There are 8 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: New Blog Post: Moten Part VI: Negation and Polar Questions
From: Adam Walker
1b. Re: New Blog Post: Moten Part VI: Negation and Polar Questions
From: Eugene Oh
1c. Re: New Blog Post: Moten Part VI: Negation and Polar Questions
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
2a. Re: Number Creation
From: Charlie Brickner
3a. Re: Language that Don't Change
From: Alex Fink
4a. Deseret text
From: MorphemeAddict
4b. Re: Deseret text
From: Logan Kearsley
4c. Re: Deseret text
From: MorphemeAddict
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: New Blog Post: Moten Part VI: Negation and Polar Questions
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 9, 2012 7:42 am ((PST))
So you have the option of not chosing vs you are forbiden to
choose/incapable of choosing? Adam
On 2/9/12, Eugene Oh <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2012, at 08:54, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> 2) Broad negation
>>> The negation attaches itself to the head of the stem of the verb (av-,
>>> af-, au-), effectively becoming a new verb that is semantically opposite
>>> to
>>> the original. The absence/non-occurrence of the action implied by the
>>> verb
>>> is the current state. Eg, vaksa > avvaksa "she has taken the course of
>>> not-going".
>>
>>
>> How are those two different in actual sentences? Or is this prefix also
>> used for semantic opposites like come/go or give/take?
>>
>
> Not for semantic opposites.
>
> Eg, raenētaiva "you cannot choose" vs. auraenētai "you can not-choose"
>
> -ētai is the potential suffix. There are probably better examples than this,
> but I'm not thinking of them right now!
>
>>
>>> This semantic negation is also applicable to adjectives and adverbs, but
>>> means, like English "not/non-" and Moten "mu", simply "alternative to":
>>> mārai "far" > aumārai "non-far".
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah, my first insight into the complexity of negation was when I realised
>> words like "not" didn't always mean "opposite of", but could simply mean
>> "other than". It broadened the scope of negation for me.
>>
>>
>>> 3) Negative imperatives
>>> Negative imperatives can be expressed via tacking the imperative ending
>>> onto the semantically negated verb, eg vagē "go!" > avvagē "don't go!".
>>> Alternatively a periphrasis can be employed, namely "mēra +
>>> imperfective",
>>> eg mēra vagēn, "don't go!"
>>>
>>>
>> Moten is a bit boring in that respect: the imperative is formed using the
>> stem of the verb without any affix, and the negative imperative is simply
>> formed by adding _mu_ to that. E.g.: _ag_: "go!" > _mu ag_: "don't go!"
>> (literally "do something else than going!"). I wish it'd been a bit more
>> original, but unfortunately Moten doesn't work like that. I guess one
>> could
>> also use the infinitive followed by _memun_: "none" and a shouting
>> intonation to mean the same thing. E.g.: _jagi memun!_: "no going!", but
>> that would be rather informal, something a parent would say to a child, as
>> in English ("no running around behind my back!").
>>
>> --
>> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>>
>> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
>> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: New Blog Post: Moten Part VI: Negation and Polar Questions
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:50 am ((PST))
Indeed! Without the potentive mood, the distinction would be one of nuance -
either one did not do something, or one actively not-did it.
Eugene
Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Feb 2012, at 15:42, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> So you have the option of not chosing vs you are forbiden to
> choose/incapable of choosing? Adam
>
> On 2/9/12, Eugene Oh <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 9 Feb 2012, at 08:54, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> 2) Broad negation
>>>> The negation attaches itself to the head of the stem of the verb (av-,
>>>> af-, au-), effectively becoming a new verb that is semantically opposite
>>>> to
>>>> the original. The absence/non-occurrence of the action implied by the
>>>> verb
>>>> is the current state. Eg, vaksa > avvaksa "she has taken the course of
>>>> not-going".
>>>
>>>
>>> How are those two different in actual sentences? Or is this prefix also
>>> used for semantic opposites like come/go or give/take?
>>>
>>
>> Not for semantic opposites.
>>
>> Eg, raen�ltaiva "you cannot choose" vs. auraen�ltai "you can not-choose"
>>
>> -�ltai is the potential suffix. There are probably better examples than this,
>> but I'm not thinking of them right now!
>>
>>>
>>>> This semantic negation is also applicable to adjectives and adverbs, but
>>>> means, like English "not/non-" and Moten "mu", simply "alternative to":
>>>> m�grai "far" > aum�grai "non-far".
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yeah, my first insight into the complexity of negation was when I realised
>>> words like "not" didn't always mean "opposite of", but could simply mean
>>> "other than". It broadened the scope of negation for me.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3) Negative imperatives
>>>> Negative imperatives can be expressed via tacking the imperative ending
>>>> onto the semantically negated verb, eg vag�l "go!" > avvag�l "don't go!".
>>>> Alternatively a periphrasis can be employed, namely "m�lra +
>>>> imperfective",
>>>> eg m�lra vag�ln, "don't go!"
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Moten is a bit boring in that respect: the imperative is formed using the
>>> stem of the verb without any affix, and the negative imperative is simply
>>> formed by adding _mu_ to that. E.g.: _ag_: "go!" > _mu ag_: "don't go!"
>>> (literally "do something else than going!"). I wish it'd been a bit more
>>> original, but unfortunately Moten doesn't work like that. I guess one
>>> could
>>> also use the infinitive followed by _memun_: "none" and a shouting
>>> intonation to mean the same thing. E.g.: _jagi memun!_: "no going!", but
>>> that would be rather informal, something a parent would say to a child, as
>>> in English ("no running around behind my back!").
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>>>
>>> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
>>> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: New Blog Post: Moten Part VI: Negation and Polar Questions
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" [email protected]
Date: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:26 am ((PST))
2012/2/9 Eugene Oh <[email protected]>
> Indeed! Without the potentive mood, the distinction would be one of nuance
> - either one did not do something, or one actively not-did it.
>
>
Mmm... In Moten that nuance is somewhat, although not exactly, captured by
the difference between _mu_ and _us_. Using _mu_ indicates alternative,
i.e. that someone did *something else* than what is described. Using _us_
simply indicates falseness, i.e. "it's not true that someone did
something", without any mention that they may actively have done something
else.
There's also the nuance given by the use of _mu_ in front of the main verb
or in front of the auxiliary. Please check my post for more details, but I
can give you an example here:
Ga oskana|nedotun mu ipe|laj etok: I did *not watch* the ceremony (I
listened to it on the radio).
Ga oskana|nedotun ipe|laj mu etok: I *did not* watch the ceremony (I was in
the garden sunbathing).
In the first case, the verb itself is negated, indicating that the subject
did something related to the object, but that was not watching it (hence
the potential alternative indicated in parentheses). In the second case,
the auxiliary is negated, which is equivalent to negating the full clause.
In this case, it means "I did something else than...", i.e. the subject did
something completely different, unrelated to the ceremony.
For completeness, the sentence:
Ga oskana|nedotun ipe|laj us etok
means: "it is not true that I watched the ceremony". This sentence focusses
on the falseness of the statement only, rather than indicating that the
subject did something else.
I just love the kinds of nuances you can make with negations!
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Number Creation
Posted by: "Charlie Brickner" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:13 am ((PST))
On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 13:38:13 -0500, J. Snow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I'm curious to see what other kinds of number systems people come up with.
>
Senjecas has a vigesimal counting system with an individual name for each
number from 1 to 20.
I had four criteria for deriving these numbers:
1. monosyllabic
2. no diphthongs
3. cannot end in a stop
4. cannot end in a consonant cluster
The numbers for the teens were chosen from the numbers 1 through 10 in the
various sources and reapplied to the teens.
I derived:
>From PIE: 1, s�s (Toch A); 2, dw�; 3, t�r; 5, p�s (Toch B); 7, s�f; 9, n�n;
>15,
h�n (Armenian); 17, yoth (Armenian); 18, uth (Armenian).
>From Proto-Finno-Ugric: 4, n�l (Finnish); 16, k�z (Finnish).
>From Proto-Altaic: 10, �n (Turkish); 20, ky�r (Turkish).
>From Etruscan: 6, s�; 11, th�; 12, z�l.
>From Proto-Caucasian: 8, b�n; 13, sw�m.
>From Proto-Dravidian: 14, n��l; 19, t�l.
Because the Ethrans were scientists, there are also numbers for the multiples
of 100 (n�m, PAlt., Tungus) up to 100,000,000,000,000. These are derived
from various words for �many,� �abundance,� �excess,� etc. These exact
numbers suffered a semantic shift when the society collapsed and there was
no more need for these large numbers.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Language that Don't Change
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 9, 2012 3:27 pm ((PST))
On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 20:39:27 -0600, Matthew Boutilier
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Anyone know anything about the Egyptian possibility I mentioned? I know
>> the written language didn't change that much, but what do we know (if
>> anything) about the spoken language over its 3500 year history?
>>
>
>egyptian changed quite a lot.
Indeed. If you're still curious for more, I just came across a very long
and detailed treatment of this by Peust:
http://diglit.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/peust1999/0002?sid=9791291fa3820191461fbd175f0aa51e
Alex
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Deseret text
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:23 pm ((PST))
I recently came across a sample of Deseret (Mormon script) as found in
Akira Nakanishi's _Writing systems of the world: alphabets, syllabaries,
pictograms_, p. 110. In English it reads:
If we rise early in the morning, w
rise. He rises in the East. In th(e)
sun-rise, the birds begin to sing
and bushes: they seem very g(ay) and p
sun is coming to shine upon them.
warm rays on the earth. He shines
and upon the plants, and gives them
their beauty.
The lines seem to be cut off in the middle. I wonder how much and what has
been cut off.
Does anyone know the source of this excerpt and where I can find the
complete text?
stevo
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Deseret text
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:33 pm ((PST))
On 9 February 2012 18:23, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
> I recently came across a sample of Deseret (Mormon script) as found in
> Akira Nakanishi's _Writing systems of the world: alphabets, syllabaries,
> pictograms_, p. 110. In English it reads:
Possibly pedantic, but "In standard orthography it reads:"
For those who may not be familiar with it, the Deseret alphabet is an
alternate phonemic orthography for late 1800's English, not a separate
language.
-l.
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: Deseret text
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 9, 2012 7:38 pm ((PST))
Of course, you're completely correct. I thought of saying something like
that, but got lazy.
stevo
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Logan Kearsley <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 9 February 2012 18:23, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I recently came across a sample of Deseret (Mormon script) as found in
> > Akira Nakanishi's _Writing systems of the world: alphabets, syllabaries,
> > pictograms_, p. 110. In English it reads:
>
> Possibly pedantic, but "In standard orthography it reads:"
> For those who may not be familiar with it, the Deseret alphabet is an
> alternate phonemic orthography for late 1800's English, not a separate
> language.
>
> -l.
>
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
