There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Fiat Lingua, September: Is a Collaborative Conlang Even Possible?
From: David Peterson
2a. Re: A Portrait of the Conlanger as a Young Man
From: Padraic Brown
3.1. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
From: Padraic Brown
3.2. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
From: And Rosta
3.3. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
From: Cíat Ó Gáibhtheacháin
3.4. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
From: Alex Fink
3.5. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
From: And Rosta
3.6. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
From: Patrick Dunn
4a. Re: Pronoun systems that don't mark person?
From: Daniel Burgener
5a. Re: Dessert
From: Sam Stutter
5b. Re: Dessert
From: George Corley
5c. Re: Dessert
From: Cíat Ó Gáibhtheacháin
5d. Re: Dessert
From: Padraic Brown
5e. Re: Dessert
From: Cíat Ó Gáibhtheacháin
5f. Re: Dessert
From: Adam Walker
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1. Fiat Lingua, September: Is a Collaborative Conlang Even Possible?
Posted by: "David Peterson" [email protected]
Date: Wed Sep 5, 2012 11:30 am ((PDT))
I forgot to make this post on the 1st, but we're still pretty close to the
beginning of September, so here goes.
If you've been on the Conlang-L for even a month, you're probably read a post
or two by Gary Shannon. In addition to his own projects, though, Gary's been at
the head of some of the most innovative and successful collaborative conlang
projects this community has ever seen. If you're new, though, you haven't heard
of them because they fell by the waysideeven though they were successful. In
this article, Gary asks the question: Is it even possible to put together a
collaborative conlang? It's an interesting question, and I think Gary is in a
unique position when it comes to providing an answer. You can read his article
here:
http://fiatlingua.org/2012/09/
David Peterson
LCS President
[email protected]
www.conlang.org
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: A Portrait of the Conlanger as a Young Man
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Wed Sep 5, 2012 12:55 pm ((PDT))
--- On Wed, 9/5/12, Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]> wrote:
At this point I'd like to let folks know that I created an article at
Frath Wiki -- http://www.frathwiki.com/My_First_Conlang -- for anyone
who wishes to torture the Conlanging world with their first attempt or
two at making a language!
Thank you, Jörg for adding your early tries to the article! I know that
many of us have created some astoundingly wonderful works of linguistic
art. I also know that none of us just pulled a masterpiece out of our
shirt pockets. We started somewhere, and that somewhere almost certainly
included a string of very primitive, very awkward conlangs. This is just
a place for us to post a story and a snippet or two.
Padraic
> Like so many of us, I was 12 when two important events
> regarding
> my conlanging career happened. I started learning
> Latin in
> school, and was attracted by its rich and colourful
> inflectional
> paradigms - what a contrast against the pallor of the
> paradigms
> of German, where case is often only marked on the article
> and
> subject pronouns are mandatory because the verb forms
> aren't
> clear enough (let alone the almost complete absence of
> inflection
> in English, which I had started learning two years
> earlier)!
> This language was the main source of inspiration for my
> conlangs
> for many years to come!
>
> Also, I read _The Hobbit_ (in German translation), and _The
> Lord
> of the Rings_ (also in German translation) shortly
> thereafter.
>
> I also seem to remember that 12 was the age when I embarked
> on
> my first conlang project. It was an auxlang(!), cannot
> remember
> the name and therefore call this project "Homu" now, after
> its
> word for 'human being'. All I remember (and probably
> pretty
> much all that has ever been fixed) was that I'd use Latin
> word
> roots and a gender system in which nouns denoting male
> beings
> ended in -o, nouns denoting female beings ended in -a, and
> nouns
> denoting beings of either sex or things to which no sex
> could
> be ascribed ended in -u. This resulted in triads such
> as:
>
> _homo_ 'human male'
> _homa_ 'human female'
> _homu_ 'human being of either sex'
>
> Pretty much as in Novial (which I didn't know then), only
> that
> Novial has -e for 'either sex, or none'. I used
> similar gender
> systems in several later conlangs, including Old Albic.
>
> I no longer have much material on the conlangs that I made
> up
> in the following years, though I found some inflectional
> paradigms of one language just yesterday.
>
> Old Albic began in 2001, when I decided to discontinue the
> Sindarin-based Nur-ellen language which I had started the
> year
> before, and build something of my own.
>
> --
> ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
> http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
> "Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha
> Éamal." - SiM 1:1
>
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Wed Sep 5, 2012 12:57 pm ((PDT))
--- On Wed, 9/5/12, Cíat Ó Gáibhtheacháin <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's an interesting construction, I
> think, and points to the delimiting line between pronouns
> and nouns as not being quite as sharp as we like to think it
> is. In English, I've seen it used with first and
> second-person accusative pronouns, never third person, and
> never with nominative. I guess you *could* think of them as
> nominalised pronouns at a push.
I can go along with that, leastways in certain circumstances.
Padraic
>
> Patrick Dunn <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I would argue that the "you" there isn't a pronoun but a
> noun. My evidence
> >would be that a pronoun is an entire noun phrase.
> >
> >So . . . yeah, ignore that circularity.
> >
> >::waves hands in the air to distract you::
> >
> >--Patrick
> >
> >On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Cíat Ó
> Gáibhtheacháin <[email protected]>wrote:
> >
> >> On the other hand, you do occasionally get NPs like
> 'a more beautiful you'
> >> (to take an example from some advertising), which
> is perfectly fine
> >> English, even if it's not exactly common and
> largely restricted to a subset
> >> of pronouns.
> >>
> >> Patrick Dunn <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Cristophe,
> >> >
> >> >In English, pronouns are functionally entire
> noun phrases. For example:
> >> >
> >> >[The man]NP is my friend.
> >> >[He]NP is my friend.
> >> >*[The [he]]NP is my friend.
> >> >
> >> >Contrary to what is taught to people in school,
> a pronoun does not replace
> >> >a noun.
> >> >
> >> >It sounds like this is indeed not the case with
> Japanese.
> >> >
> >> >--Patrick
> >> >
> >> >On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Christophe
> Grandsire-Koevoets <
> >> >[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 4 September 2012 17:34, Patrick Dunn
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Huh. Are pronouns in Japanese
> entire noun phrases, as they are in
> >> >> English?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That might indicate a difference
> between, say, boku used as a noun and
> >> >> boku
> >> >> > used as a pronoun.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> What do you mean exactly? I'm not sure I
> understand what you mean by
> >> >> "pronouns in English are entire noun
> phrases".
> >> >>
> >> >> In Japanese, there is not syntactic
> difference between nouns and
> >> pronouns:
> >> >> they take exactly the same postpositions,
> in exactly the same way.
> >> Pronouns
> >> >> can be completed by adjectives, noun
> phrases, or even by relative
> >> >> subclauses, just like other nouns. I can
> think of only a single feature
> >> >> where Japanese nouns and pronouns behave
> somewhat differently: the use
> >> of
> >> >> the plural suffix "-tachi". With common
> nouns it's always optional. With
> >> >> pronouns it's mandatory. *However*, the
> use of "-tachi" with pronouns is
> >> >> very similar to how it is used with
> people's names, where it's also
> >> >> mandatory (basically, "-tachi" isn't a
> true plural suffix. Rather, it
> >> means
> >> >> "and others, and company". So "bokutachi"
> means "we" because it actually
> >> >> means "I and others", in the same way that
> "Tanakatachi" means "Tanaka
> >> and
> >> >> co."). It's also similar to how other
> terms of address are used (which
> >> can
> >> >> be basically any noun that can refer to a
> person): for those as well,
> >> >> "-tachi" is mandatory when someone
> addresses more than one person at
> >> once.
> >> >>
> >> >> So the difference in the use of the plural
> marker doesn't seem to be a
> >> mark
> >> >> of a separate category of pronouns, but
> rather a consequence of the use
> >> of
> >> >> pronouns as terms of address.
> >> >>
> >> >> Basically, it seems that common nouns in
> Japanese can take an
> >> "identifier"
> >> >> function, similar to that of proper names,
> in which case they become
> >> >> similar to what we call "pronouns". But
> that's simply a possible
> >> function
> >> >> of nouns, not a separate grammatical
> category.
> >> >> --
> >> >> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> >> >> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >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
> >> >.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >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 (32)
________________________________________________________________________
3.2. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Wed Sep 5, 2012 1:17 pm ((PDT))
[I hesitate to get sucked into this, because it's OT and it feels not
altogether appropriate to bring one's professional specialism into happily lay
discussions like these.So with misgivings:]
I know of no convincing reason for not treating English personal pronouns as a
subtype of noun; properties that nouns in general have are also properties of
personal pronouns. Hence I agree with Cíat that pronouns are not in fact
functionally full noun phrases but I don't agree that the delimiting line
between pronouns and nouns is not quite as sharp as we like to think it is.
Personal pronouns are fairly sharply delimited and are a subclass of noun.
--And.
Cíat Ó Gáibhtheacháin, On 05/09/2012 16:26:
> It's an interesting construction, I think, and points to the
> delimiting line between pronouns and nouns as not being quite as
> sharp as we like to think it is. In English, I've seen it used with
> first and second-person accusative pronouns, never third person, and
> never with nominative. I guess you *could* think of them as
> nominalised pronouns at a push.
>
> Patrick Dunn<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I would argue that the "you" there isn't a pronoun but a noun. My
>> evidence would be that a pronoun is an entire noun phrase.
>>
>> So . . . yeah, ignore that circularity.
>>
>> ::waves hands in the air to distract you::
>>
>> --Patrick
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Cíat Ó
>> Gáibhtheacháin<[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> On the other hand, you do occasionally get NPs like 'a more
>>> beautiful you' (to take an example from some advertising), which
>>> is perfectly fine English, even if it's not exactly common and
>>> largely restricted to a subset of pronouns.
>>>
>>> Patrick Dunn<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cristophe,
>>>>
>>>> In English, pronouns are functionally entire noun phrases. For
>>>> example:
>>>>
>>>> [The man]NP is my friend. [He]NP is my friend. *[The [he]]NP is
>>>> my friend.
>>>>
>>>> Contrary to what is taught to people in school, a pronoun does
>>>> not replace a noun.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like this is indeed not the case with Japanese.
>>>>
>>>> --Patrick
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets<
>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4 September 2012 17:34, Patrick Dunn<[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh. Are pronouns in Japanese entire noun phrases, as they
>>>>>> are in
>>>>> English?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That might indicate a difference between, say, boku used as
>>>>>> a noun and
>>>>> boku
>>>>>> used as a pronoun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean exactly? I'm not sure I understand what you
>>>>> mean by "pronouns in English are entire noun phrases".
>>>>>
>>>>> In Japanese, there is not syntactic difference between nouns
>>>>> and
>>> pronouns:
>>>>> they take exactly the same postpositions, in exactly the same
>>>>> way.
>>> Pronouns
>>>>> can be completed by adjectives, noun phrases, or even by
>>>>> relative subclauses, just like other nouns. I can think of
>>>>> only a single feature where Japanese nouns and pronouns
>>>>> behave somewhat differently: the use
>>> of
>>>>> the plural suffix "-tachi". With common nouns it's always
>>>>> optional. With pronouns it's mandatory. *However*, the use of
>>>>> "-tachi" with pronouns is very similar to how it is used with
>>>>> people's names, where it's also mandatory (basically,
>>>>> "-tachi" isn't a true plural suffix. Rather, it
>>> means
>>>>> "and others, and company". So "bokutachi" means "we" because
>>>>> it actually means "I and others", in the same way that
>>>>> "Tanakatachi" means "Tanaka
>>> and
>>>>> co."). It's also similar to how other terms of address are
>>>>> used (which
>>> can
>>>>> be basically any noun that can refer to a person): for those
>>>>> as well, "-tachi" is mandatory when someone addresses more
>>>>> than one person at
>>> once.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the difference in the use of the plural marker doesn't
>>>>> seem to be a
>>> mark
>>>>> of a separate category of pronouns, but rather a consequence
>>>>> of the use
>>> of
>>>>> pronouns as terms of address.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically, it seems that common nouns in Japanese can take
>>>>> an
>>> "identifier"
>>>>> function, similar to that of proper names, in which case they
>>>>> become similar to what we call "pronouns". But that's simply
>>>>> a possible
>>> function
>>>>> of nouns, not a separate grammatical category. -- Christophe
>>>>> Grandsire-Koevoets.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
>>>>> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 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
>>>>
>>>
.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 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 (32)
________________________________________________________________________
3.3. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
Posted by: "Cíat Ó Gáibhtheacháin" [email protected]
Date: Wed Sep 5, 2012 2:49 pm ((PDT))
Just to clarify, we're in total agreement. I consider pronouns to be a
restricted subset of nouns, but there's a tendency to analyse them as simply
placeholders for nouns and as thing-in-themselves mostly independent of nouns,
which is what I was referring to when I wrote "the line between nouns and
pronouns [is] not quite as sharp as we like to think it is".
And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
>[I hesitate to get sucked into this, because it's OT and it feels not
>altogether appropriate to bring one's professional specialism into happily lay
>discussions like these.So with misgivings:]
>
>I know of no convincing reason for not treating English personal pronouns as a
>subtype of noun; properties that nouns in general have are also properties of
>personal pronouns. Hence I agree with Cíat that pronouns are not in fact
>functionally full noun phrases but I don't agree that the delimiting line
>between pronouns and nouns is not quite as sharp as we like to think it is.
>Personal pronouns are fairly sharply delimited and are a subclass of noun.
>
>--And.
>
>Cíat Ó Gáibhtheacháin, On 05/09/2012 16:26:
>> It's an interesting construction, I think, and points to the
>> delimiting line between pronouns and nouns as not being quite as
>> sharp as we like to think it is. In English, I've seen it used with
>> first and second-person accusative pronouns, never third person, and
>> never with nominative. I guess you *could* think of them as
>> nominalised pronouns at a push.
>>
>> Patrick Dunn<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I would argue that the "you" there isn't a pronoun but a noun. My
>>> evidence would be that a pronoun is an entire noun phrase.
>>>
>>> So . . . yeah, ignore that circularity.
>>>
>>> ::waves hands in the air to distract you::
>>>
>>> --Patrick
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Cíat Ó
>>> Gáibhtheacháin<[email protected]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On the other hand, you do occasionally get NPs like 'a more
>>>> beautiful you' (to take an example from some advertising), which
>>>> is perfectly fine English, even if it's not exactly common and
>>>> largely restricted to a subset of pronouns.
>>>>
>>>> Patrick Dunn<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Cristophe,
>>>>>
>>>>> In English, pronouns are functionally entire noun phrases. For
>>>>> example:
>>>>>
>>>>> [The man]NP is my friend. [He]NP is my friend. *[The [he]]NP is
>>>>> my friend.
>>>>>
>>>>> Contrary to what is taught to people in school, a pronoun does
>>>>> not replace a noun.
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like this is indeed not the case with Japanese.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Patrick
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets<
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4 September 2012 17:34, Patrick Dunn<[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huh. Are pronouns in Japanese entire noun phrases, as they
>>>>>>> are in
>>>>>> English?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That might indicate a difference between, say, boku used as
>>>>>>> a noun and
>>>>>> boku
>>>>>>> used as a pronoun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you mean exactly? I'm not sure I understand what you
>>>>>> mean by "pronouns in English are entire noun phrases".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In Japanese, there is not syntactic difference between nouns
>>>>>> and
>>>> pronouns:
>>>>>> they take exactly the same postpositions, in exactly the same
>>>>>> way.
>>>> Pronouns
>>>>>> can be completed by adjectives, noun phrases, or even by
>>>>>> relative subclauses, just like other nouns. I can think of
>>>>>> only a single feature where Japanese nouns and pronouns
>>>>>> behave somewhat differently: the use
>>>> of
>>>>>> the plural suffix "-tachi". With common nouns it's always
>>>>>> optional. With pronouns it's mandatory. *However*, the use of
>>>>>> "-tachi" with pronouns is very similar to how it is used with
>>>>>> people's names, where it's also mandatory (basically,
>>>>>> "-tachi" isn't a true plural suffix. Rather, it
>>>> means
>>>>>> "and others, and company". So "bokutachi" means "we" because
>>>>>> it actually means "I and others", in the same way that
>>>>>> "Tanakatachi" means "Tanaka
>>>> and
>>>>>> co."). It's also similar to how other terms of address are
>>>>>> used (which
>>>> can
>>>>>> be basically any noun that can refer to a person): for those
>>>>>> as well, "-tachi" is mandatory when someone addresses more
>>>>>> than one person at
>>>> once.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the difference in the use of the plural marker doesn't
>>>>>> seem to be a
>>>> mark
>>>>>> of a separate category of pronouns, but rather a consequence
>>>>>> of the use
>>>> of
>>>>>> pronouns as terms of address.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically, it seems that common nouns in Japanese can take
>>>>>> an
>>>> "identifier"
>>>>>> function, similar to that of proper names, in which case they
>>>>>> become similar to what we call "pronouns". But that's simply
>>>>>> a possible
>>>> function
>>>>>> of nouns, not a separate grammatical category. -- Christophe
>>>>>> Grandsire-Koevoets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
>>>>>> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 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 (32)
________________________________________________________________________
3.4. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Wed Sep 5, 2012 2:52 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 21:17:06 +0100, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
>[I hesitate to get sucked into this, because it's OT and it feels not
>altogether appropriate to bring one's professional specialism into happily lay
>discussions like these.So with misgivings:]
>
>I know of no convincing reason for not treating English personal pronouns as a
>subtype of noun; properties that nouns in general have are also properties of
>personal pronouns. Hence I agree with Cíat that pronouns are not in fact
>functionally full noun phrases but I don't agree that the delimiting line
>between pronouns and nouns is not quite as sharp as we like to think it is.
>Personal pronouns are fairly sharply delimited and are a subclass of noun.
Now I'm curious (again). This seems a very subtle thing: unless constructions
like "a whole new you" are to you pivotal evidence, this suggests to me that
either you can tell the difference between [[you]_N]_NP and [you]_NP, or you're
rejecting the idea on a higher level for theoretical reasons, like that you
reject any single word tout court being an XP, or else some strong overall
motivation for parsimony in number of classes.
(Myself I'm a splitter as word classes go. Lojban gets this right!)
Alex
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
3.5. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Wed Sep 5, 2012 3:56 pm ((PDT))
Alex Fink, On 05/09/2012 22:52:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 21:17:06 +0100, And Rosta<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [I hesitate to get sucked into this, because it's OT and it feels not
>> altogether appropriate to bring one's professional specialism into happily
>> lay discussions like these.So with misgivings:]
>>
>> I know of no convincing reason for not treating English personal pronouns as
>> a subtype of noun; properties that nouns in general have are also properties
>> of personal pronouns. Hence I agree with Cíat that pronouns are not in fact
>> functionally full noun phrases but I don't agree that the delimiting line
>> between pronouns and nouns is not quite as sharp as we like to think it is.
>> Personal pronouns are fairly sharply delimited and are a subclass of noun.
>
> Now I'm curious (again). This seems a very subtle thing: unless
> constructions like "a whole new you" are to you pivotal evidence,
> this suggests to me that either you can tell the difference between
> [[you]_N]_NP and [you]_NP, or you're rejecting the idea on a higher
> level for theoretical reasons, like that you reject any single word
> tout court being an XP, or else some strong overall motivation for
> parsimony in number of classes. (Myself I'm a splitter as word
> classes go. Lojban gets this right!)
Of the options you list, the closest to my thinking is "a whole new you" being
pivotal evidence, but the pivotal evidence is really the absence of
constructions that take a (nonpronominal) noun but not a pronoun. Like pretty
much everybody, I do reject the idea of a single word being an XP (-- or else,
every single complementless word is an XP), but the intuition that "a pronoun
stands for a whole NP" is captured by the nowadays mainstream analysis (which I
of course think is wrong) of pronouns as intransitive determiners; the
determiner is head of the "NP" (i.e. of the DP). (I don't agree that all "NPs"
are in fact DPs, or that pronouns are determiners; indeed, I deny the category
'determiner' altogether.)
As for lumping and splitting, English has three open classes, Noun, Verb and
Adjective. I wouldn't lump or split those into more or fewer. As for the closed
classes, we're nowhere near being in a position to provide a comprehensive
taxonomy, but compared to mainstream PoS taxonomies, an adequate taxonomy
would, I think, be much splittier. This is an underresearched area of English.
--And.
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
3.6. Re: Bernard Comrie, The World's Major Languages, 2ed (2011)
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Wed Sep 5, 2012 5:12 pm ((PDT))
And,
I just don't agree. English pronouns are very different from regular nouns:
1. They're marked for oblique cases, while most nouns are not
2. They form all plurals through suppletion, and do not take on the usual
plural or genitive suffixes of nouns
3. They can stand alone as noun phrases, and nearly always do so (the
examples given before being very much marked to my eye as deliberate
attempts to play with language, and not ordinary daily usage of language by
native speakers)
4. They can't be marked with definite or indefinite articles, or any other
determiners
5. They can't undergo any of the derivational morphological changes of any
other nouns in English
They're certainly noun-like: they can stand as the object and subject of
verbs, or the objects of prepositional phrases. But it's clear to me that
they are a closed class of words, like but not equivalent to, nouns.
(I also don't see how this is OT, and I would hope that people would bring
their personal expertise into matters, otherwise a whole chunk of the list
is going to have to shut up permanently, as many of us are at least
part-time linguists)
--Patrick
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:17 PM, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
> [I hesitate to get sucked into this, because it's OT and it feels not
> altogether appropriate to bring one's professional specialism into happily
> lay discussions like these.So with misgivings:]
>
> I know of no convincing reason for not treating English personal pronouns
> as a subtype of noun; properties that nouns in general have are also
> properties of personal pronouns. Hence I agree with Cíat that pronouns are
> not in fact functionally full noun phrases but I don't agree that the
> delimiting line between pronouns and nouns is not quite as sharp as we like
> to think it is. Personal pronouns are fairly sharply delimited and are a
> subclass of noun.
>
> --And.
>
> Cíat Ó Gáibhtheacháin, On 05/09/2012 16:26:
>
> It's an interesting construction, I think, and points to the
>> delimiting line between pronouns and nouns as not being quite as
>> sharp as we like to think it is. In English, I've seen it used with
>> first and second-person accusative pronouns, never third person, and
>> never with nominative. I guess you *could* think of them as
>> nominalised pronouns at a push.
>>
>> Patrick Dunn<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I would argue that the "you" there isn't a pronoun but a noun. My
>>> evidence would be that a pronoun is an entire noun phrase.
>>>
>>> So . . . yeah, ignore that circularity.
>>>
>>> ::waves hands in the air to distract you::
>>>
>>> --Patrick
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Cíat Ó
>>> Gáibhtheacháin<[email protected]**>wrote:
>>>
>>> On the other hand, you do occasionally get NPs like 'a more
>>>> beautiful you' (to take an example from some advertising), which
>>>> is perfectly fine English, even if it's not exactly common and
>>>> largely restricted to a subset of pronouns.
>>>>
>>>> Patrick Dunn<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Cristophe,
>>>>>
>>>>> In English, pronouns are functionally entire noun phrases. For
>>>>> example:
>>>>>
>>>>> [The man]NP is my friend. [He]NP is my friend. *[The [he]]NP is
>>>>> my friend.
>>>>>
>>>>> Contrary to what is taught to people in school, a pronoun does
>>>>> not replace a noun.
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like this is indeed not the case with Japanese.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Patrick
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets<
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4 September 2012 17:34, Patrick Dunn<[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh. Are pronouns in Japanese entire noun phrases, as they
>>>>>>> are in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> English?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That might indicate a difference between, say, boku used as
>>>>>>> a noun and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> boku
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> used as a pronoun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you mean exactly? I'm not sure I understand what you
>>>>>> mean by "pronouns in English are entire noun phrases".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In Japanese, there is not syntactic difference between nouns
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>> pronouns:
>>>>
>>>>> they take exactly the same postpositions, in exactly the same
>>>>>> way.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Pronouns
>>>>
>>>>> can be completed by adjectives, noun phrases, or even by
>>>>>> relative subclauses, just like other nouns. I can think of
>>>>>> only a single feature where Japanese nouns and pronouns
>>>>>> behave somewhat differently: the use
>>>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>> the plural suffix "-tachi". With common nouns it's always
>>>>>> optional. With pronouns it's mandatory. *However*, the use of
>>>>>> "-tachi" with pronouns is very similar to how it is used with
>>>>>> people's names, where it's also mandatory (basically,
>>>>>> "-tachi" isn't a true plural suffix. Rather, it
>>>>>>
>>>>> means
>>>>
>>>>> "and others, and company". So "bokutachi" means "we" because
>>>>>> it actually means "I and others", in the same way that
>>>>>> "Tanakatachi" means "Tanaka
>>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>> co."). It's also similar to how other terms of address are
>>>>>> used (which
>>>>>>
>>>>> can
>>>>
>>>>> be basically any noun that can refer to a person): for those
>>>>>> as well, "-tachi" is mandatory when someone addresses more
>>>>>> than one person at
>>>>>>
>>>>> once.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> So the difference in the use of the plural marker doesn't
>>>>>> seem to be a
>>>>>>
>>>>> mark
>>>>
>>>>> of a separate category of pronouns, but rather a consequence
>>>>>> of the use
>>>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>> pronouns as terms of address.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically, it seems that common nouns in Japanese can take
>>>>>> an
>>>>>>
>>>>> "identifier"
>>>>
>>>>> function, similar to that of proper names, in which case they
>>>>>> become similar to what we call "pronouns". But that's simply
>>>>>> a possible
>>>>>>
>>>>> function
>>>>
>>>>> of nouns, not a separate grammatical category. -- Christophe
>>>>>> Grandsire-Koevoets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://christophoronomicon.**blogspot.com/<http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/>
>>>>>> http://www.**christophoronomicon.nl/<http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now
>>>>> available for order from Finishing Line Press<
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.finishinglinepress.**com/**NewReleasesandForthcomingTitle**
>>>> s.htm<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<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> .
>
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now
>>> available for order from Finishing Line
>>> Press<http://www.**finishinglinepress.com/**
>>> NewReleasesandForthcomingTitle**s.htm<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<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>
>>> >.
>>>
>>
--
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 (32)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Pronoun systems that don't mark person?
Posted by: "Daniel Burgener" [email protected]
Date: Wed Sep 5, 2012 1:22 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:51 PM, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think you are talking about personal pronouns. I don't know of any
> system where person is entirely irrelevent, but some open-class systems
> like Japanese can be fuzzy, with some pronouns mapping to multiple persons,
> or, in one instance, I know of a pronoun that is so specific that it
> probably doesn't matter what person it applies to, since it essentially can
> only be used to refer to a particular person in said culture... I don't
> remember the particulars, but we covered it in Conlangery #22.
>
> (BTW, open-class pronoun systems allow pronouns to be coined, usually from
> nouns, productively, whereas closed-class pronoun systems have a certain
> number of pronouns with no more an no less -- at least on short
> timescales).
>
Thanks! Japanese's system certainly looks interesting, based on the
wikipedia article. It sounds like an aspect of that is more like nouns
subbing in for pronouns. I think I'm more interested in a closed-class
pronoun system.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 17:09:40 -0400, Daniel Burgener <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> >So, I was thinking over the weekend about scrapping my current pronoun
> >system and having one that doesn't mark person [...]
> >So are there other nat-/con- lang examples that I'm missing?
>
> Asha'ille has something like that Ebisedian system cranked up further:
> http://www.arthaey.com/conlang/ashaille/grammar/description.html#person
>
> As well, there are a few conlang examples of cutting up the first/second
> person distinction differently. Jeff Jones has done a few languages with
> what he calls a K-L system, where K ("knower") is first person in
> declaratives but second in question, and L (did that stand for anything?)
> is the other term.
> http://qiihoskeh.conlang.org/cl/klop/KLOP.htm
>
> In the gripping language, which is only usable by two people at once, Sai
> and I have gotten away with a realignment arguably simpler than the normal
> one: the two personal pronouns are "conversant with thumb on top" and
> "conversant with thumb on bottom". They therefore have the same referent
> regardless who uses them.
> http://000024.org/conlang/gripping.html s.v. "Basic pronouns"; see also
> under "Clasping hands", near the top
> I suppose a social-hierarchy system might shake out similarly in this last
> regard.
>
> Oh yes, Rosenfelder has a fleshed-out rank system like this:
> http://zompist.com/munkhashi.htm#Rank
> I'm a little skeptical of the stability of a thing like this -- at least
> in a human society, where folks don't all retain in mind a consistent total
> order of who beats who.
>
Thanks for all of the links! It'll take me quite a while to get through
them all... I suspect that I must have read about Rosenfelder's Munkhâshi
before, since it seems vaguely familiar, and is very similar to the sort of
things I was thinking about this weekend, so it probably subconsciously
influenced me.
I'm really, really intruiged by the gripping language. I've started
reading through the document. Is it in a usable state yet? I might try to
make my wife learn it with me :) And the pronoun system is really
intruiging. I guess it does sort of mark person in a way, but definitely
not exactly.
I haven't looked at the other two yet, but I'll get to them eventually...
The K-L system is intruiging. I'm having trouble visualizing how it
fleshes out, but I guess it will all make sense once I actually read the
documentation.
Thanks all! You've given me plenty of reading to do!
-Daniel
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Dessert
Posted by: "Sam Stutter" [email protected]
Date: Wed Sep 5, 2012 1:37 pm ((PDT))
I very rarely hear the word "dessert" actually used in general conversation
unless it's in discussion of a specific foodstuff - things which are branded as
such or restaurant desserts. The word has always seemed (to me) an affectation:
that somehow this food is light and expensive, possibly something involving
sorbet or soufflés. Most of the time the words "afters" (which has a pretty
obvious etymology) or "pudding" work fine (apparently it's a C20th thing where
pudding generally suggests sweetness - the word "really" means "sausage").
Just me?
Sam Stutter
[email protected]
"No e na'l cu barri"
On 4 Sep 2012, at 06:55, Shair Ahmed <[email protected]> wrote:
> The Finnish word literally means "after food".
>
>
> 2012/9/3 G. van der Vegt <[email protected]>
>
>> On 3 September 2012 15:35, Charlie Brickner <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> Travlangâs Word of the Day (9/3/12) (travlang.com/wordofday) is
>> âdessertâ. Many languages use some form of that word. A few use some
>> form
>> of âdolceâ (Greek âγλÏ
κάâ). German, Dutch and Afrikaans use a
>> word based
>> on ânach-â, after (Swedish âefterrätâ?). Many of the Romance
>> languages
>> (and Basque) use a variation of âpostreâ, which I assume is cognate to
>> âpastryâ.
>>>
>>
>> Dutch uses Nagerecht (After meal) and Dessert in formal situations,
>> while it uses Toetje in most informal situations (diminutive noun
>> based on the adverb 'toe', which means after, is related to English
>> 'to' in its 'until' meaning, and is (IML) primarily used in dinner
>> contexts. So it essentially means the same as Nagerecht.)
>>
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: Dessert
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Wed Sep 5, 2012 1:45 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Sam Stutter <[email protected]> wrote:
> I very rarely hear the word "dessert" actually used in general
> conversation unless it's in discussion of a specific foodstuff - things
> which are branded as such or restaurant desserts. The word has always
> seemed (to me) an affectation: that somehow this food is light and
> expensive, possibly something involving sorbet or soufflés. Most of the
> time the words "afters" (which has a pretty obvious etymology) or "pudding"
> work fine (apparently it's a C20th thing where pudding generally suggests
> sweetness - the word "really" means "sausage").
>
> Just me?
Never heard of "afters". And "pudding" in this instance is a specific type
of desert that consists of semi-fluid substance with some sort of flavoring
-- but not Jell-O. Jell-O is transparent and more of a gel that's usually
fruit flavored, whereas pudding is softer, opaque, and comes in flavors
like vanilla, chocolate, or butterscotch.
And, of course, I also think of things like bread pudding.
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. Re: Dessert
Posted by: "Cíat Ó Gáibhtheacháin" [email protected]
Date: Wed Sep 5, 2012 2:58 pm ((PDT))
Depends on your dialect. In Hiberno-English, "pudding" suggests something moist
and spongy, whereas "sweet" and "dessert" are used for the sweet dish after the
main dish in my experience. Rhubarb tart would be a dessert, but black pudding
would be in the main course.
Sam Stutter <[email protected]> wrote:
>I very rarely hear the word "dessert" actually used in general conversation
>unless it's in discussion of a specific foodstuff - things which are branded
>as such or restaurant desserts. The word has always seemed (to me) an
>affectation: that somehow this food is light and expensive, possibly something
>involving sorbet or soufflés. Most of the time the words "afters" (which has a
>pretty obvious etymology) or "pudding" work fine (apparently it's a C20th
>thing where pudding generally suggests sweetness - the word "really" means
>"sausage").
>
>Just me?
>
>Sam Stutter
>[email protected]
>"No e na'l cu barri"
>
>
>
>
>On 4 Sep 2012, at 06:55, Shair Ahmed <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The Finnish word literally means "after food".
>>
>>
>> 2012/9/3 G. van der Vegt <[email protected]>
>>
>>> On 3 September 2012 15:35, Charlie Brickner <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Travlangâs Word of the Day (9/3/12) (travlang.com/wordofday) is
>>> âdessertâ. Many languages use some form of that word. A few use some
>>> form
>>> of âdolceâ (Greek âγλÏ
κάâ). German, Dutch and Afrikaans use a
>>> word based
>>> on ânach-â, after (Swedish âefterrätâ?). Many of the Romance
>>> languages
>>> (and Basque) use a variation of âpostreâ, which I assume is cognate to
>>> âpastryâ.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dutch uses Nagerecht (After meal) and Dessert in formal situations,
>>> while it uses Toetje in most informal situations (diminutive noun
>>> based on the adverb 'toe', which means after, is related to English
>>> 'to' in its 'until' meaning, and is (IML) primarily used in dinner
>>> contexts. So it essentially means the same as Nagerecht.)
>>>
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
5d. Re: Dessert
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Wed Sep 5, 2012 3:44 pm ((PDT))
--- On Wed, 9/5/12, Sam Stutter <[email protected]> wrote:
> I very rarely hear the word "dessert"
> actually used in general conversation unless it's in
> discussion of a specific foodstuff - things which are
> branded as such or restaurant desserts. The word has always
> seemed (to me) an affectation: that somehow this food is
> light and expensive, possibly something involving sorbet or
> soufflés. Most of the time the words "afters" (which has a
> pretty obvious etymology) or "pudding" work fine (apparently
> it's a C20th thing where pudding generally suggests
> sweetness - the word "really" means "sausage").
Could be. I've never known pudding to be anything other than a sweet
concoction of milk, sugar, some cornstarch (or other thickener) and
some flavoring.
I'm aware of the pudding in its context of black or blood pudding, and
although I'm an Anglophile in general terms, the conjunction of the
two words, blood and pudding, is simply and fundamentally wrong. ;))
I suppose the word "dessert" comes up only infrequently because it is
really only associated with meals. Dinner and supper in particular. Not
usually breakfast. And it usually only appears in menus and in the
question "what do you want for dessert?" I'm sure a lot of words only
appear in specific contexts and not in general conversation. Projectile
vomiting, twin cams, adverse camber. Not your everyday topics of general
conversation!
Padraic
> Just me?
>
> Sam Stutter
> [email protected]
> "No e na'l cu barri"
>
>
>
>
> On 4 Sep 2012, at 06:55, Shair Ahmed <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > The Finnish word literally means "after food".
> >
> >
> > 2012/9/3 G. van der Vegt <[email protected]>
> >
> >> On 3 September 2012 15:35, Charlie Brickner <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Travlangâs Word of the Day (9/3/12)
> (travlang.com/wordofday) is
> >> âdessertâ. Many languages use some form
> of that word. A few use some form
> >> of âdolceâ (Greek âγλÏ
κάâ).
> German, Dutch and Afrikaans use a word based
> >> on ânach-â, after (Swedish
> âefterrätâ?). Many of the Romance languages
> >> (and Basque) use a variation of âpostreâ, which
> I assume is cognate to
> >> âpastryâ.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Dutch uses Nagerecht (After meal) and Dessert in
> formal situations,
> >> while it uses Toetje in most informal situations
> (diminutive noun
> >> based on the adverb 'toe', which means after, is
> related to English
> >> 'to' in its 'until' meaning, and is (IML) primarily
> used in dinner
> >> contexts. So it essentially means the same as
> Nagerecht.)
> >>
>
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
5e. Re: Dessert
Posted by: "Cíat Ó Gáibhtheacháin" [email protected]
Date: Wed Sep 5, 2012 4:14 pm ((PDT))
No, black pudding is delicious. That is all anybody who says otherwise is a
raving lunatic. :-)
The word 'pudding' with reference to dessert is very English to my ear. Not
just English, mind, but middle-class Home Counties. No doubt it occurs outside
of that small sphere too, but that's where 'pudding' as dessert seems native
to: I can't imagine--not that it's not possible--somebody outside of there
referring to a pie, cake, or tart as "pudding".
Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>--- On Wed, 9/5/12, Sam Stutter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I very rarely hear the word "dessert"
>> actually used in general conversation unless it's in
>> discussion of a specific foodstuff - things which are
>> branded as such or restaurant desserts. The word has always
>> seemed (to me) an affectation: that somehow this food is
>> light and expensive, possibly something involving sorbet or
>> soufflés. Most of the time the words "afters" (which has a
>> pretty obvious etymology) or "pudding" work fine (apparently
>> it's a C20th thing where pudding generally suggests
>> sweetness - the word "really" means "sausage").
>
>Could be. I've never known pudding to be anything other than a sweet
>concoction of milk, sugar, some cornstarch (or other thickener) and
>some flavoring.
>
>I'm aware of the pudding in its context of black or blood pudding, and
>although I'm an Anglophile in general terms, the conjunction of the
>two words, blood and pudding, is simply and fundamentally wrong. ;))
>
>I suppose the word "dessert" comes up only infrequently because it is
>really only associated with meals. Dinner and supper in particular. Not
>usually breakfast. And it usually only appears in menus and in the
>question "what do you want for dessert?" I'm sure a lot of words only
>appear in specific contexts and not in general conversation. Projectile
>vomiting, twin cams, adverse camber. Not your everyday topics of general
>conversation!
>
>Padraic
>
>> Just me?
>>
>> Sam Stutter
>> [email protected]
>> "No e na'l cu barri"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4 Sep 2012, at 06:55, Shair Ahmed <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The Finnish word literally means "after food".
>> >
>> >
>> > 2012/9/3 G. van der Vegt <[email protected]>
>> >
>> >> On 3 September 2012 15:35, Charlie Brickner <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Travlangâs Word of the Day (9/3/12)
>> (travlang.com/wordofday) is
>> >> âdessertâ. Many languages use some form
>> of that word. A few use some form
>> >> of âdolceâ (Greek âγλÏ
κάâ).
>> German, Dutch and Afrikaans use a word based
>> >> on ânach-â, after (Swedish
>> âefterrätâ?). Many of the Romance languages
>> >> (and Basque) use a variation of âpostreâ, which
>> I assume is cognate to
>> >> âpastryâ.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Dutch uses Nagerecht (After meal) and Dessert in
>> formal situations,
>> >> while it uses Toetje in most informal situations
>> (diminutive noun
>> >> based on the adverb 'toe', which means after, is
>> related to English
>> >> 'to' in its 'until' meaning, and is (IML) primarily
>> used in dinner
>> >> contexts. So it essentially means the same as
>> Nagerecht.)
>> >>
>>
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
5f. Re: Dessert
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Wed Sep 5, 2012 4:59 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Cíat Ó Gáibhtheacháin <[email protected]>wrote:
> No, black pudding is delicious. That is all anybody who says otherwise is
> a raving lunatic. :-)
>
> The word 'pudding' with reference to dessert is very English to my ear.
> Not just English, mind, but middle-class Home Counties. No doubt it occurs
> outside of that small sphere too, but that's where 'pudding' as dessert
> seems native to: I can't imagine--not that it's not possible--somebody
> outside of there referring to a pie, cake, or tart as "pudding".
>
>
>
Rowling uses pudding with that meaning throughout the Harry Potter series.
Adam
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
