There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: David McCann
1.2. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Gary Shannon
1.3. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Adam Walker
1.4. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Adam Walker
1.5. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Sam Stutter
1.6. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Patrick Dunn
1.7. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Matthew Turnbull
1.8. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Adam Walker
1.9. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Peter Cyrus
1.10. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Sam Stutter
1.11. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Adam Walker
1.12. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Matthew Turnbull
1.13. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Padraic Brown
1.14. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Padraic Brown
1.15. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Padraic Brown
1.16. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Brian Woodward
1.17. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Roger Mills
1.18. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Roger Mills
1.19. Newspeak was Re: [CONLANG] quick vocab/sociology survey
From: Padraic Brown
2a. Siye Babel Text
From: Anthony Miles
2b. Re: Siye Babel Text
From: Lee
3a. Re: Number Creation
From: Anthony Miles
3b. Re: Number Creation
From: Nikolay Ivankov
4. OT: int'l mother language day
From: Lee
5a. Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
From: Alex Fink
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "David McCann" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:27 am ((PST))
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:30:13 +0100
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[email protected]> wrote:
> The PIV is the closest thing there is to a "standard"
> Esperanto dictionary, and its latest version dates from 2005. Many
> new words have found their way in Esperanto in 111 years, including
> many new roots, as was Zamenhof's wish all along (that Esperanto
> shouldn't stay static). And those roots were added because their was
> a need for them.
A lot were added because people just imitate their own languages in
Esperanto. For Zamenhof, "kampokultivad0" was good enough. Then we got
"agrikulturo" from the Romance speakers, and even "agronomio".
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:44 am ((PST))
It occurs to me that a (non-technical) word that is unknown to 99% of the
population is not really a word at all. A word is a collection of sounds
represented by a collection of symbols which CONVEYS INFORMATION.
Globerdrange is not a word because it conveys no information. But suppose I
define globerdrange as the thin film that builds up on the inner surface of
a teakettle over the years. Is it now an English word because I have
defined it? I don't think so.
So suppose I happen to be wealthy, so I buy a publishing company and decree
that globerdrange be included in the next edition of the dictionary
published by my company. Is it an English word then? I still don't think
so. Just because it's in some book doesn't make it a real word.
It doesn't become a real word until some significant portion of the
population actually uses it in daily discourse, or encounters and
understands it frequently when reading.
Highly technical terms specific to a particular field of study are
excepted, of course, but I maintain that sound sequences like "williwaw"
are not actually words. To 99% of the the population such a word has no
more meaning than globerdrange, and should not be granted any more wordly
status than my own imaginary neologism.
So the problem is not that English has too many words. The problem is that
the English dictionary contains too many non-words. I say if a
(non-technical) word is unknown to 80% of the population it should be
purged from the dictionary as unnecessary baggage.
--gary
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, taliesin the storyteller <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2012-02-21 13:35, Padraic Brown wrote:
>
>> Find a way to combine williwaw with katabatic and bob's thy nuncle.
>>
>
> But, katabatic williwaws should surely be possible? Might almost think a
> piteraq *is* a katabatic williwaw by my quick google of the terms, just
> located to Greenland.
>
>
> Throw in piteraq for good measure! Ikkii!
>>
>
> With or without the extra-i? There might be plenty ikkis in the years to
> come :(
>
>
> t.
>
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:14 am ((PST))
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> It occurs to me that a (non-technical) word that is unknown to 99% of the
> population is not really a word at all. A word is a collection of sounds
> represented by a collection of symbols which CONVEYS INFORMATION.
>
> Globerdrange is not a word because it conveys no information. But suppose I
> define globerdrange as the thin film that builds up on the inner surface of
> a teakettle over the years. Is it now an English word because I have
> defined it? I don't think so.
>
> So suppose I happen to be wealthy, so I buy a publishing company and decree
> that globerdrange be included in the next edition of the dictionary
> published by my company. Is it an English word then? I still don't think
> so. Just because it's in some book doesn't make it a real word.
>
> It doesn't become a real word until some significant portion of the
> population actually uses it in daily discourse, or encounters and
> understands it frequently when reading.
>
> Highly technical terms specific to a particular field of study are
> excepted, of course, but I maintain that sound sequences like "williwaw"
> are not actually words. To 99% of the the population such a word has no
> more meaning than globerdrange, and should not be granted any more wordly
> status than my own imaginary neologism.
>
> So the problem is not that English has too many words. The problem is that
> the English dictionary contains too many non-words. I say if a
> (non-technical) word is unknown to 80% of the population it should be
> purged from the dictionary as unnecessary baggage.
>
> --gary
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, taliesin the storyteller <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 2012-02-21 13:35, Padraic Brown wrote:
> >
> >> Find a way to combine williwaw with katabatic and bob's thy nuncle.
> >>
> >
> > But, katabatic williwaws should surely be possible? Might almost think a
> > piteraq *is* a katabatic williwaw by my quick google of the terms, just
> > located to Greenland.
> >
> >
> > Throw in piteraq for good measure! Ikkii!
> >>
> >
> > With or without the extra-i? There might be plenty ikkis in the years to
> > come :(
> >
> >
> > t.
> >
>
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.4. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:15 am ((PST))
Big Brother is watching. Speak Newspeak!
Adam
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So the problem is not that English has too many words. The problem is that
>> the English dictionary contains too many non-words. I say if a
>> (non-technical) word is unknown to 80% of the population it should be
>> purged from the dictionary as unnecessary baggage.
>>
>> --gary
>>
>>
>>
>
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.5. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Sam Stutter" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:40 am ((PST))
On 21 Feb 2012, at 17:15, Adam Walker wrote:
> Big Brother is watching. Speak Newspeak!
>
> Adam
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> So the problem is not that English has too many words. The problem is that
>>> the English dictionary contains too many non-words. I say if a
>>> (non-technical) word is unknown to 80% of the population it should be
>>> purged from the dictionary as unnecessary baggage.
>>>
>>> --gary
This already exists: the Oxford School Dictionary.
Adam: I started writing about 600 words on that exact subject and then realised
you'd summed it up in one word. I wonder what percentage of the population know
what Newspeak actually means? Remember Stutter's Law: all people are idiots.
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.6. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:39 am ((PST))
That was very amusing satire. Thanks. I needed that.
--Patrick
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> It occurs to me that a (non-technical) word that is unknown to 99% of the
> population is not really a word at all. A word is a collection of sounds
> represented by a collection of symbols which CONVEYS INFORMATION.
>
> Globerdrange is not a word because it conveys no information. But suppose I
> define globerdrange as the thin film that builds up on the inner surface of
> a teakettle over the years. Is it now an English word because I have
> defined it? I don't think so.
>
> So suppose I happen to be wealthy, so I buy a publishing company and decree
> that globerdrange be included in the next edition of the dictionary
> published by my company. Is it an English word then? I still don't think
> so. Just because it's in some book doesn't make it a real word.
>
> It doesn't become a real word until some significant portion of the
> population actually uses it in daily discourse, or encounters and
> understands it frequently when reading.
>
> Highly technical terms specific to a particular field of study are
> excepted, of course, but I maintain that sound sequences like "williwaw"
> are not actually words. To 99% of the the population such a word has no
> more meaning than globerdrange, and should not be granted any more wordly
> status than my own imaginary neologism.
>
> So the problem is not that English has too many words. The problem is that
> the English dictionary contains too many non-words. I say if a
> (non-technical) word is unknown to 80% of the population it should be
> purged from the dictionary as unnecessary baggage.
>
> --gary
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, taliesin the storyteller <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 2012-02-21 13:35, Padraic Brown wrote:
> >
> >> Find a way to combine williwaw with katabatic and bob's thy nuncle.
> >>
> >
> > But, katabatic williwaws should surely be possible? Might almost think a
> > piteraq *is* a katabatic williwaw by my quick google of the terms, just
> > located to Greenland.
> >
> >
> > Throw in piteraq for good measure! Ikkii!
> >>
> >
> > With or without the extra-i? There might be plenty ikkis in the years to
> > come :(
> >
> >
> > t.
> >
>
--
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 (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.7. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Matthew Turnbull" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:29 am ((PST))
I agree about the sentiment but would like to point out that even if
80% of a population doesn't know a word that doesn't revoke it's word
status, since 20/100 do know it. There comes a point however when a
word ceases to be used productivly and shortly thereafter I feel it
will leave the lexicon.
On 2/21/12, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> It occurs to me that a (non-technical) word that is unknown to 99% of the
> population is not really a word at all. A word is a collection of sounds
> represented by a collection of symbols which CONVEYS INFORMATION.
>
> Globerdrange is not a word because it conveys no information. But suppose I
> define globerdrange as the thin film that builds up on the inner surface of
> a teakettle over the years. Is it now an English word because I have
> defined it? I don't think so.
>
> So suppose I happen to be wealthy, so I buy a publishing company and decree
> that globerdrange be included in the next edition of the dictionary
> published by my company. Is it an English word then? I still don't think
> so. Just because it's in some book doesn't make it a real word.
>
> It doesn't become a real word until some significant portion of the
> population actually uses it in daily discourse, or encounters and
> understands it frequently when reading.
>
> Highly technical terms specific to a particular field of study are
> excepted, of course, but I maintain that sound sequences like "williwaw"
> are not actually words. To 99% of the the population such a word has no
> more meaning than globerdrange, and should not be granted any more wordly
> status than my own imaginary neologism.
>
> So the problem is not that English has too many words. The problem is that
> the English dictionary contains too many non-words. I say if a
> (non-technical) word is unknown to 80% of the population it should be
> purged from the dictionary as unnecessary baggage.
>
> --gary
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, taliesin the storyteller <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-02-21 13:35, Padraic Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Find a way to combine williwaw with katabatic and bob's thy nuncle.
>>>
>>
>> But, katabatic williwaws should surely be possible? Might almost think a
>> piteraq *is* a katabatic williwaw by my quick google of the terms, just
>> located to Greenland.
>>
>>
>> Throw in piteraq for good measure! Ikkii!
>>>
>>
>> With or without the extra-i? There might be plenty ikkis in the years to
>> come :(
>>
>>
>> t.
>>
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.8. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:38 am ((PST))
Actually, it is precisely those words that most need to be in a
dictionary. I am exceedingly unlikely to look up the word _mother_. I
know that word. I have absolutely no need of a dictionary definintion for
that word and would feel no loss if it were left out (unless it were a
dictionary for ES/FL or for children, intended to teach the concept of how
to use a dictionary). But if I come across williwaw and go to my
dictionary to look it up and find it abscent, then my dictionary has failed
me in its purpose. At least as I see it.
Adam
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Matthew Turnbull <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree about the sentiment but would like to point out that even if
> 80% of a population doesn't know a word that doesn't revoke it's word
> status, since 20/100 do know it. There comes a point however when a
> word ceases to be used productivly and shortly thereafter I feel it
> will leave the lexicon.
>
> On 2/21/12, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It occurs to me that a (non-technical) word that is unknown to 99% of the
> > population is not really a word at all. A word is a collection of sounds
> > represented by a collection of symbols which CONVEYS INFORMATION.
> >
> > Globerdrange is not a word because it conveys no information. But
> suppose I
> > define globerdrange as the thin film that builds up on the inner surface
> of
> > a teakettle over the years. Is it now an English word because I have
> > defined it? I don't think so.
> >
> > So suppose I happen to be wealthy, so I buy a publishing company and
> decree
> > that globerdrange be included in the next edition of the dictionary
> > published by my company. Is it an English word then? I still don't think
> > so. Just because it's in some book doesn't make it a real word.
> >
> > It doesn't become a real word until some significant portion of the
> > population actually uses it in daily discourse, or encounters and
> > understands it frequently when reading.
> >
> > Highly technical terms specific to a particular field of study are
> > excepted, of course, but I maintain that sound sequences like "williwaw"
> > are not actually words. To 99% of the the population such a word has no
> > more meaning than globerdrange, and should not be granted any more wordly
> > status than my own imaginary neologism.
> >
> > So the problem is not that English has too many words. The problem is
> that
> > the English dictionary contains too many non-words. I say if a
> > (non-technical) word is unknown to 80% of the population it should be
> > purged from the dictionary as unnecessary baggage.
> >
> > --gary
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, taliesin the storyteller <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2012-02-21 13:35, Padraic Brown wrote:
> >>
> >>> Find a way to combine williwaw with katabatic and bob's thy nuncle.
> >>>
> >>
> >> But, katabatic williwaws should surely be possible? Might almost think a
> >> piteraq *is* a katabatic williwaw by my quick google of the terms, just
> >> located to Greenland.
> >>
> >>
> >> Throw in piteraq for good measure! Ikkii!
> >>>
> >>
> >> With or without the extra-i? There might be plenty ikkis in the years to
> >> come :(
> >>
> >>
> >> t.
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.9. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Peter Cyrus" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:49 am ((PST))
I feel that way about bilingual dictionaries : I wish there were a pocket
dictionary with the 15,000 most common words MINUS the 5,000 most common -
I don't need them.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Actually, it is precisely those words that most need to be in a
> dictionary. I am exceedingly unlikely to look up the word _mother_. I
> know that word. I have absolutely no need of a dictionary definintion for
> that word and would feel no loss if it were left out (unless it were a
> dictionary for ES/FL or for children, intended to teach the concept of how
> to use a dictionary). But if I come across williwaw and go to my
> dictionary to look it up and find it abscent, then my dictionary has failed
> me in its purpose. At least as I see it.
>
> Adam
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Matthew Turnbull <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree about the sentiment but would like to point out that even if
> > 80% of a population doesn't know a word that doesn't revoke it's word
> > status, since 20/100 do know it. There comes a point however when a
> > word ceases to be used productivly and shortly thereafter I feel it
> > will leave the lexicon.
> >
> > On 2/21/12, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > It occurs to me that a (non-technical) word that is unknown to 99% of
> the
> > > population is not really a word at all. A word is a collection of
> sounds
> > > represented by a collection of symbols which CONVEYS INFORMATION.
> > >
> > > Globerdrange is not a word because it conveys no information. But
> > suppose I
> > > define globerdrange as the thin film that builds up on the inner
> surface
> > of
> > > a teakettle over the years. Is it now an English word because I have
> > > defined it? I don't think so.
> > >
> > > So suppose I happen to be wealthy, so I buy a publishing company and
> > decree
> > > that globerdrange be included in the next edition of the dictionary
> > > published by my company. Is it an English word then? I still don't
> think
> > > so. Just because it's in some book doesn't make it a real word.
> > >
> > > It doesn't become a real word until some significant portion of the
> > > population actually uses it in daily discourse, or encounters and
> > > understands it frequently when reading.
> > >
> > > Highly technical terms specific to a particular field of study are
> > > excepted, of course, but I maintain that sound sequences like
> "williwaw"
> > > are not actually words. To 99% of the the population such a word has no
> > > more meaning than globerdrange, and should not be granted any more
> wordly
> > > status than my own imaginary neologism.
> > >
> > > So the problem is not that English has too many words. The problem is
> > that
> > > the English dictionary contains too many non-words. I say if a
> > > (non-technical) word is unknown to 80% of the population it should be
> > > purged from the dictionary as unnecessary baggage.
> > >
> > > --gary
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, taliesin the storyteller <
> > > [email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 2012-02-21 13:35, Padraic Brown wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Find a way to combine williwaw with katabatic and bob's thy nuncle.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> But, katabatic williwaws should surely be possible? Might almost
> think a
> > >> piteraq *is* a katabatic williwaw by my quick google of the terms,
> just
> > >> located to Greenland.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Throw in piteraq for good measure! Ikkii!
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> With or without the extra-i? There might be plenty ikkis in the years
> to
> > >> come :(
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> t.
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from my mobile device
> >
>
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.10. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Sam Stutter" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:50 am ((PST))
> Actually, it is precisely those words that most need to be in a
> dictionary. I am exceedingly unlikely to look up the word _mother_. I
> know that word. I have absolutely no need of a dictionary definintion for
> that word and would feel no loss if it were left out (unless it were a
> dictionary for ES/FL or for children, intended to teach the concept of how
> to use a dictionary). But if I come across williwaw and go to my
> dictionary to look it up and find it abscent, then my dictionary has failed
> me in its purpose. At least as I see it.
>
> Adam
And let's not forget that, just because a word has fallen out of common usage,
it doesn't mean you won't come across it. A dictionary doesn't define a
language, it just passively records words it has reasonable evidence for, being
spoken by speakers of variety A of language X. It doesn't say "you must use
this word", so even though the word "dun" can mean "debt collector" (C17th),
doesn't mean you need to bother yourself with it. Just let it be.
All the dictionary is saying is that it has sufficient evidence to believe that
meaning existed / exists for it being used. The measurement of "number of words
known by 80% of people" is an entirely different measurement of a language than
that performed by dictionary work.
>
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Matthew Turnbull <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I agree about the sentiment but would like to point out that even if
>> 80% of a population doesn't know a word that doesn't revoke it's word
>> status, since 20/100 do know it. There comes a point however when a
>> word ceases to be used productivly and shortly thereafter I feel it
>> will leave the lexicon.
>>
>> On 2/21/12, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> It occurs to me that a (non-technical) word that is unknown to 99% of the
>>> population is not really a word at all. A word is a collection of sounds
>>> represented by a collection of symbols which CONVEYS INFORMATION.
>>>
>>> Globerdrange is not a word because it conveys no information. But
>> suppose I
>>> define globerdrange as the thin film that builds up on the inner surface
>> of
>>> a teakettle over the years. Is it now an English word because I have
>>> defined it? I don't think so.
>>>
>>> So suppose I happen to be wealthy, so I buy a publishing company and
>> decree
>>> that globerdrange be included in the next edition of the dictionary
>>> published by my company. Is it an English word then? I still don't think
>>> so. Just because it's in some book doesn't make it a real word.
>>>
>>> It doesn't become a real word until some significant portion of the
>>> population actually uses it in daily discourse, or encounters and
>>> understands it frequently when reading.
>>>
>>> Highly technical terms specific to a particular field of study are
>>> excepted, of course, but I maintain that sound sequences like "williwaw"
>>> are not actually words. To 99% of the the population such a word has no
>>> more meaning than globerdrange, and should not be granted any more wordly
>>> status than my own imaginary neologism.
>>>
>>> So the problem is not that English has too many words. The problem is
>> that
>>> the English dictionary contains too many non-words. I say if a
>>> (non-technical) word is unknown to 80% of the population it should be
>>> purged from the dictionary as unnecessary baggage.
>>>
>>> --gary
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, taliesin the storyteller <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-02-21 13:35, Padraic Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Find a way to combine williwaw with katabatic and bob's thy nuncle.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, katabatic williwaws should surely be possible? Might almost think a
>>>> piteraq *is* a katabatic williwaw by my quick google of the terms, just
>>>> located to Greenland.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Throw in piteraq for good measure! Ikkii!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With or without the extra-i? There might be plenty ikkis in the years to
>>>> come :(
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> t.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my mobile device
>>
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.11. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:21 pm ((PST))
so even though the word "dun" can mean "debt collector" (C17th), doesn't
> mean you need to bother yourself with it. Just let it be.
>
Interesting. While I've never come across the word as a noun, as a verb it
is an active part of my vocabulary, unfortuantely due to my own cashflow
issues. I have often been dunned.
Adam
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.12. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Matthew Turnbull" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:47 pm ((PST))
It's true that it's useful to have these words recorded, but many
people take the dictionary as authoratative and if a word is in a
dictionary then it is a word and otherwise isn't, and a word means
what the dictionary says and not otherwise. On the list people tend to
have a descriptivist approch, as do I , but most people I know are
very prescriptive.
On 2/21/12, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> so even though the word "dun" can mean "debt collector" (C17th), doesn't
>> mean you need to bother yourself with it. Just let it be.
>>
> Interesting. While I've never come across the word as a noun, as a verb it
> is an active part of my vocabulary, unfortuantely due to my own cashflow
> issues. I have often been dunned.
>
> Adam
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.13. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:31 pm ((PST))
--- On Tue, 2/21/12, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> so even though the word "dun" can
> mean "debt collector" (C17th), doesn't
> > mean you need to bother yourself with it. Just let it
> be.
> >
> Interesting. While I've never come across the word as
> a noun, as a verb it
> is an active part of my vocabulary, unfortuantely due to my
> own cashflow
> issues. I have often been dunned.
That's funny -- I never knew this meaning of dun. For me, it's always been
the adjective (brown(ish)) or the noun ((hill)fort).
I now know it's also a kind of mayfly.
The dunner dun donned his dun cap having dunned the dunhaired dunnee, doing
up a dunfly in his dun.
> Adam
Padraic
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.14. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:43 pm ((PST))
--- On Tue, 2/21/12, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Does it hurt or help that I read "oinomancy" in stead
> > of oneiromancy?
> >
> >
> Well, enough oinomancy does lead to oneiromancy generally,
> so the two are actually connected! ;)
(: or too much, emesmamancy...
Padraic
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.15. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:56 pm ((PST))
--- On Tue, 2/21/12, Sam Stutter <[email protected]> wrote:
> I wonder what percentage of the population know what Newspeak
> actually means?
I think the answer is somewhere between 1 and Not Very Many, and is
probably perilously close to Too Few...
Padraic
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.16. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Brian Woodward" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:58 pm ((PST))
I'm pretty sure I fit into the larger percentage on this statistic. I would
love to learn more about it.
Brian
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2012, at 16:56, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Tue, 2/21/12, Sam Stutter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I wonder what percentage of the population know what Newspeak
>> actually means?
>
> I think the answer is somewhere between 1 and Not Very Many, and is
> probably perilously close to Too Few...
>
> Padraic
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.17. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:01 pm ((PST))
From: Adam Walker <[email protected]>
Actually, it is precisely those words that most need to be in a
dictionary. I am exceedingly unlikely to look up the word _mother_. I
know that word. I have absolutely no need of a dictionary definintion for
that word and would feel no loss if it were left out (unless it were a
dictionary for ES/FL or for children, intended to teach the concept of how
to use a dictionary). But if I come across williwaw and go to my
dictionary to look it up and find it abscent, then my dictionary has failed
me in its purpose. At least as I see it.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Matthew Turnbull <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree about the sentiment but would like to point out that even if
> 80% of a population doesn't know a word that doesn't revoke it's word
> status, since 20/100 do know it. There comes a point however when a
> word ceases to be used productivly and shortly thereafter I feel it
> will leave the lexicon.
I agree with both of you. Words that are no longer used should be marked
"obsolete"; some should be marked "dialect", but all should continue to be
listed, for the sake of those who might come across them in the future. That, I
think is the policy of the OED; don't know about, say, "student dictionaries".
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.18. Re: quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:08 pm ((PST))
From: Padraic Brown <[email protected]
--- On Tue, 2/21/12, Sam Stutter <[email protected]> wrote:
> I wonder what percentage of the population know what Newspeak
> actually means?
I think the answer is somewhere between 1 and Not Very Many, and is
probably perilously close to Too Few...
++++++++++++++++
Oh come now... lots of high school students have had to read 1984; "Newspeak"
may have slipped in one ear and out the other, but still they were exposed to
it. One occasionally encounters "double-plus(-un)..." to form humorous
superlatives, so at least some of it must have sunk in..........
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
1.19. Newspeak was Re: [CONLANG] quick vocab/sociology survey
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:42 pm ((PST))
--- On Tue, 2/21/12, Brian Woodward <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure I fit into the larger
> percentage on this statistic. I would love to learn more
> about it.
The very best way to learn more is to read George Orwell's "Nineteen
Eighty-Four" -- Newspeak, and its place in society, is fully described.
At its heart, Newspeak is not a "language" as we usually think of it.
We -- especially we conlangers and poets -- think of language as a means
for describing things and ideas beyond imagining, for discussing deep
things, for engaging the minds of our readers in thoughts far greater
the mere sum of the words on the paper. Words on paper all have "simple
meanings", but put em together in the right way and they take on a new
life and are infused with a new meaning.
Take the words "form" and "people" and "order" and "the". All run of the
mill words with simple meanings that any five year old should be able to
grasp.
Now put em in the right order: "We the people ... in order to form a more
perfect union..." Now you have some very deep meaning! This is all about
the People of a land seizing political power away from the autocrat and
his oligarchs and investing themselves with that power. Dangerous stuff!
I use this example as a preface to what Newspeak is and does. It is in
many respects an ANTI-language. It is not so much a way for people to
express deep and profound ideas, to broaden horizons and expand the
understanding of others. On the contrary, Newspeak is a way for the
government to shape, form and guide the thinking of the people and in
every way possible to *narrow* horizons and *diminish* perspectives. This
is done by selective and progressive culling of words and reduction of
word meanings to simplest terms. As you read the book, you'll find that
state conlangers are engaged not in word creation, but in word elimination.
One boasts about how many words he and his colleagues have eradicated from
the language, for example.
So for example, we take the word "people". Now, we can't be having with
people thinking for themselves and engaging in any kind of political
thought unless that thought is 100% aligned with the government program
of social engineering. We do this by carefully altering what the word
"people" means. Obviously, we have to reduce obviously heterodox
definitions like "the entire body of persons who constitute a community,
tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history,
religion, or the like" because it is dangerous for people to think that
there might be any kind of grouping other than what our government allows.
We should probably also reduce the meaning "racial group", because this
is also dangerous -- we can't have people engaging in political thought
based on differences of skin tone or origin. That means we also need to
reduce "the persons of any particular group". (This is not to say, of
course, that no other humans live on the planet -- indeed, in the novel,
our country is at constant war with other great powers, but they are
dehumanised and spoken of only in terms of their inimicality. They are
unhuman "enemies" that need to be bravely resisted, lest they overrun the
whole world!)
This will do two things. First, it will leave us with these simplified
definitions: "persons indefinitely or collectively" and "human beings,
as distinguished from animals or other beings". Pretty safe and not likely
to be politicised! Secondly, it becomes *impossible* to express the
political statement "We the People..." because this phrase now can *ONLY*
mean "We the living things that are not animals".
Newspeak is all about reducing the number of (especially politically
dangerous) things people can licitly think about and express. You might
now wonder, how on earth can they enforce this? Well, the answer is
simple: psychological and physical torture, punishment for transgression.
Everyone is a spy, an informer; equally, everyone lives in fear of being
found out and informed on.
As time progresses, it becomes more and more impossible to express any
idea that is not sanctioned by the State. The State controls the way
people think, the State controls how people think and the State controls
the way they express what they think. Every idea, every utterance that
runs contrary to State sanctioned norms is a criminal act. It's not that
saying the words are illegal -- what is illegal is any heterodox
interpretation of words. The only possible translation for a document like
the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence is "Crimethink" -- this
word indicates any thought, any expression that runs contrary to the
State sanctioned thought.
It all comes down, really, to State determined ideology imposed with force
upon the minds and wills of the people in order to subdue their wills
and suborn them to State direction. It's a way for a relatively small
cadre of people to grab and hold power over a vastly numerically superior
majority. Take away not only someone's thoughts but even the very basic
means of expressing those thoughts and you have what could be argued is
a perfect, wallless cage. People in this State are "free" (unencumbered)
to go about their daily lives of waking up in their beds, eating breakfast,
going to the shops, going to the park, reading the paper, etc. -- but
not one of them is truly "free" (enjoying personal rights or liberty,
existing under, characterized by, or possessing civil and political
liberties, etc) Those concepts have simply been eradicated.
Basically, what Washington is trying to get away with on a daily basis!
> Brian
Padraic
> On Feb 21, 2012, at 16:56, Padraic Brown <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > --- On Tue, 2/21/12, Sam Stutter <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I wonder what percentage of the population know
> what Newspeak
> >> actually means?
> >
> > I think the answer is somewhere between 1 and Not Very
> Many, and is
> > probably perilously close to Too Few...
> >
> > Padraic
>
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Siye Babel Text
Posted by: "Anthony Miles" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:18 pm ((PST))
I had the flu this weekend, so I cooked up this. The order of texts
are: main text, interlinear, notes. The tilde indicates a nasal vowel.
Babel Text
11:1 uka luku tũ siye ã yokono siyeki emukẽ kekẽ.
11:2 ã emuku lutomisũ Sina lu luponunekũa keuluwene, ã
emuki kemea kekẽ.
11:3 ã emui emusu kesiye: yetãpakea lenukeloi ã emua
lepakelosũ nimuni. ã emui yetã yetãpakekẽa, s&#361;tũ
inelokẽa
keyanayãne.
11:4 ã emu kesiyene ame: lusilia ã nukenukepaa lenukeloi.
nukenukepa utunea lupatasu kenutupai. le lenenea lenukeloi.
Lea uka lu peyanesu kesutusũku.
11:5 ã ũkutua kesutunune lusiline ã nukenukepane kekoyẽsu.
ũlo ũkekelonei emua kenukene.
11:6 ã ũkutui kesiyene ame. koyẽ! tũku &#361;loi.
tũsiyeku emuloi
keyanayã. Emuloi keinãme kenuke. sãwemekẽ emuloi keyã ke-
tesayã ame uka eweloa kenuke.
11:7 lesutulonui ã lumekẽ lelo siyenea leũsalosũi. Emua
ũsa ũ
siyeneke kepinulonui.
11:8 sũmesũ ũkutui emuloa lumesũ uka lune peyanesu
kesutusũne. emui lusili nukenei kenemene.
11:9 sũmesũ Papeku emu melenei, sũmesũ kemekẽ
ũtukui uka
lu siyenea leũsasũne ã kemesũ ũtukui emuloa uka lu peyanesu
kesutusũne.
Babel Text
11:1
uka lu -ku tũ siye ã yokono siyeki emu -
kẽ ke -kẽ.
Whole earth-TOP one speak and common tongue 3 -
LOC VBLZR-be
11:2
ã emu-ku lutomi-sũ Sina lu luponu-ne-kũ-a
ke-uluwe-ne,
and 3-TOP east-ABL Shinar land plain-GEN-LOC-ABS VBLZR-
find-PST
ã emu-ki keme-a ke-kẽ.
and 3-INS place-ABS VBLZER-be
11:3
ã emu-i emu-su ke-siye: yetãpake-a le-nuke-lo-
i ã emu-a nimu-ni le-pake-lo-sũ
and 3-ERG 3-LAT VBLZR-speak brick-ABS 1-make-PL-HORT
and 3-ABS good-COM 1-be,hot-PL-CAUS
à emu-i yetã yetãpake-kẽ-a, sũtũ
inelo-kẽ-a
ke-yanayã-ne.
and 3-ERG stone brick-LOC-ABS mortar slime-LOC-
ABS VBLZR-use-PST
11:4
ã emu-i ke-siye-ne ame: lusili-a
ã nukenukepa-a le-nuke-lo-i.
And 3-ERG VBLZR-speak-PST QUOT city-ABS and tower-
ABS 1-make-PL-HORT
Nukenukepa utu-ne-a lupata-su ke-nutu-pa-
i.
tower head-GEN-ABS heaven-LAT VBLZER-go-up-HORT
Le lene-ne-a le-nuke-lo-i.
1 name-GEN-ABS 1-make-PL-HORT
Le-a uka lu peya-ne-su le-sutu-sũ-ku.
1-ABS entire earth circle-GEN-LOC 1-go-CAUS-NEG
11:5
ã ũkutu-a ke-sutu-nu-ne lusili-ne ã
nukenukepa-ne ke-koyẽ-su.
And LORD-ABS VBLZR-go-down-PST city-GEN and tower-GE N
VBLZR-see-LAT
Ũ-lo ũkeke-lo-ne-i emu-a ke-nuke-ne.
Man-PL child-PL-GEN-ERG 3-ABS VBLZR-make-PST
11:6
ã ũkutu-i ke-siye-ne ame.
Koyẽ!
Tũ-ku ũ-lo-i.
and LORD-ERG VBLZR-speak-PST QUOT look one-
TOP man-PL-NOM
tũ-siye-ku emu-lo-i ke-yanayã.
One-speak-TOP 3-PL-ERG VBLZR-use
Emu-lo-i ke-inã-ne ke-nuke.
3-PL-ERG VBLZR-begin-PST VBLZR-make
sãweme- kẽ emu-lo-i ke-yã ke-tesayã
ame uka ewe-a ke-nuke
now-LOC 3-PL-ERG VBLZR-able VBLZER-draw REL entire
thing-ABS VBLZR-make
11:7
le-sutu-lo-nu-i ã lume-kẽ le-lo siye-ne-a
le-ũsa-lo-sũ-i.
1-go-PL-down-HORT and place-LOC 1-PL speak-GEN-ABS 1-
change-PL-CAUS-HORT
Emu-a ũsa ũ siye-ne-ke
ke-pinu-lo-ku-i.
3-ABS other man speak-GEN-INS VBLZR-know-PL-NEG-HORT
11:8
sũme-sũ ũkutu-i emu-lo-a keme-sũ
uka
lu peya-ne-su
reason-ABL LORD-ERG 3-PL-ABL place-ABL whole earth
circle-GEN-LAT
ke-sutu-sũ-ne.
VBLZR-go-CAUS-PST
Emu-i lusili nuke-ne-i ke-neme-ne.
3-ERG city make-GEN-ABS VBLZR-stop-PST
11:9
Sũme-sũ Pape-ku emu mele-ne-i,
sũme-sũ
kemekẽ ũtuku-i
reason-ABL Babel-TOP 3 name-GEN-ERG reason-ABL place-
LOC LORD-ERG
uka lu siye-ne-a le-ũsa-sũ-ne
ã keme-sũ ũtuku-i emu-lo-a
whole earth language-GEN-ABL 1-change-CAUS-PST and place-
ABL LORD-ERG 3-PL-ABS
uka lu peya-ne-su ke-sutu-sũ-ne
whole earth circle-GEN-LAT VBLZR-go-CAUS-PST
Siye (Conlang 21712) extra characters:
Dãõĩẽũ
SOV
Ergative
Case-marking (Top, Erg, Abs, Gen, Loc, Abl, Dat/Lat, Com, Ins)
PP > N P
NP > A N
NP > Neg N
S Aux O V
Past/Non Past
Agglutinative: S-V-PL-CAUS-NEG-TENSE/MOOD
Suffixaufnahme
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Siye Babel Text
Posted by: "Lee" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:37 pm ((PST))
And people treat the flu like it's a bad thing....
Lee
________________________________
From: Anthony Miles
Sent: 2/21/2012 4:18 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Siye Babel Text
I had the flu this weekend, so I cooked up this. The order of texts
are: main text, interlinear, notes. The tilde indicates a nasal vowel.
Babel Text
11:1 uka luku tũ siye ã yokono siyeki emukẽ kekẽ.
11:2 ã emuku lutomisũ Sina lu luponunekũa keuluwene, ã
emuki kemea kekẽ.
11:3 ã emui emusu kesiye: yetãpakea lenukeloi ã emua
lepakelosũ nimuni. ã emui yetã yetãpakekẽa, s&#361;tũ
inelokẽa
keyanayãne.
11:4 ã emu kesiyene ame: lusilia ã nukenukepaa lenukeloi.
nukenukepa utunea lupatasu kenutupai. le lenenea lenukeloi.
Lea uka lu peyanesu kesutusũku.
11:5 ã ũkutua kesutunune lusiline ã nukenukepane kekoyẽsu.
ũlo ũkekelonei emua kenukene.
11:6 ã ũkutui kesiyene ame. koyẽ! tũku &#361;loi.
tũsiyeku emuloi
keyanayã. Emuloi keinãme kenuke. sãwemekẽ emuloi keyã ke-
tesayã ame uka eweloa kenuke.
11:7 lesutulonui ã lumekẽ lelo siyenea leũsalosũi. Emua
ũsa ũ
siyeneke kepinulonui.
11:8 sũmesũ ũkutui emuloa lumesũ uka lune peyanesu
kesutusũne. emui lusili nukenei kenemene.
11:9 sũmesũ Papeku emu melenei, sũmesũ kemekẽ
ũtukui uka
lu siyenea leũsasũne ã kemesũ ũtukui emuloa uka lu peyanesu
kesutusũne.
Babel Text
11:1
uka lu -ku tũ siye ã yokono siyeki emu -
kẽ ke -kẽ.
Whole earth-TOP one speak and common tongue 3 -
LOC VBLZR-be
11:2
ã emu-ku lutomi-sũ Sina lu luponu-ne-kũ-a
ke-uluwe-ne,
and 3-TOP east-ABL Shinar land plain-GEN-LOC-ABS VBLZR-
find-PST
ã emu-ki keme-a ke-kẽ.
and 3-INS place-ABS VBLZER-be
11:3
ã emu-i emu-su ke-siye: yetãpake-a le-nuke-lo-
i ã emu-a nimu-ni le-pake-lo-sũ
and 3-ERG 3-LAT VBLZR-speak brick-ABS 1-make-PL-HORT
and 3-ABS good-COM 1-be,hot-PL-CAUS
à emu-i yetã yetãpake-kẽ-a, sũtũ
inelo-kẽ-a
ke-yanayã-ne.
and 3-ERG stone brick-LOC-ABS mortar slime-LOC-
ABS VBLZR-use-PST
11:4
ã emu-i ke-siye-ne ame: lusili-a
ã nukenukepa-a le-nuke-lo-i.
And 3-ERG VBLZR-speak-PST QUOT city-ABS and tower-
ABS 1-make-PL-HORT
Nukenukepa utu-ne-a lupata-su ke-nutu-pa-
i.
tower head-GEN-ABS heaven-LAT VBLZER-go-up-HORT
Le lene-ne-a le-nuke-lo-i.
1 name-GEN-ABS 1-make-PL-HORT
Le-a uka lu peya-ne-su le-sutu-sũ-ku.
1-ABS entire earth circle-GEN-LOC 1-go-CAUS-NEG
11:5
ã ũkutu-a ke-sutu-nu-ne lusili-ne ã
nukenukepa-ne ke-koyẽ-su.
And LORD-ABS VBLZR-go-down-PST city-GEN and tower-GE N
VBLZR-see-LAT
Ũ-lo ũkeke-lo-ne-i emu-a ke-nuke-ne.
Man-PL child-PL-GEN-ERG 3-ABS VBLZR-make-PST
11:6
ã ũkutu-i ke-siye-ne ame.
Koyẽ!
Tũ-ku ũ-lo-i.
and LORD-ERG VBLZR-speak-PST QUOT look one-
TOP man-PL-NOM
tũ-siye-ku emu-lo-i ke-yanayã.
One-speak-TOP 3-PL-ERG VBLZR-use
Emu-lo-i ke-inã-ne ke-nuke.
3-PL-ERG VBLZR-begin-PST VBLZR-make
sãweme- kẽ emu-lo-i ke-yã ke-tesayã
ame uka ewe-a ke-nuke
now-LOC 3-PL-ERG VBLZR-able VBLZER-draw REL entire
thing-ABS VBLZR-make
11:7
le-sutu-lo-nu-i ã lume-kẽ le-lo siye-ne-a
le-ũsa-lo-sũ-i.
1-go-PL-down-HORT and place-LOC 1-PL speak-GEN-ABS 1-
change-PL-CAUS-HORT
Emu-a ũsa ũ siye-ne-ke
ke-pinu-lo-ku-i.
3-ABS other man speak-GEN-INS VBLZR-know-PL-NEG-HORT
11:8
sũme-sũ ũkutu-i emu-lo-a keme-sũ
uka
lu peya-ne-su
reason-ABL LORD-ERG 3-PL-ABL place-ABL whole earth
circle-GEN-LAT
ke-sutu-sũ-ne.
VBLZR-go-CAUS-PST
Emu-i lusili nuke-ne-i ke-neme-ne.
3-ERG city make-GEN-ABS VBLZR-stop-PST
11:9
Sũme-sũ Pape-ku emu mele-ne-i,
sũme-sũ
kemekẽ ũtuku-i
reason-ABL Babel-TOP 3 name-GEN-ERG reason-ABL place-
LOC LORD-ERG
uka lu siye-ne-a le-ũsa-sũ-ne
ã keme-sũ ũtuku-i emu-lo-a
whole earth language-GEN-ABL 1-change-CAUS-PST and place-
ABL LORD-ERG 3-PL-ABS
uka lu peya-ne-su ke-sutu-sũ-ne
whole earth circle-GEN-LAT VBLZR-go-CAUS-PST
Siye (Conlang 21712) extra characters:
Dãõĩẽũ
SOV
Ergative
Case-marking (Top, Erg, Abs, Gen, Loc, Abl, Dat/Lat, Com, Ins)
PP > N P
NP > A N
NP > Neg N
S Aux O V
Past/Non Past
Agglutinative: S-V-PL-CAUS-NEG-TENSE/MOOD
Suffixaufnahme
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Number Creation
Posted by: "Anthony Miles" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:26 pm ((PST))
Has anybody used a system similar to Washo? It only has basic
numbers up to 5, but one can indicate five (non-humans), five
(humans), or (exactly) five, depending on the final morpheme.
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Number Creation
Posted by: "Nikolay Ivankov" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:43 am ((PST))
Looks like Bantu to me, with the difference that they add a prefix of the
gender. In russian, one man distingush feminine from masculine and neuter
for the cardinals 1 to 2, and for numbers edning with 1. To be more precise:
odin / odna / odno / 1
dva / dve / dva /2
dvadtsat' odin / dvadsat' odna /dvadsat' odno / 21
Moreover, it is possible to mark animate masculine for the numbers from 2
to 10: these are dvoye (2), troye (3) chetvero (4) and root+'ero' for
5<n<10. In addition, in the letter scheme the noun takes Genitive (?)
instead of Nominative also for the numbers from 2 to 4 (Genitive is common
for all numbers greater than 5 and with the the last digit other than 1).
Using this construction for 11 and 12 sounds possible, though already
something weird, and for >=13 it becomes completely odd. No idea why.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Anthony Miles <[email protected]>wrote:
> Has anybody used a system similar to Washo? It only has basic
> numbers up to 5, but one can indicate five (non-humans), five
> (humans), or (exactly) five, depending on the final morpheme.
>
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. OT: int'l mother language day
Posted by: "Lee" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:51 pm ((PST))
Today is International Mother Language Day.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/strengthening-education-systems/languages-in-education/international-mother-language-day/
Lee
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Coining New Words in Language Families
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:33 pm ((PST))
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:24:41 -0500, J. M. DeSantis <[email protected]> wrote:
>If a language derives from another language, but the original language
>has no word for something, will the derivative language in the family
>simply coin a new word or root to work with? Or should all words come
>from some source?
I was just reminded that there's another case in which a lot of coinage _ex
nihilo_ has historically happened: this is the case when it is decided that
a language with little to no literary tradition should be elevated to a
standard language. Someone will take on the task of compiling and filling
up a dictionary, and where no good other mode of formation presents, making
up words with no source can prevail. There was a lot of this in Estonian
(e.g. see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_vocabulary#Ex_nihilo_lexical_enrichment
).
An arguably related process happened in Basque: there there were a number of
cases where the modernisers were trying to coin new words according to
Basque morphology but botched it, leaving words that have recognisable roots
but otherwise unexampled derivational processes.
Or in Turkish: there there are a bunch of words which are kinda made of
native elements twisted out of shape to resemble words in European
languages, so that components of them don't really have a source in the
usual sense.
Or ...
Alex
Messages in this topic (18)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
