There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: The language previously known as hɛlo, Take 5
From: neo gu
1b. Re: The language previously known as hɛlo, Take 5
From: Sylvia Sotomayor
1c. Re: The language previously known as hɛlo, Take 5
From: Alex Fink
1d. Re: The language previously known as hɛlo, Take 5
From: Sylvia Sotomayor
1e. Re: The language previously known as hɛlo, Take 5
From: Wm Annis
1f. Re: The language previously known as hɛlo, Take 5
From: Sylvia Sotomayor
2a. Re: [LCS Members] Conlang Card Exchange
From: Amanda Babcock Furrow
3.1. Re: Is there a word for this?
From: Leonardo Castro
3.2. Re: Is there a word for this?
From: And Rosta
3.3. Re: Is there a word for this?
From: Jeff Sheets
3.4. Re: Is there a word for this?
From: Gary Shannon
4a. On the fine are of verbing
From: Gary Shannon
4b. Re: On the fine are of verbing
From: MorphemeAddict
4c. Re: On the fine are of verbing
From: Garth Wallace
4d. Re: On the fine are of verbing
From: Sylvia Sotomayor
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: The language previously known as hɛlo, Take 5
Posted by: "neo gu" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 27, 2013 7:39 pm ((PST))
I'm having trouble figuring out how it works, but then I've been feeling
dull-witted lately. I like how RAT is the tag for people. Is it spoken by
rat-people? What are all the noun classes?
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:10:32 -0800, Sylvia Sotomayor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>And of course, I made a mistake. It should be:
>
>hava-t a dona ma-vɛ ludɪdi
>3SG.AN-CAUS SRC traveler 3SG.RAT-POSS cloak.MOT1
Which line is that?
>On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Sylvia Sotomayor <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> (Best viewed in a fixed-width font)
>>
>> ah aɬudan a loho tɛŋɛt
>> SRC north.wind.MOT1 SRC sun.MOT1 argument.MOT1
>>
>> da hava kɪtɬa yandɛgɛ ya-dɛma
>> 3SG.INAN.MOT1 3SG.AN.SESS strong.AN most be-DUB
>>
>> dus-ibu-tena bu
>> back.and.forth-BU-REP BU
>>
>> dona nɛn lude kyallaya tɪŋya-tena.
>> traveler.MOT1 COMIT cloak.SESS warm.INAN on.a.path-REP.
>>
>>
>> ah aɬudan a loho ŋyehe
>> SRC north.wind.MOT1 SRC sun.MOT1 agreement.MOT1
>>
>> da hava kɪtɬɛ yandɛgɛ ya
>> 3SG.INAN.MOT1 3SG.AN.SESS strong.AN most be
>>
>> mɪdi-t a dona ma-vɛ ludɪdi
>> 3SG.AN-CAUS SRC traveler 3SG.RAT-POSS cloak.MOT1
>>
>> opɛsi duso-tena.
>> away.from.SRC.COMPL back.and.forth-REP.
>>
>>
>> na ah aɬudan ha-gɛ
>> and.then SRC north.wind 3P.AN-POSS2
>>
>> kyɛgɛ evi-bi-tena.
>> attempt.MOT2 out.from.SRC-STARTED-REP.
>>
>>
>> ah aɬudan ha-gɛ dɛlɪdiya
>> SRC north.wind 3P.AN-POSS2 breath.MOT1
>>
>> tɪnna-tena iyɛ iyɛ.
>> on.a.path.REPEATED-REP again again.
>>
>>
>> ha-gɛ dɛlɪdiya-t
>> 3P.AN-POSS2 breath.MOT1-CAUS
>>
>> tɪnna-tena iyɛ iyɛ
>> on.a.path.REPEATED-REP again again
>>
>> ma-vɛ ludɪdiya ɛmmɛ-tena
>> 3P.AN-POSS cloak.MOT2 inwards.to.DEST.REPEATED-REP
>>
>> u dona iyɛ iyɛ.
>> DEST traveler again again.
>>
>>
>> ah aɬudan ha-gɛ kyɛgɛ
>> SRC north.wind 3P.AN-POSS2 attempt.MOT2
>>
>> evi-ŋi-tena ɪlmaŋi.
>> out.from.SRC-COMPLETED-REPORTED finally.
>>
>>
>> na a loho ha-gɛ
>> and.then SRC sun.MOT1 3P.AN-POSS2
>>
>> kyɛgɛ evi-bi-tena.
>> attempt.MOT2 out.from.SRC-STARTED-REP.
>>
>>
>> a loho ha-gɛ loga
>> SRC sun.MOT1 3P.AN-POSS2 light.MOT2
>>
>> ha-gɛ kyallaya evi-tena.
>> 3P.AN-POSS2 heat.MOT2 out.from.SRC-REP.
>>
>>
>> a dona ma-vɛ ludɪdi
>> SRC traveler 3P.RAT-POSS cloak.MOT1
>>
>> opɛsi-tena yahannɪ.
>> away.from.SRC.COMPL-REP soon.
>>
>>
>> noda ah aɬudan ŋyehe
>> in.conclusion SRC north.wind.MOT1 agreement.MOT2
>>
>> da lohava kɪtɬɛ yandɛgɛ ya evi-tena.
>> 3SG.INAN.MOT2 sun.SESS strong.AN most be out.from.SRC-REP.
>>
>> Abbreviations used:
>> 3SG third person, singular
>> AN animate
>> BU signals simultaneity, among other things
>> CAUS causative
>> COMIT comitative
>> DEST destination
>> DUB dubitive, for when things are in doubt
>> INAN inanimate
>> MOT1 first motile form
>> MOT2 second motile form
>> POSS possessive (default)
>> POSS2 possessive (made by possessor)
>> RAT rational animate (i.e. people)
>> REP reported
>> SESS sessile form
>> SRC source
>>
>> number mostly not indicated, but everything is singular
>> Do you need me to indicated subclauses?
>>
>> I am mostly happy with this now. I think this will be stable for a while.
>> I guess that means I have to come up with a name for it. :-) And numbers
>> for Janko.
>> It has noun classes (8-14, depending on how one counts them),
>> evidentiality, possessive relations, and a few other minor fun things not
>> shown in this story.
>> What do you think?
>>
>> --
>> Sylvia Sotomayor
>>
>> The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
>
>
>--
>Sylvia Sotomayor
>
>The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: The language previously known as hɛlo, Take 5
Posted by: "Sylvia Sotomayor" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:16 pm ((PST))
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 7:39 PM, neo gu <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm having trouble figuring out how it works, but then I've been feeling
> dull-witted lately. I like how RAT is the tag for people. Is it spoken by
> rat-people? What are all the noun classes?
>
> Nah. RAT is just short for rational. I think your mail client may have
obscured the original message, which I had replied to while correcting
things.
The noun classes are:
I rational animates, people
IIA wild animals and body parts
IIB paired body parts
IIC domesticated food animals
III plural animals (like ants) and weather phenomena
IV landcape features and other natural phenomena, forces, events
V non-solid natural phenomena, light and darkness and dreams
VIA most natural objects
VIB food items
VIC natural collectives
VIIA man-made objects
VIIB paired man-made objects like gloves or shoes, sets of man-made objects
VIIC generally plural or elongated man-made objects, like string
VIII speech, abstractions.
The small closed class of "verbs" describe motion and paths. So rather than
subject and object, this language uses sources, destinations, and objects,
and some of the verbs take sessile forms, while others take first or second
motile forms.
-S
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:10:32 -0800, Sylvia Sotomayor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >And of course, I made a mistake. It should be:
> >
> >hava-t a dona ma-vɛ ludɪdi
> >3SG.AN-CAUS SRC traveler 3SG.RAT-POSS cloak.MOT1
>
> Which line is that?
>
> >On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Sylvia Sotomayor <[email protected]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> (Best viewed in a fixed-width font)
> >>
> >> ah aɬudan a loho tɛŋɛt
> >> SRC north.wind.MOT1 SRC sun.MOT1 argument.MOT1
> >>
> >> da hava kɪtɬa yandɛgɛ ya-dɛma
> >> 3SG.INAN.MOT1 3SG.AN.SESS strong.AN most be-DUB
> >>
> >> dus-ibu-tena bu
> >> back.and.forth-BU-REP BU
> >>
> >> dona nɛn lude kyallaya tɪŋya-tena.
> >> traveler.MOT1 COMIT cloak.SESS warm.INAN on.a.path-REP.
> >>
> >>
> >> ah aɬudan a loho ŋyehe
> >> SRC north.wind.MOT1 SRC sun.MOT1 agreement.MOT1
> >>
> >> da hava kɪtɬɛ yandɛgɛ ya
> >> 3SG.INAN.MOT1 3SG.AN.SESS strong.AN most be
> >>
> >> mɪdi-t a dona ma-vɛ ludɪdi
> >> 3SG.AN-CAUS SRC traveler 3SG.RAT-POSS cloak.MOT1
> >>
> >> opɛsi duso-tena.
> >> away.from.SRC.COMPL back.and.forth-REP.
> >>
> >>
> >> na ah aɬudan ha-gɛ
> >> and.then SRC north.wind 3P.AN-POSS2
> >>
> >> kyɛgɛ evi-bi-tena.
> >> attempt.MOT2 out.from.SRC-STARTED-REP.
> >>
> >>
> >> ah aɬudan ha-gɛ dɛlɪdiya
> >> SRC north.wind 3P.AN-POSS2 breath.MOT1
> >>
> >> tɪnna-tena iyɛ iyɛ.
> >> on.a.path.REPEATED-REP again again.
> >>
> >>
> >> ha-gɛ dɛlɪdiya-t
> >> 3P.AN-POSS2 breath.MOT1-CAUS
> >>
> >> tɪnna-tena iyɛ iyɛ
> >> on.a.path.REPEATED-REP again again
> >>
> >> ma-vɛ ludɪdiya ɛmmɛ-tena
> >> 3P.AN-POSS cloak.MOT2 inwards.to.DEST.REPEATED-REP
> >>
> >> u dona iyɛ iyɛ.
> >> DEST traveler again again.
> >>
> >>
> >> ah aɬudan ha-gɛ kyɛgɛ
> >> SRC north.wind 3P.AN-POSS2 attempt.MOT2
> >>
> >> evi-ŋi-tena ɪlmaŋi.
> >> out.from.SRC-COMPLETED-REPORTED finally.
> >>
> >>
> >> na a loho ha-gɛ
> >> and.then SRC sun.MOT1 3P.AN-POSS2
> >>
> >> kyɛgɛ evi-bi-tena.
> >> attempt.MOT2 out.from.SRC-STARTED-REP.
> >>
> >>
> >> a loho ha-gɛ loga
> >> SRC sun.MOT1 3P.AN-POSS2 light.MOT2
> >>
> >> ha-gɛ kyallaya evi-tena.
> >> 3P.AN-POSS2 heat.MOT2 out.from.SRC-REP.
> >>
> >>
> >> a dona ma-vɛ ludɪdi
> >> SRC traveler 3P.RAT-POSS cloak.MOT1
> >>
> >> opɛsi-tena yahannɪ.
> >> away.from.SRC.COMPL-REP soon.
> >>
> >>
> >> noda ah aɬudan ŋyehe
> >> in.conclusion SRC north.wind.MOT1 agreement.MOT2
> >>
> >> da lohava kɪtɬɛ yandɛgɛ ya evi-tena.
> >> 3SG.INAN.MOT2 sun.SESS strong.AN most be out.from.SRC-REP.
> >>
> >> Abbreviations used:
> >> 3SG third person, singular
> >> AN animate
> >> BU signals simultaneity, among other things
> >> CAUS causative
> >> COMIT comitative
> >> DEST destination
> >> DUB dubitive, for when things are in doubt
> >> INAN inanimate
> >> MOT1 first motile form
> >> MOT2 second motile form
> >> POSS possessive (default)
> >> POSS2 possessive (made by possessor)
> >> RAT rational animate (i.e. people)
> >> REP reported
> >> SESS sessile form
> >> SRC source
> >>
> >> number mostly not indicated, but everything is singular
> >> Do you need me to indicated subclauses?
> >>
> >> I am mostly happy with this now. I think this will be stable for a
> while.
> >> I guess that means I have to come up with a name for it. :-) And numbers
> >> for Janko.
> >> It has noun classes (8-14, depending on how one counts them),
> >> evidentiality, possessive relations, and a few other minor fun things
> not
> >> shown in this story.
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sylvia Sotomayor
> >>
> >> The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Sylvia Sotomayor
> >
> >The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
>
--
Sylvia Sotomayor
The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: The language previously known as hɛlo, Take 5
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:22 am ((PST))
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:16:26 -0800, Sylvia Sotomayor <[email protected]> wrote:
>The noun classes are:
>I rational animates, people
>IIA wild animals and body parts
>IIB paired body parts
>IIC domesticated food animals
>III plural animals (like ants) and weather phenomena
>IV landcape features and other natural phenomena, forces, events
>V non-solid natural phenomena, light and darkness and dreams
>VIA most natural objects
>VIB food items
>VIC natural collectives
>VIIA man-made objects
>VIIB paired man-made objects like gloves or shoes, sets of man-made objects
>VIIC generally plural or elongated man-made objects, like string
>VIII speech, abstractions.
Very nice.
How does the subclass structure manifest grammatically, i.e. when does one see
the 8-class system and when the 14-class system? Do "A" and "B" and "C" have
some sort of independent morphological existence orthogonal to the division
between II and VI and VII?
Alex
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: The language previously known as hɛlo, Take 5
Posted by: "Sylvia Sotomayor" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:14 am ((PST))
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:16:26 -0800, Sylvia Sotomayor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >The noun classes are:
> >I rational animates, people
> >IIA wild animals and body parts
> >IIB paired body parts
> >IIC domesticated food animals
> >III plural animals (like ants) and weather phenomena
> >IV landcape features and other natural phenomena, forces, events
> >V non-solid natural phenomena, light and darkness and dreams
> >VIA most natural objects
> >VIB food items
> >VIC natural collectives
> >VIIA man-made objects
> >VIIB paired man-made objects like gloves or shoes, sets of man-made
> objects
> >VIIC generally plural or elongated man-made objects, like string
> >VIII speech, abstractions.
>
> Very nice.
>
> How does the subclass structure manifest grammatically, i.e. when does one
> see the 8-class system and when the 14-class system? Do "A" and "B" and
> "C" have some sort of independent morphological existence orthogonal to the
> division between II and VI and VII?
>
> Alex
>
The subclasses usually differ from each other by just one or two
inflections for number within one case. If they differed in more than one
case, I counted it as a separate class. Otherwise III could be IID. A, B,
and C are just a numbering system and do not have any other usage.
-S
--
Sylvia Sotomayor
The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: The language previously known as hɛlo, Take 5
Posted by: "Wm Annis" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:21 am ((PST))
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Sylvia Sotomayor <[email protected]> wrote:
> The small closed class of "verbs" describe motion and paths. So rather than
> subject and object, this language uses sources, destinations, and objects,
> and some of the verbs take sessile forms, while others take first or second
> motile forms.
So, I'm curious what the argument structure would be for a sentence
like "I went from Tulsa to Tucson."
--
am
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: The language previously known as hɛlo, Take 5
Posted by: "Sylvia Sotomayor" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:14 pm ((PST))
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Wm Annis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Sylvia Sotomayor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > The small closed class of "verbs" describe motion and paths. So rather
> than
> > subject and object, this language uses sources, destinations, and
> objects,
> > and some of the verbs take sessile forms, while others take first or
> second
> > motile forms.
>
> So, I'm curious what the argument structure would be for a sentence
> like "I went from Tulsa to Tucson."
>
> Easy. Tulsa is the source, I am the object, and Tucson is the destination.
a Tulsa lɛ otni u Tucson.
If you are on your way to Tucson from Tulsa, but haven't reached it yet:
a Tulsa lɛ tɪŋi u Tucson.
-S
--
Sylvia Sotomayor
The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: [LCS Members] Conlang Card Exchange
Posted by: "Amanda Babcock Furrow" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:27 pm ((PST))
I do indeed want to put up 2012's cards on exchange.conlang.org.
I haven't yet scanned in those I received, but I will gladly host
pics that people send to me or which they have uploaded somewhere
else and give permission to be hosted on exchange.conlang.org
as well.
Thanks,
Amanda Furrow
(who will be sending out her own cards shortly and hopes they
were worth the wait!)
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 01:48:59PM -0800, David Peterson wrote:
> There's also http://pics.conlang.org/
>
> David Peterson
> LCS President
> [email protected]
> www.conlang.org
>
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 27 January 2013 16:25, Jeffrey Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> It would be nice if there were single place to which all the cards could be
> >> uploaded. Could the LCS create a space where people could upload them?
> >
> > There are galleries for 2009 and 2010 at
> > http://exchange.conlang.org/?page_id=53
> > http://exchange.conlang.org/?page_id=68
> > so presumably alongside them would be the natural place.
> >
> > Alex
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Re: Is there a word for this?
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:21 am ((PST))
How old is the "link grammar" concept? My conlang works this way but I
wasn't aware this already existed as a concept.
Até mais!
Leonardo
2013/1/27 Gary Shannon <[email protected]>:
> I agree for conlang purposes. Link grammars are kind of fun to play
> with, though. They do have some problems, especially using
> conjunctions. A sentence like "He stole the tarts and ran away." can't
> be parsed with their link grammar because "ran" doesn't have a subject
> that can be linked without crossing lines. So they have to make a
> special "cheat" pass to resolve those kinds of problems. That makes it
> less than elegant as far as I'm concerned.
>
> --gary
>
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Jeff Sheets <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I have never seen Link Grammars before. I've generally approached natural
>> and constructed languages from the linguistics side of things. It's
>> definitely an interesting way of going about parsing, and it definitely has
>> a more computer science-y feel to it than I'm used to (in languages). Seems
>> to work quite well, but I'm inherently wary of anything which doesn't
>> explicitly state the rules of grammar separately from the lexicon. I'm
>> biased, I suppose, but I'd prefer the grammar stand separate for my own
>> conlanging. My reasoning is simple: linguists are fairly certain that
>> grammar and lexicon are separate in the brain. Also, if the grammar is
>> separate, the number of grammatical rules will be minimized, leaving only
>> context clues in the lexicon.
Messages in this topic (27)
________________________________________________________________________
3.2. Re: Is there a word for this?
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:21 am ((PST))
On Jan 28, 2013 10:19 AM, "Leonardo Castro" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> How old is the "link grammar" concept? My conlang works this way but I
> wasn't aware this already existed as a concept.
I first encountered Link Grammar in the 90s. It makes used of Dependency
Grammar, whose origins go back to the Middle Ages (see a study by Michael
Covington on this), and Lexicalism, which dates back to a famous work by
Chomsky from the early 70s whose title my ageing brain is not recalling for
me. (Ah, I remember now: Remarks on nominalization.)
> 2013/1/27 Gary Shannon <[email protected]>:
> > I agree for conlang purposes. Link grammars are kind of fun to play
> > with, though. They do have some problems, especially using
> > conjunctions. A sentence like "He stole the tarts and ran away." can't
> > be parsed with their link grammar because "ran" doesn't have a subject
> > that can be linked without crossing lines. So they have to make a
> > special "cheat" pass to resolve those kinds of problems. That makes it
> > less than elegant as far as I'm concerned.
I don't know that that's a problem with the Link Grammar approach per se.
Rather the problem is with a parse that will build structure consisting
only of nodes uniquely expressed by a phonological word. If "he" is subject
of a word whose complement is "stole the cakes and ran away", the crossing
links go away.
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Jeff Sheets <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> I have never seen Link Grammars before. I've generally approached
natural
> >> and constructed languages from the linguistics side of things. It's
> >> definitely an interesting way of going about parsing, and it
definitely has
> >> a more computer science-y feel to it than I'm used to (in languages).
Seems
> >> to work quite well, but I'm inherently wary of anything which doesn't
> >> explicitly state the rules of grammar separately from the lexicon. I'm
> >> biased, I suppose, but I'd prefer the grammar stand separate for my own
> >> conlanging. My reasoning is simple: linguists are fairly certain that
> >> grammar and lexicon are separate in the brain. Also, if the grammar is
> >> separate, the number of grammatical rules will be minimized, leaving
only
> >> context clues in the lexicon.
Even if we accept your reasoning, this doesn't entail a rejection of
lexicalism, because the part of the lexical entry specifying valency
(subcategorization) might still be located in the grammar zone of the brain.
It's not at all true that linguists reject lexicalism. Indeed, most
cognitive linguists probably accept it; I'm thinking particularly of
usage-based theories.
--And.
Messages in this topic (27)
________________________________________________________________________
3.3. Re: Is there a word for this?
Posted by: "Jeff Sheets" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:46 am ((PST))
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:21 AM, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Jeff Sheets <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >> I have never seen Link Grammars before. I've generally approached
> natural
> > >> and constructed languages from the linguistics side of things. It's
> > >> definitely an interesting way of going about parsing, and it
> definitely has
> > >> a more computer science-y feel to it than I'm used to (in languages).
> Seems
> > >> to work quite well, but I'm inherently wary of anything which doesn't
> > >> explicitly state the rules of grammar separately from the lexicon. I'm
> > >> biased, I suppose, but I'd prefer the grammar stand separate for my
> own
> > >> conlanging. My reasoning is simple: linguists are fairly certain that
> > >> grammar and lexicon are separate in the brain. Also, if the grammar is
> > >> separate, the number of grammatical rules will be minimized, leaving
> only
> > >> context clues in the lexicon.
>
> Even if we accept your reasoning, this doesn't entail a rejection of
> lexicalism, because the part of the lexical entry specifying valency
> (subcategorization) might still be located in the grammar zone of the
> brain.
>
> It's not at all true that linguists reject lexicalism. Indeed, most
> cognitive linguists probably accept it; I'm thinking particularly of
> usage-based theories.
>
> --And.
>
You're correct. I should've added "some" before "linguists are fairly
certain..." Ultimately, I believe it's useful to distinguish between
syntactic rules and lexical features, since doing so will tend to greatly
reduce the number of times a particular syntactic rule needs to be stated.
Perhaps the brain stores the rule in some fashion multiple times for each
lexeme that uses it, but I don't feel that an extremely complex, only
partially understood, microscopic parallel processing device such as the
brain should be my sole guide to studying language. Especially when a
simpler grammar of syntactic rules can account for what we see in produced
speech.
Then again, this is veering quite a bit off of the original topic, namely,
what to call a section of a sentence that is missing, and perhaps, how to
decide what can possibly be in that position. Constituent is the closest I
can think of to that concept, though it is loaded with additional notions
that don't quite match what Gary is looking for. Perhaps "node" may make
more sense, but that presupposes looking at the structure of a sentence as
a tree, and in Gary's context of programming, doesn't seem particularly
enlightening to his future-self audience. Maybe "potential node" or
"potential set"? Also, good luck, Gary. A quick perusal of Google Translate
(and other automated translator) results will indicate that the state of
the art of computer translation is still sketchy at best. Here's hoping you
make a breakthrough!
Messages in this topic (27)
________________________________________________________________________
3.4. Re: Is there a word for this?
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:03 am ((PST))
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Jeff Sheets <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...Also, good luck, Gary. A quick perusal of Google Translate
> (and other automated translator) results will indicate that the state of
> the art of computer translation is still sketchy at best. Here's hoping you
> make a breakthrough!
I doubt I'll make any breakthroughs. I'm still aiming at a conlang
into which I can auto-translate from English. Since I can engineer the
language to fit my machine translation needs it makes the problem a
LOT simpler than machine translations into languages that I can't just
change to make them easier for the computer. For one thing, my conlang
will, by design, have NO idioms. Every statement in the conlang will
be literal.
--gary
Messages in this topic (27)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. On the fine are of verbing
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:11 am ((PST))
http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2013/01/28
--gary
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: On the fine are of verbing
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:12 am ((PST))
Thanks, Gary. That one's a gem.
stevo
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2013/01/28
>
> --gary
>
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: On the fine are of verbing
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:20 am ((PST))
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2013/01/28
That is a classic.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: On the fine are of verbing
Posted by: "Sylvia Sotomayor" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:17 pm ((PST))
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2013/01/28
>
> --gary
>
Ha. It's not the verbing that weirds the language, it's the renounification.
-S
--
Sylvia Sotomayor
The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
Messages in this topic (4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
