as a monadic verb.
>
> It has definitely caught on in the last year, because I have not heard it
> before (and I would have remembered it if I had). It seems to be in the
> same class of prescriptive "mistakes" as calling an ATM an "ATM Machine" (I
> do that all the time).
>
> I propose the term "overreflexive" for this phenomenon.
>
> Anyone else noticed this? I live in Massachusetts, USA, so I'm curious to
> know if this is a local phenomenon or if it is more widespread.
>
> Danny
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: YAEUT: Overreflexivity
Posted by: "Brian" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:58 pm ((PST))
It definitely prevails in the South (USA).
------Original Message------
From: Daniel Bowman
Sender: Conlang
To: Conlang
ReplyTo: Conlang
Subject: YAEUT: Overreflexivity
Sent: Jan 24, 2012 20:38
Greetings all,
I break a long silence to field an observation I've been making recently.
Certain reflexive verbs are being overcompensated for in speech. I've heard
people at work do this for a while, but what finally inspired me to point it
out to the list is when my wife said the following:
"He self-regulated himself."
To my grammatical sense, the sentence would normally be "He self-regulated."
However, I believe that certain verbs are getting the prefix "self" more
and more often, to the point that speakers are considering it as part of the
verb and not as a reflexive subject. So, when my wife said "He
self-regulated himself", she treated "self-regulated" as a monadic verb.
It has definitely caught on in the last year, because I have not heard it
before (and I would have remembered it if I had). It seems to be in the
same class of prescriptive "mistakes" as calling an ATM an "ATM Machine" (I
do that all the time).
I propose the term "overreflexive" for this phenomenon.
Anyone else noticed this? I live in Massachusetts, USA, so I'm curious to
know if this is a local phenomenon or if it is more widespread.
Danny
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: YAEUT: Overreflexivity
Posted by: "David McCann" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:18 am ((PST))
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:52:14 -0800
Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Tue, 1/24/12, Daniel Bowman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "He self-regulated himself."
> > To my grammatical sense, the sentence would normally be "He
> > self-regulated."
> Interesting. For me, it should be "he regulated himself". Because
> self- regulating, like self-cleaning, etc aren't really verbs. For
> me, there's no "the oven self-cleaned". The oven cleaned itself.
I've just consulted the SODE (2002). The introduction to self- only
mentions it as a prefix to nouns and adjectives: self-advocacy,
self-cleaning, self-destroyed. The listed examples do include a
verb: self-actualise as a term in psychology. To me such verbs sound
like un-English jargon created by those lacking in Sprachgefühl.
OT. Another example of this sort of thing is the creation of
organisational titles like "Team GB" instead of "The British Olympic
Team". Since when has English put its adjectives after the noun? And
what's wrong with a normal adjective like "British"?
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: YAEUT: Overreflexivity
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:42 am ((PST))
--- On Wed, 1/25/12, David McCann <[email protected]> wrote:
> OT. Another example of this sort of thing is the creation of
> organisational titles like "Team GB" instead of "The British
> Olympic Team". Since when has English put its adjectives after the
> noun? And what's wrong with a normal adjective like "British"?
Corpspeak. Acronyms are hip, "normal adjectives" are blah. Putting the
adjective after a) emphasises the word "team" by placing it first and b)
emphasises 'our' national / corporate / whatever team by placing it
second and giving the word a slight stress. (I.e., both words are in
unusual positions and therefore have attention drawn to them.) Also,
reversing the word order is hip, normal language is blah. Advertisers have
known this principle lang syne -- ever since they came up with trade names
and trademarkable misspellings (Brite-Glo sort of thing). "Team GB"
catches the eye (and ear) and its unusual structure sticks in the mind,
causing you to think about it over and over again. Soon, Team GB will
become ingrained in your subconscious and you will soon be waving a little
made-in-China plastic UK flag, will find a Pride the Lion mascot on your
desk and you'll be queuing up for tickets to see the badminton matches.
Corpspeak shall have won the day! Huzzah!
Padraic
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. OT: Bookbinding
Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:41 pm ((PST))
All,
I was wondering if anyone on this list has bound their own books, and if
there's a good tutorial on the Internet for an absolute beginner to use. I
am going to bind a fairy tale I wrote for my wife (the tale includes some
words and names in my conlang Angosey, so this is not entirely off topic!)
and I've found the following site:
http://www.diybookbinding.com/do-it-yourself-book-binding-part-2/
I was wondering if anyone knows of other (possibly better) online tutorials.
Thanks!
Danny
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: OT: Bookbinding
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:40 pm ((PST))
--- On Tue, 1/24/12, Daniel Bowman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone on this list has bound their own books,
Yep! I've used several different styles over the years from staple-n-rubber
cement to standard signature binding to full stitching and have now settled
on a variety of the Asian punch-n-weave technique that I find both easy
and aesthetically pleasing.
> and if there's a good tutorial on the Internet for an absolute
> beginner to use.
There are -- I've looked at some in the past, but just ended up doing my
own thing in the end.
> I am going to bind a fairy tale I wrote for my wife (the tale
> includes some
> words and names in my conlang Angosey, so this is not
> entirely off topic!) and I've found the following site:
>
> http://www.diybookbinding.com/do-it-yourself-book-binding-part-2/
Yep, that's one of the sources I read!
If you like being able to take a book along to your workshop, find a copy
of the Boy Scouts Bookbinding Merit Badge handbook. Lots of good info in
there, and no fancy tools or equipment needed.
> I was wondering if anyone knows of other (possibly better)
> online tutorials.
Sure. I use a variation of this Asian stab binding:
http://kate-ward-design.blogspot.com/2011/02/asian-stab-book-binding.html
She has links to other tutorials.
I like the patterns on the red and blue books best. As you do this a
couple times, not only will you get better, but you can vary the weave
to make different patterns.
I drill holes using a wood pattern and clamp the whole book in a vise
while drilling and sewing. The pattern gives me consistency of hole
placement and the vise makes the whole thing extremely stable. The larger
hole size also allows me to use thicker threads and I can weave up and
down the book a couple times. Sturdier, especially for larger books. I've
bound books as small as 3x4in and as large as 8.5x11 and maybe 500 pages
thick this way. I use a set of old Coats and Clark large eyed needles that
can handle very thick threads. (Well, actually, I made a book about
0.5x1in, but using a different technique!)
I think your project will look absolutely fantastic and extremely beautiful
if you use the Asian technique. The binding thread is visible on the
outside of the covers (unless you choose to cover the whole book in some
kind of cloth or paper over-cover -- I've done that too, a little harder
and a little more work). If you use different coloured threads, and threads
that are fairly thick, you'll end up with a lovely gift for missus!
Another lovely -- and *very* easy -- binding you can do is to take the
papers that will make up the book, draw a line down the middle (where
you're going to fold the book). Drill two holes right through the pages
and the cover you made (assuming you made a nice cover!). Take a nice
piece of colored cord and draw it through the holes from the inside and
tie along the spine. The trick here is *not* to just fish the string
straight through the pages *and* the cover, but to run the string through
the upper hole of the pages, then down to the bottom hole of the cover.
The other half of the string should go through the bottom hole of the
pages and then the top hole of the cover -- a criss-cross pattern. The
criss-cross provides some stability to the whole system. I think this
binding looks good with a not very heavy leather cover.
Let us know how it comes out, and good luck!
Padraic
> Danny
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: OT: Bookbinding
Posted by: "Rich Harrison" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:21 pm ((PST))
If you do a "bookbinding" search on YouTube you will find a boatload of
tutorials of varying quality.
A google search on "bookbinding kit" might be helpful too.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: OT: Bookbinding
Posted by: "Ph. D." [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:24 pm ((PST))
Daniel Bowman wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone on this list has bound their own books, and if
> there's a good tutorial on the Internet for an absolute beginner to use. I
> am going to bind a fairy tale I wrote for my wife (the tale includes some
> words and names in my conlang Angosey, so this is not entirely off topic!)
> and I've found the following site:
>
> http://www.diybookbinding.com/do-it-yourself-book-binding-part-2/
>
> I was wondering if anyone knows of other (possibly better) online tutorials.
>
> Thanks!
I've bound a number of books, both paperback and hardbound. I print
books using old-fashioned metal type, and I usually sew them together,
then send them out to have hard covers put on, but I occasionally bind a
few myself.
That site you mentioned seems reasonable if your pages are individual
sheets. Just line up the edges, clamp them together, paint on a layer of
glue, and let it dry. Then fold your cover to fit, put down a second
layer of glue, and put the cover on. Reclamp it and let dry overnight.
Many small time bookbinders use PVA (Polyvinyl Acetate) for the glue.
It's very similar to Elmer's Glue.
--Ph. D.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: OT: Bookbinding
Posted by: "David McCann" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:58 am ((PST))
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:40:48 -0500
Daniel Bowman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone on this list has bound their own books
I've bound and re-bound quite a few paperbacks. You can buy special
flexible glue for the purpose, which is more durable than some of the
stuff that has been used commercially. British binders can get Polydon
from Don Gresswell; there's no doubt an American equivalent â ask at
your local Public Library. The paper needs to be reasonably thick and
absorbent for the binding to last. I use a file rather than glasspaper
to roughen it up. Using clips as in the tutorial might leave the spine
a bit wavy; a traditional book-binders' clamp is expensive, but a
carpenter's bench vice would do.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3f. Re: OT: Bookbinding
Posted by: "Ph. D." [email protected]
Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:36 am ((PST))
David McCann wrote:
> I've bound and re-bound quite a few paperbacks. You can buy special
> flexible glue for the purpose, which is more durable than some of the
> stuff that has been used commercially. British binders can get Polydon
> from Don Gresswell; there's no doubt an American equivalent â ask at
> your local Public Library. The paper needs to be reasonably thick and
> absorbent for the binding to last. I use a file rather than glasspaper
> to roughen it up. Using clips as in the tutorial might leave the spine
> a bit wavy; a traditional book-binders' clamp is expensive, but a
> carpenter's bench vice would do.
I agree that the clips are not a good idea. I've had good luck with
pieces of 3/4 inch plywood and C-clamps.
--Ph. D.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Quick question
Posted by: "J. Snow" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:24 am ((PST))
In Sironu I use small 'auxillary words' to indicate a verbs aspect, such as
"po" for
progressive aspect, "fö" for frequinative, etc.
ex: elu -po- nadaren; ke -po- tropen --> he is swimming; they are eating
ela -fö- venirid; Sara elo -po- -fö- segoiren --> she will return (indicating
she will
do so repeatedly); Sara is stalking him
My question is: What whould these type of words be defined as?
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Quick question
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:14 am ((PST))
On 25 January 2012 11:24, J. Snow <[email protected]> wrote:
> In Sironu I use small 'auxillary words' to indicate a verbs aspect, such
> as "po" for
> progressive aspect, "fö" for frequinative, etc.
>
> ex: elu -po- nadaren; ke -po- tropen --> he is swimming; they are eating
> ela -fö- venirid; Sara elo -po- -fö- segoiren --> she will return
> (indicating she will
> do so repeatedly); Sara is stalking him
>
> My question is: What whould these type of words be defined as?
>
When you don't know which bin to put words in, there are two great
"catch-all" categories: adverbs and particles :) . Yours could fit either,
but "particle" might be a better fit, especially if they are clitics.
"Adverb" is usually a catch-all category for independent words.
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: Quick question
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:22 am ((PST))
Or simply an infix, from the looks of it - which would make them not
"words" per se, I guess, but then that raises the perennial question of
what a word is...
2012/1/25 Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[email protected]>
> On 25 January 2012 11:24, J. Snow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In Sironu I use small 'auxillary words' to indicate a verbs aspect, such
> > as "po" for
> > progressive aspect, "fö" for frequinative, etc.
> >
> > ex: elu -po- nadaren; ke -po- tropen --> he is swimming; they are eating
> > ela -fö- venirid; Sara elo -po- -fö- segoiren --> she will return
> > (indicating she will
> > do so repeatedly); Sara is stalking him
> >
> > My question is: What whould these type of words be defined as?
> >
>
> When you don't know which bin to put words in, there are two great
> "catch-all" categories: adverbs and particles :) . Yours could fit either,
> but "particle" might be a better fit, especially if they are clitics.
> "Adverb" is usually a catch-all category for independent words.
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>
Messages in this topic (3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
[email protected]
[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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
