There are 21 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Fwd: Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
From: J. M. DeSantis
1b. Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
From: Matthew Turnbull
1c. Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
From: Paul Schleitwiler, FCM
1d. Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
From: Patrick Dunn
1e. Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
From: Nikolay Ivankov
1f. Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
From: Eric Christopherson
1g. Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
From: Patrick Dunn
1h. Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
From: Tristan
1i. Re: Fwd: Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
From: Padraic Brown
2a. Re: Phonology Phrustration and Uzbek
From: David McCann
3.1. Re: Outdoors
From: MorphemeAddict
4a. quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Daniel Bowman
4b. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Gary Shannon
4c. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Roger Mills
4d. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Larry Sulky
4e. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
4f. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Larry Sulky
4g. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Adam Walker
4h. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: MorphemeAddict
4i. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Alex Fink
4j. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: And Rosta
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Fwd: Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
Posted by: "J. M. DeSantis" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:15 am ((PST))
>> To be specific, the one Proto-Language is a language of the gods, yet it is
>> unlikely they will have had a word for say "tree" or even more likely
>> "sword." My Elvish will need these (which is in the same family), so should
>> new roots/words be coined, or should they derive from existing roots?
> Possibly, see above. But if you have four proto-languages (and all their
> presumed descendants) , and assuming that there will be at least some kind of
> contact between groups, borrowing is the best possibility IMO.
The only trouble with borrowing a word like "tree" is the other
languages which descend from the other three protos would not come into
contact with my Elvish before they would have a use for this word.
There's a bit of a complex linguistic history between these four protos
and their descendants, which I have worked out based on the history of
my invented world (and, yes, I suppose I did take a page out of
Tolkien's book--literally--by making Elves come first--though there
might have to be some re-imagining of this race with how unexpectedly
the world has suddenly grown), but certain protos exist on different
parts of the world, as its speakers migrate and the language changes,
before coming into contact with each other. Again, I will certainly have
borrowings (I've already planned for quite a number of these), however,
in the case of some Elvish words, there may be no "Goddish" root. The
gods were more celestial and their language is based on their existence
in the Void (having three words for light and dark each--their cardinal
number, so to speak, is three), and so their vocabulary is very limited
before visiting the Earth.
Though, on a side note, to play devil's advocate a bit: If coining new
words or roots from thin-air, as it were, were not possible, how did
(naturally) we come up with languages in the first place. Whether, in
the real world, you believe in the idea of multiple proto's or just one,
the idea that new words cannot be coined at such an early state in a
language would mean it would be impossible for a language to even be
created as the words would have to come from somewhere previously. And
even if you believed human's are an alien life-form to this planet, and
brought a language with them, then still, those words would need to have
come from somewhere. At some point it nears the association of the
chicken-or-the-egg scenario. But, again, this is just to get us all
thinking.
--
Sincerely,
J. M. DeSantis
Writer - Illustrator
Website: jmdesantis.com <http://www.jmdesantis.com>
Figmunds: figmunds.com <http://www.figmunds.com>
Game-Flush (A Humorous Video Game Site): game-flush.com
<http://www.game-flush.com>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
Posted by: "Matthew Turnbull" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:50 am ((PST))
Well I don't think it's impossible, just rare. Also, it's possible
that all current words are ultimatly descendants of onomatopoetic
sounds used by people before the developped language. I've heard of
coinages like that happening with sign languages, since when they're
new their speakers tend to live semi-isolated coinages take off
easier.
On 2/18/12, J. M. DeSantis <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> To be specific, the one Proto-Language is a language of the gods, yet it
>>> is unlikely they will have had a word for say "tree" or even more likely
>>> "sword." My Elvish will need these (which is in the same family), so
>>> should new roots/words be coined, or should they derive from existing
>>> roots?
>> Possibly, see above. But if you have four proto-languages (and all their
>> presumed descendants) , and assuming that there will be at least some kind
>> of contact between groups, borrowing is the best possibility IMO.
>
> The only trouble with borrowing a word like "tree" is the other
> languages which descend from the other three protos would not come into
> contact with my Elvish before they would have a use for this word.
> There's a bit of a complex linguistic history between these four protos
> and their descendants, which I have worked out based on the history of
> my invented world (and, yes, I suppose I did take a page out of
> Tolkien's book--literally--by making Elves come first--though there
> might have to be some re-imagining of this race with how unexpectedly
> the world has suddenly grown), but certain protos exist on different
> parts of the world, as its speakers migrate and the language changes,
> before coming into contact with each other. Again, I will certainly have
> borrowings (I've already planned for quite a number of these), however,
> in the case of some Elvish words, there may be no "Goddish" root. The
> gods were more celestial and their language is based on their existence
> in the Void (having three words for light and dark each--their cardinal
> number, so to speak, is three), and so their vocabulary is very limited
> before visiting the Earth.
>
> Though, on a side note, to play devil's advocate a bit: If coining new
> words or roots from thin-air, as it were, were not possible, how did
> (naturally) we come up with languages in the first place. Whether, in
> the real world, you believe in the idea of multiple proto's or just one,
> the idea that new words cannot be coined at such an early state in a
> language would mean it would be impossible for a language to even be
> created as the words would have to come from somewhere previously. And
> even if you believed human's are an alien life-form to this planet, and
> brought a language with them, then still, those words would need to have
> come from somewhere. At some point it nears the association of the
> chicken-or-the-egg scenario. But, again, this is just to get us all
> thinking.
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> J. M. DeSantis
> Writer - Illustrator
>
> Website: jmdesantis.com <http://www.jmdesantis.com>
> Figmunds: figmunds.com <http://www.figmunds.com>
> Game-Flush (A Humorous Video Game Site): game-flush.com
> <http://www.game-flush.com>
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
Posted by: "Paul Schleitwiler, FCM" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:21 am ((PST))
Do not forget word play. For example, new words are coined within families
when children's babble becomes a family's usage. If accepted by a larger
group, such as a clan or village, it becomes dialect. From there, it might
become mainstream.
Babble is not necessarily *onomatopoeia*.
Cultures which place high value on oratory and such uses of language create
more new words.
Conlangs may be driven by rules, but natlangs result from a consensus of
usage, despite grammarians.
If you are constructing language for a group such as "Elves", consider the
effect of them living in small, isolated communities without worldwide
broadcast of speech. They will not be homogeneous.
If you allow for dialects, you have the source of many new words.
God bless you always, all ways,
Paul
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Matthew Turnbull <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well I don't think it's impossible, just rare. Also, it's possible
> that all current words are ultimatly descendants of onomatopoetic
> sounds used by people before the developped language. I've heard of
> coinages like that happening with sign languages, since when they're
> new their speakers tend to live semi-isolated coinages take off
> easier.
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:37 am ((PST))
Another mechanism is the reanalysis of morphemes metaphorically, to create
new derivational methods. So, for example, in English we take "lice,"
"in/with a body" and attach it to adjectives to create adverbs, which
through regular sound change gets worn down to /li/.
Imagine if the Elves have a word for "hand" like /mir/. So they talk about
having things in their hands that do certain things, like /bak/ "hit",
meaning that /bakmir/ becomes the word for hammer. Over time, /-mir/
becomes a suffix to create the words for tools, so when you /pok/ or "stab"
someone or something, you do it with a /pokmir/, a sword.
Over time, a new word for hand might replace mir, and then they forget that
it ever had that meaning; it just becomes a suffix.
Another thing that happened in real life is that euphemisms become the main
term for something. Why does Latin have "ursus" but we have "bear" for
that big animal? Because the branch of PIE that would eventually become
English had a social custom of referring to certain important animals by
euphemistic nicknames. "Bear" literally means, if you go back far enough,
"brown," as in "the brown fellow." Then we borrow ursus back in, as the
adjective "ursine," and before you know it we have two apparently unrelated
words referring to similar ideas.
Words do, but very, very, very rarely, come out of nowhere. When they do,
they sometimes take advantage of sound symbolism, onomatopoeia, and verbal
play. One engine of modern terms coming out of nowhere is advertising
culture. A product might be named something because it's pleasant sounding
and unused, and then get generalized into a word representing the class of
things to which that item belongs. More often, though, even there new
words are put together out of existing parts. Or people's names, which is
another way you can name things. If the first blacksmith was named "gor,"
then a sword might be named a "gor" from then on.
The safest route is to come up with some regular or semiregular
derivational affixes and apply those, and see how far you get that way.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Do not forget word play. For example, new words are coined within families
> when children's babble becomes a family's usage. If accepted by a larger
> group, such as a clan or village, it becomes dialect. From there, it might
> become mainstream.
> Babble is not necessarily *onomatopoeia*.
> Cultures which place high value on oratory and such uses of language create
> more new words.
> Conlangs may be driven by rules, but natlangs result from a consensus of
> usage, despite grammarians.
>
> If you are constructing language for a group such as "Elves", consider the
> effect of them living in small, isolated communities without worldwide
> broadcast of speech. They will not be homogeneous.
> If you allow for dialects, you have the source of many new words.
> God bless you always, all ways,
> Paul
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Matthew Turnbull <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Well I don't think it's impossible, just rare. Also, it's possible
> > that all current words are ultimatly descendants of onomatopoetic
> > sounds used by people before the developped language. I've heard of
> > coinages like that happening with sign languages, since when they're
> > new their speakers tend to live semi-isolated coinages take off
> > easier.
> >
>
--
Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
order from Finishing Line
Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
and
Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
Posted by: "Nikolay Ivankov" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:23 am ((PST))
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Another mechanism is the reanalysis of morphemes metaphorically, to create
> new derivational methods. So, for example, in English we take "lice,"
> "in/with a body" and attach it to adjectives to create adverbs, which
> through regular sound change gets worn down to /li/.
>
> Imagine if the Elves have a word for "hand" like /mir/. So they talk about
> having things in their hands that do certain things, like /bak/ "hit",
> meaning that /bakmir/ becomes the word for hammer. Over time, /-mir/
> becomes a suffix to create the words for tools, so when you /pok/ or "stab"
> someone or something, you do it with a /pokmir/, a sword.
>
> Over time, a new word for hand might replace mir, and then they forget that
> it ever had that meaning; it just becomes a suffix.
>
> Another thing that happened in real life is that euphemisms become the main
> term for something. Why does Latin have "ursus" but we have "bear" for
> that big animal? Because the branch of PIE that would eventually become
> English had a social custom of referring to certain important animals by
> euphemistic nicknames. "Bear" literally means, if you go back far enough,
> "brown," as in "the brown fellow." Then we borrow ursus back in, as the
> adjective "ursine," and before you know it we have two apparently unrelated
> words referring to similar ideas.
>
And, apperntly, Slavic make a step further: so, in Russian bear was
replaced by "medved'", literally "honey eater", though the old "bear" root
was preserved in the word "berloga" = "bear lair".
>
> Words do, but very, very, very rarely, come out of nowhere. When they do,
> they sometimes take advantage of sound symbolism, onomatopoeia, and verbal
> play. One engine of modern terms coming out of nowhere is advertising
> culture. A product might be named something because it's pleasant sounding
> and unused, and then get generalized into a word representing the class of
> things to which that item belongs. More often, though, even there new
> words are put together out of existing parts. Or people's names, which is
> another way you can name things. If the first blacksmith was named "gor,"
> then a sword might be named a "gor" from then on.
>
> The safest route is to come up with some regular or semiregular
> derivational affixes and apply those, and see how far you get that way.
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Do not forget word play. For example, new words are coined within
> families
> > when children's babble becomes a family's usage. If accepted by a larger
> > group, such as a clan or village, it becomes dialect. From there, it
> might
> > become mainstream.
> > Babble is not necessarily *onomatopoeia*.
> > Cultures which place high value on oratory and such uses of language
> create
> > more new words.
> > Conlangs may be driven by rules, but natlangs result from a consensus of
> > usage, despite grammarians.
> >
> > If you are constructing language for a group such as "Elves", consider
> the
> > effect of them living in small, isolated communities without worldwide
> > broadcast of speech. They will not be homogeneous.
> > If you allow for dialects, you have the source of many new words.
> > God bless you always, all ways,
> > Paul
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Matthew Turnbull <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Well I don't think it's impossible, just rare. Also, it's possible
> > > that all current words are ultimatly descendants of onomatopoetic
> > > sounds used by people before the developped language. I've heard of
> > > coinages like that happening with sign languages, since when they're
> > > new their speakers tend to live semi-isolated coinages take off
> > > easier.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
> order from Finishing Line
> Press<
> http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
> and
> Amazon<
> http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2
> >.
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:33 pm ((PST))
On Feb 18, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Patrick Dunn wrote:
> Imagine if the Elves have a word for "hand" like /mir/. So they talk about
> having things in their hands that do certain things, like /bak/ "hit",
> meaning that /bakmir/ becomes the word for hammer. Over time, /-mir/
> becomes a suffix to create the words for tools, so when you /pok/ or "stab"
> someone or something, you do it with a /pokmir/, a sword.
>
> Over time, a new word for hand might replace mir, and then they forget that
> it ever had that meaning; it just becomes a suffix.
That looks a lot like Northwest Coast languages' lexical suffixes, whose
origins I have wondered about for a while. I'm convinced they mostly come from
old nouns, but I'm unclear on how it would come to be that certain words always
have to be accompanied by an affix (deriving a noun) that has some loose
connection to the meaning of the whole.
[snip]
> Words do, but very, very, very rarely, come out of nowhere.
I keep seeing this claim, but I'm wondering if we really have proof for it (in
language in general, or in specific ones). There certainly are lots of distinct
morphemes in lots of languages.
> When they do,
> they sometimes take advantage of sound symbolism, onomatopoeia, and verbal
> play.
Those do sound like natural sources. I'm not sure what all's included in verbal
play, but I think abbreviations and more or less random mutation of sounds in
an existing word should also be common (perhaps each one moreso in some
languages than in others). And in languages with writing systems, you end up
with acronyms (like SCUBA and snafu) and initialisms (like DVDs).
> One engine of modern terms coming out of nowhere is advertising
> culture. A product might be named something because it's pleasant sounding
> and unused, and then get generalized into a word representing the class of
> things to which that item belongs. More often, though, even there new
> words are put together out of existing parts. Or people's names, which is
> another way you can name things. If the first blacksmith was named "gor,"
> then a sword might be named a "gor" from then on.
And let's not forget that personal names can be subject to quite a lot of
inventiveness in some cultures/languages.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:28 pm ((PST))
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Eric Christopherson <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Patrick Dunn wrote:
>
> > Imagine if the Elves have a word for "hand" like /mir/. So they talk
> about
> > having things in their hands that do certain things, like /bak/ "hit",
> > meaning that /bakmir/ becomes the word for hammer. Over time, /-mir/
> > becomes a suffix to create the words for tools, so when you /pok/ or
> "stab"
> > someone or something, you do it with a /pokmir/, a sword.
> >
> > Over time, a new word for hand might replace mir, and then they forget
> that
> > it ever had that meaning; it just becomes a suffix.
>
> That looks a lot like Northwest Coast languages' lexical suffixes, whose
> origins I have wondered about for a while. I'm convinced they mostly come
> from old nouns, but I'm unclear on how it would come to be that certain
> words always have to be accompanied by an affix (deriving a noun) that has
> some loose connection to the meaning of the whole.
>
> [snip]
> > Words do, but very, very, very rarely, come out of nowhere.
>
> I keep seeing this claim, but I'm wondering if we really have proof for it
> (in language in general, or in specific ones). There certainly are lots of
> distinct morphemes in lots of languages.
>
Well, proof, no, but open up a good etymological dictionary, like the OED,
and scan for how many entries have "origin unknown." We can trace back
most words in the language to an earlier morpheme, and most of those to an
earlier morpheme, and so on. Once you discount the words that we can't
trace back because of social stigma (some words deemed obscene, for
example), you've got very few words that seem to have come about ex nihilo.
>
> > When they do,
> > they sometimes take advantage of sound symbolism, onomatopoeia, and
> verbal
> > play.
>
> Those do sound like natural sources. I'm not sure what all's included in
> verbal play, but I think abbreviations and more or less random mutation of
> sounds in an existing word should also be common (perhaps each one moreso
> in some languages than in others). And in languages with writing systems,
> you end up with acronyms (like SCUBA and snafu) and initialisms (like DVDs).
>
Abbreviations are only going to come in effect in relatively recent times.
For one thing, you need an alphabet for an abbreviation (well, sort of --
I know in some languages there are syllabic abbreviations that don't rely
on writing, but they're still all recent coinages). There are few
initialisms, if any, in English previous to the last, oh, estimating two
hundred years or so.
>
> > One engine of modern terms coming out of nowhere is advertising
> > culture. A product might be named something because it's pleasant
> sounding
> > and unused, and then get generalized into a word representing the class
> of
> > things to which that item belongs. More often, though, even there new
> > words are put together out of existing parts. Or people's names, which
> is
> > another way you can name things. If the first blacksmith was named
> "gor,"
> > then a sword might be named a "gor" from then on.
>
> And let's not forget that personal names can be subject to quite a lot of
> inventiveness in some cultures/languages.
>
That's true, but even then, names often have ossified meanings. It's
really quite rare for a name to be merely a collection of sounds, although
not unheard of.
Obviously, at some point, words *did* come out of nowhere. But that seems
to be the exception rather than the rule.
--
Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
order from Finishing Line
Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
and
Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
Posted by: "Tristan" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:25 pm ((PST))
> Well, proof, no, but open up a good etymological dictionary, like the OED,
> and scan for how many entries have "origin unknown." We can trace back
> most words in the language to an earlier morpheme, and most of those to an
> earlier morpheme, and so on. Once you discount the words that we can't
> trace back because of social stigma (some words deemed obscene, for
> example), you've got very few words that seem to have come about ex nihilo.
I shall, thank you.
Out of the 231160 entries from the 1992 OED there are 1528 that contain
the phrase obscure origin. Eliminating duplicates leaves only 1379, just
under 0.6%. This is likely high (not everything is in the etymology
section, and some are surely double-counted) and low (other phrases to
indicate the same idea may be used).
Very few seem to be due to social stigma though, at least based on my
glance through. Though there were many words I didn't know.
And 28 'of obscure origin and meaning' (for some senses anyway)!
fone hognel keve lete male miserlike myne-ye-ple navel- pigwidgin quease
'raving fat' rear reding-king reget rehator rehayte reid repe reuall
rideling sauntrell scawe spigurnel stopull stoupe strummel wappened wyke
enjoy!
--
All original matter is hereby placed immediately under the public domain.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1i. Re: Fwd: Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:28 am ((PST))
Very good to know...
If you're positing gods that, for example, have no real experience of
trees and therefore have no word for tree, then naturally the Firstborn
of the world who learn speech from these gods will not inherit a word for
tree from them. What I'd suggest then is perhaps not so much that all the
younger races base their languages entirely on the language of the gods
but rather that each of the races' languages contains within it some larger
or smaller kernel of the gods' language, according to the genius and
perception of each.
If the gods have three words for light (different manifestations of the
E-M spectrum??), chances are good that earthly beings will have little
use for such words, as these reflect an existence outside the realms of
the physical universe. One race might pick up one word and another race
picks up another. Or none of them may inherit a divine word for "light".
Or they may inherit one and apply it to an earthly concept of "light" that
doesn't jive with the gods' experience of it.
I don't know if you've got the usual spectrum of good to evil races in this
world or not, but it might be the case that those peoples that are closest
to the gods will have a larger kernel of words of divine origins in their
language. Evil peoples might have fewer and might intentionally or
accidentally mar those words. They might invert definitions (the divine
word for "light" now means "evil". Naturally, I think the Elves, having
come along first, would probably have the largest amount of divine words
of for no other reason than that they'd be in contact far longer.
So, I think for words of earthly things, like trees, rocks, streams and
a million other small things of daily living that the gods would have no
experience of, your various races will simply have to devise words on
their own. Since you are in fact looking at the *very first* literal
generation of speaking peoples in this world, I think it is more than fair
to posit a large amount of ex nihilo word creation. You know, the first
Elves wake up under stars and cry out: "....[insert their first Word here"!
Padraic
--- On Sat, 2/18/12, J. M. DeSantis <[email protected]> wrote:
> The only trouble with borrowing a word like "tree" is the
> other languages which descend from the other three protos
> would not come into contact with my Elvish before they would
> have a use for this word. There's a bit of a complex
> linguistic history between these four protos and their
> descendants, which I have worked out based on the history of
> my invented world (and, yes, I suppose I did take a page out
> of Tolkien's book--literally--by making Elves come
> first--though there might have to be some re-imagining of
> this race with how unexpectedly the world has suddenly
> grown), but certain protos exist on different parts of the
> world, as its speakers migrate and the language changes,
> before coming into contact with each other. Again, I will
> certainly have borrowings (I've already planned for quite a
> number of these), however, in the case of some Elvish words,
> there may be no "Goddish" root. The gods were more celestial
> and their language is based on their existence in the Void
> (having three words for light and dark each--their cardinal
> number, so to speak, is three), and so their vocabulary is
> very limited before visiting the Earth.
>
> Though, on a side note, to play devil's advocate a bit: If
> coining new words or roots from thin-air, as it were, were
> not possible, how did (naturally) we come up with languages
> in the first place. Whether, in the real world, you believe
> in the idea of multiple proto's or just one, the idea that
> new words cannot be coined at such an early state in a
> language would mean it would be impossible for a language to
> even be created as the words would have to come from
> somewhere previously. And even if you believed human's are
> an alien life-form to this planet, and brought a language
> with them, then still, those words would need to have come
> from somewhere. At some point it nears the association of
> the chicken-or-the-egg scenario. But, again, this is just to
> get us all thinking.
>
> -- Sincerely,
> J. M. DeSantis
> Writer - Illustrator
>
> Website: jmdesantis.com <http://www.jmdesantis.com>
> Figmunds: figmunds.com <http://www.figmunds.com>
> Game-Flush (A Humorous Video Game Site): game-flush.com
> <http://www.game-flush.com>
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Phonology Phrustration and Uzbek
Posted by: "David McCann" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:11 am ((PST))
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:56:39 -0800
Eamon Graham <[email protected]> wrote:
> The problem is that after an embarrassing number of hours spent
> puzzling over the problem, I have yet to come across any consistency
> in the descriptions of Uzbek to which I have access (for example,
> comparing Sjoberg's truly awesome Uzbek Structural Grammar with any
> of the other descriptions I've seen - including the vague assurance
> that it's "the same as Tajik," something with which I haven't been
> able to entirely agree).
Bernard Comrie (Languages of the Soviet Union) writes that the
dialects of Tashkent and the Fengara Basin are said to have shifted to a
Tajik-style /1, e, a, o, ů, u/. The contrast of [u] and [ü] is then
regarded as conditioned by the presence of /k g/ rather than /q ġ/. His
objection is based on the presence of minimal pairs (not recognised in
the orthography) like uč 'end' and üč′ 'three', tur 'stop' and t′üŕ
'sort'. The standard description does not distinguish palatalised
consonants, so it cannot explain the vowel alternation. Either you have
to recognise palatal consonants, or you need to accept front-rounded
equivalents to /u ů o/. The latter is obviously simpler and reflects
the origins of the forms.
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Re: Outdoors
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:46 pm ((PST))
Toms,
That's a helpful article. Thanks for the link.
stevo
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Toms Deimonds Barvidis
<[email protected]>wrote:
> I've never really tried to find anything for Lithuanian. I suppose such
> info could be used for Latvian at least to some
> degree, since there are not much sound changes involved in the split of
> Latvian and Lithuanian.
>
>
> http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/50949/Baltic-languages/74884/Comparison-of-Lithuanian-and-Latvian-
> this page has got some basic description of the differences between
> Latvian and Lithuanian, the former generally
> considered more innovative, at least by those who are not of the
> Latvian-Sanskrit Superlanguage cult :D
>
> --
> Raungiga golvärdhänon.
> Toms Deimonds Barvidis
>
>
> Citējot MorphemeAddict <[email protected]>:
> > Is Lithuanian material any more available than Latvian? To what degree
> can
> > such Lithuanian material be used for Latvian?
> >
> > stevo
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Toms Deimonds Barvidis
> > <[email protected]>wrote:
> >
> >> Nav par ko :)
> >>
> >> It's pretty hard to find decent information on history of Latvian even
> >> here, in Latvia. Most of the web-based
> >> information is highly biased, emphasizing the similarities between
> Latvian
> >> and Sanskrit to sometimes even
> >> ridiculous degree while ignoring other IE languages altogether.
> >>
> >> I sometimes surprises me how many Germanic loanwords Latvian has, when I
> >> come to a realization that some
> >> basic vocabulary unit is actually a loan. I think it's a little bit sad,
> >> too, though I'm not in any way opposed to
> >> borrowing, especially if the borrowing language doesn't have an
> >> appropriate word. Anyway, the awesome amount of
> >> German loans (I'm for from competent in Germanic linguistics, but I
> >> believe the source language of most of the
> >> loans to be Middle Low German) in Latvian (as well as French loans in
> >> English) inspired me to do a loan-ful
> >> conlang, Beringian.
> >>
> >> Beringian has appeared in the list once or twice, I remember once
> >> mentioning it because I was pretty proud of how I
> >> made it sound and look like French, though the similarity has waned a
> >> little bit since.
> >>
> >> So, I don't know if it's been already discussed here on the list, but
> have
> >> those of you who have conworlds (I think it's
> >> necessary for this one :D ) ever put some work into making languages
> >> borrow from each other? What are the
> >> causes for borrowing? Higher prestige of the source language or simply
> the
> >> borrowing culture is more backwards
> >> and doesn't have the words for some concepts? How likely is it that the
> >> institutions governing language have new
> >> learned borrowings undergo some historical sound changes in order to
> make
> >> them feel more natural?
> >>
> >>
> >> Citējot "Nikolay Ivankov" <[email protected]>:
> >>> Liels paldies.
> >>>
> >>> I really love how Latvian sounds, but being by no means native, I know
> >>> nothing about the history of your language. And I really find it very
> sad
> >>> that such a beautiful and archaic language is spoiled with loanwords.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Toms Deimonds Barvidis
> >>> <[email protected]>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> This issue seams to be already solved before I, a native Latvian
> >> speaker,
> >>>> had seen the thread :D
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway, "ārā" is indeed a locative from an earlier "ārs", meaning "the
> >>>> outdoors", most definitely related to "āre", an
> >>>> open, cultivated land, thus probably also with "art" (to plough) and
> >>>> "arkls" (a plough), as well as Latin "arō" and
> >>>> English "ear" (not the body part, of course), I suppose.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nowadays it's usually perceived as an adverb, not a declined form of
> any
> >>>> noun, since "ārs" has fallen out of usage
> >>>> in this meaning; "ārs" is now used to mean an are, 100 square meters.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Laukā" is also a locative from "lauks", a field.
> >>>>
> >>>> The opposite concept "inside" is usually "iekšā"; seems like another
> >>>> locative. Some related words are "iekšas"
> >>>> (intestine) and "iekš", an archaic preposition meaning "in", usually
> >> used
> >>>> mocking the way Baltic Germans spoke
> >>>> Latvian and more increasingly with loaned words that can't be
> declined,
> >>>> though I find this rather ugly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Citējot "Nikolay Ivankov" <[email protected]>:
> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:04 PM, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Nikolay Ivankov <
> >> [email protected]
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In Russian one uses "na ulitse" (on the street) or "na dvore" (in
> the
> >>>>>> yard)
> >>>>>>> for outdoors, sometimes also "za oknom" (beyond the window). In
> >> Latvian
> >>>>>> it
> >>>>>>> is either arā (outside) or laukā "in the field".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Arā" looks like a locative. What is the nominative and what does it
> >>>> mean?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For me too, but I'm no champion it Latvian. There is no "aris" or
> >> "arus"
> >>>>> in the dictionalry, and the only meaning of "ars" is 100m2. Thuogh
> >> there
> >>>>> are particles "ar"="with" and "arī"="too". I can fancy that *arus may
> >> be
> >>>>> cognate with "agros", since "lauks" should be of the same origin as
> >>>> Russian
> >>>>> "lug" - "meadow".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> stevo
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Charlie Brickner <
> >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's 60° here in the Blue Ridge Mountains today and, as I was
> >> visiting
> >>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>> shut-
> >>>>>>>> ins, I was enjoying the winter outdoors.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The thought occurred to me that you can't say "outdoors" unless
> your
> >>>>>>>> culture
> >>>>>>>> has doors! If your conculture is so primitive as not to have
> doors,
> >>>>>> how
> >>>>>>>> do you
> >>>>>>>> express the concept of "outdoors" in your conlang?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Charlie
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
>
Messages in this topic (36)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:35 pm ((PST))
Hey all:
My friend forwarded me this, and I participated. It was interesting and I
thought the list would enjoy participating. My friend's message is copied
below:
Hey guys,
A friend sent me this. It takes 5 minutes, and it looks like these people
are actually paying attention to who is in their sample population, which,
as a soc major, I find incredibly refreshing. Please forward this on to
anyone you think might like to take it (or who could give them more data
from their under-sampled populations!) Check out the results (second link)
to see what I'm talking about.
http://www.testyourvocab.com
http://testyourvocab.com/blog/2011-07-25-New-results-for-native-speakers.php#mainchartNative
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:00 pm ((PST))
Cool. I scored 33,200.
--gary
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Daniel Bowman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey all:
>
> My friend forwarded me this, and I participated. It was interesting and I
> thought the list would enjoy participating. My friend's message is copied
> below:
>
> Hey guys,
>
> A friend sent me this. It takes 5 minutes, and it looks like these people
> are actually paying attention to who is in their sample population, which,
> as a soc major, I find incredibly refreshing. Please forward this on to
> anyone you think might like to take it (or who could give them more data
> from their under-sampled populations!) Check out the results (second link)
> to see what I'm talking about.
>
> http://www.testyourvocab.com
>
> http://testyourvocab.com/blog/2011-07-25-New-results-for-native-speakers.php#mainchartNative
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:30 pm ((PST))
Interesting. I scored 41,300
============================================
From: Daniel Bowman <[email protected]>
My friend forwarded me this, and I participated. It was interesting and I
thought the list would enjoy participating. My friend's message is copied
below:
Hey guys,
A friend sent me this. It takes 5 minutes, and it looks like these people
are actually paying attention to who is in their sample population, which,
as a soc major, I find incredibly refreshing. Please forward this on to
anyone you think might like to take it (or who could give them more data
from their under-sampled populations!) Check out the results (second link)
to see what I'm talking about.
http://www.testyourvocab.com
http://testyourvocab.com/blog/2011-07-25-New-results-for-native-speakers.php#mainchartNative
----- Original Message -----
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Larry Sulky" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:35 pm ((PST))
33,800 for me. There were lots of cool words that I had never seen before.
:-)
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> Interesting. I scored 41,300
> ============================================
>
> From: Daniel Bowman <[email protected]>
>
> My friend forwarded me this, and I participated. It was interesting and I
> thought the list would enjoy participating. My friend's message is copied
> below:
>
> Hey guys,
>
> A friend sent me this. It takes 5 minutes, and it looks like these people
> are actually paying attention to who is in their sample population, which,
> as a soc major, I find incredibly refreshing. Please forward this on to
> anyone you think might like to take it (or who could give them more data
> from their under-sampled populations!) Check out the results (second link)
> to see what I'm talking about.
>
> http://www.testyourvocab.com
>
>
> http://testyourvocab.com/blog/2011-07-25-New-results-for-native-speakers.php#mainchartNative
> ----- Original Message -----
>
--
*Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day I
can hear her breathing. -- Arundhati Roy*
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
4e. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:59 pm ((PST))
On 19 February 2012 04:35, Larry Sulky <[email protected]> wrote:
> 33,800 for me. There were lots of cool words that I had never seen before.
> :-)
>
>
30,500 for me, which puts me on native speaker level. Not bad for a French
guy :P .
There were quite a few words I didn't know, but many "complicated" words I
did. I guess a conlanger's interest in languages always shines through :) .
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
4f. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Larry Sulky" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:11 pm ((PST))
Your native language may have helped there, since a lot of the
"complicated" ones were likely borrowings from French or Old French.
But yes, a very impressive vocabulary size for a non-native speaker!
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19 February 2012 04:35, Larry Sulky <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 33,800 for me. There were lots of cool words that I had never seen
> before.
> > :-)
> >
> >
> 30,500 for me, which puts me on native speaker level. Not bad for a French
> guy :P .
>
> There were quite a few words I didn't know, but many "complicated" words I
> did. I guess a conlanger's interest in languages always shines through :) .
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>
--
*Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day I
can hear her breathing. -- Arundhati Roy*
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
4g. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:19 pm ((PST))
I can t tell for sure, but I believe I took this test months ago. Adam
On 2/18/12, Larry Sulky <[email protected]> wrote:
> Your native language may have helped there, since a lot of the
> "complicated" ones were likely borrowings from French or Old French.
>
> But yes, a very impressive vocabulary size for a non-native speaker!
>
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 19 February 2012 04:35, Larry Sulky <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > 33,800 for me. There were lots of cool words that I had never seen
>> before.
>> > :-)
>> >
>> >
>> 30,500 for me, which puts me on native speaker level. Not bad for a French
>> guy :P .
>>
>> There were quite a few words I didn't know, but many "complicated" words I
>> did. I guess a conlanger's interest in languages always shines through :)
>> .
>> --
>> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>>
>> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
>> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day I
> can hear her breathing. -- Arundhati Roy*
>
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
4h. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:20 pm ((PST))
32,100 for me. Lots of words I've never seen before.
stevo
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Daniel Bowman <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hey all:
>
> My friend forwarded me this, and I participated. It was interesting and I
> thought the list would enjoy participating. My friend's message is copied
> below:
>
> Hey guys,
>
> A friend sent me this. It takes 5 minutes, and it looks like these people
> are actually paying attention to who is in their sample population, which,
> as a soc major, I find incredibly refreshing. Please forward this on to
> anyone you think might like to take it (or who could give them more data
> from their under-sampled populations!) Check out the results (second link)
> to see what I'm talking about.
>
> http://www.testyourvocab.com
>
>
> http://testyourvocab.com/blog/2011-07-25-New-results-for-native-speakers.php#mainchartNative
>
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
4i. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:48 pm ((PST))
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:11:17 -0500, Larry Sulky <[email protected]> wrote:
>Your native language may have helped there, since a lot of the
>"complicated" ones were likely borrowings from French or Old French.
To quote http://testyourvocab.com/details.php :
| == Which sample words were chosen? ==
| [...]
| And because we're using the same vocabulary list to test Brazilians
| learning English:
|
| *No cognates or false-friends with Portuguese.* This probably knocks out
| at least half the dictionary, since Romance languages have plenty in
| common with English. False friends need to be avoided as well, since a
| Brazilian beginner will see "pretend" and assume he knows it means
| _pretender_, which actually means "intend." Interestingly, the
| no-Portuguese rule leaves the test with a strongly pronounced short
| Anglo-Saxon flavor.
So most of the French will have been cut too. Anyway (like Larry) I worry
this probably skews the results rather more than the experimenters would
like, in that the omissions are many more in the esoteric range. Wonder why
they couldn't have used a non-Romance lang for their second group instead.
Alex
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
4j. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:28 am ((PST))
The website's claim that you go on learning an average of just under a word a
day until your mid-fifties doesn't at all match my (now mid-forties (!))
experience, which has been that once you know lots of words it becomes
increasingly rare to encounter new ones, and therefore increasingly rare to
learn new ones (& I get quite excited and delighted when I encounter a new word
in the wild). Some whizzkid with statistical nous and access to the Google
corpus could probably work out how many words I (for example) would have to
encounter per day in order to encounter one I didn't know: you could take the
figure of 43,100 given by this website, assume they're the 43,100 most frequent
words in the language, and work out how many word tokens per million are from
outside the 43,100, and then compare to how many word tokens I encounter per
day.
I'm not saying that the one-word-per-day claim must be wrong, just that I think
the model will start to break down when you reach large vocab sizes.
Also, that figure of 43,100 seems suspiciously low to me; I'd like to see, say,
the 75000 most frequent words in the language ordered by frequency and check
whether around the 45K mark they really do start getting mostly unfamiliar. If,
as seems likely, there's a relatively steep fall in the frequency curve of the
lexicon and then a very long and fairly flat tail, then a dictionary that is
large but not completist will aim to include the main body of the curve and if
it includes part of the tail it will inevitably be in effect a random sampling
of the tail. Thus you could use the set of words in that dictionary as a way of
estimating how many words you know from the main body of the curve, but since
it doesn't include all the words from the full curve and we don't know how many
words are excluded, you can't use the dictionary to make a sensible estimate of
the size of vocabularies that include quite a large proportion of the tail.
--And.
Roger Mills, On 19/02/2012 03:29:
> Interesting. I scored 41,300
> ============================================
>
> From: Daniel Bowman<[email protected]>
>
> My friend forwarded me this, and I participated. It was interesting and I
> thought the list would enjoy participating. My friend's message is copied
> below:
>
> Hey guys,
>
> A friend sent me this. It takes 5 minutes, and it looks like these people
> are actually paying attention to who is in their sample population, which,
> as a soc major, I find incredibly refreshing. Please forward this on to
> anyone you think might like to take it (or who could give them more data
> from their under-sampled populations!) Check out the results (second link)
> to see what I'm talking about.
>
> http://www.testyourvocab.com
>
> http://testyourvocab.com/blog/2011-07-25-New-results-for-native-speakers.php#mainchartNative
> ----- Original Message -----
Messages in this topic (10)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
