There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: On the fine are of verbing
From: Gary Shannon
1b. Re: On the fine are of verbing
From: Adam Walker
1c. Re: On the fine are of verbing
From: Daniel Bowman
1d. Re: On the fine are of verbing
From: David Peterson
1e. Re: On the fine are of verbing
From: Leonardo Castro
1f. Re: On the fine are of verbing
From: Daniel Bowman
1g. Re: On the fine are of verbing
From: Gary Shannon
2a. Re: [LCS Members] Conlang Card Exchange
From: Jim Henry
3.1. Re: Is there a word for this?
From: Leonardo Castro
4a. Child Speak
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
4b. Re: Child Speak
From: Sam Stutter
4c. Re: Child Speak
From: Leonardo Castro
4d. Re: Child Speak
From: Peter Collier
4e. Re: Child Speak
From: Patrick Dunn
4f. Re: Child Speak
From: Jeff Sheets
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: On the fine are of verbing
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:24 pm ((PST))
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Sylvia Sotomayor <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
I'm sure any ardent renounificationalist would disagree with that.
Myself, I'm a proponent of antirenounificationalism.
--gary
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: On the fine are of verbing
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:26 pm ((PST))
Are you dissing postverbizational renounification? If so the
throwdownativity is about to exponentialize!
Adam
On 1/28/13, Sylvia Sotomayor <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 (11)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: On the fine are of verbing
Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:26 pm ((PST))
I fear the CONLANG list is being antirenounificationalized.
2013/1/28 Gary Shannon <[email protected]>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Sylvia Sotomayor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > 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
>
> I'm sure any ardent renounificationalist would disagree with that.
> Myself, I'm a proponent of antirenounificationalism.
>
> --gary
>
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: On the fine are of verbing
Posted by: "David Peterson" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:34 pm ((PST))
And no one yet has commented on the fine "are" of verbing...?
David Peterson
LCS President
[email protected]
www.conlang.org
On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]> wrote:
> I like to noun verbings too.
>
> Até mais!
>
> Leonardo
>
>
> 2013/1/28 Sylvia Sotomayor <[email protected]>:
>> 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 (11)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: On the fine are of verbing
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:34 pm ((PST))
I like to noun verbings too.
Até mais!
Leonardo
2013/1/28 Sylvia Sotomayor <[email protected]>:
> 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 (11)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: On the fine are of verbing
Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:44 pm ((PST))
the finely arting?
2013/1/28 David Peterson <[email protected]>
> And no one yet has commented on the fine "are" of verbing...?
>
> David Peterson
> LCS President
> [email protected]
> www.conlang.org
>
> On Jan 28, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I like to noun verbings too.
> >
> > Até mais!
> >
> > Leonardo
> >
> >
> > 2013/1/28 Sylvia Sotomayor <[email protected]>:
> >> 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 (11)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: On the fine are of verbing
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:46 pm ((PST))
That was a stupid typo. S/B "The fine ART of verbing".
--gary
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:33 PM, David Peterson <[email protected]> wrote:
> And no one yet has commented on the fine "are" of verbing...?
>
> David Peterson
> LCS President
> [email protected]
> www.conlang.org
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: [LCS Members] Conlang Card Exchange
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:29 pm ((PST))
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 4:48 PM, David Peterson <[email protected]> wrote:
> There's also http://pics.conlang.org/
I just uploaded my gjâ-zym-byn Christmas card images to
pics.conlang.org. However, I did something wrong, and they're at the
top level, not in the gjâ-zym-byn gallery. I can't figure out how to
move them into the gallery they belong in.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Re: Is there a word for this?
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:24 pm ((PST))
2013/1/28 And Rosta <[email protected]>:
> 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.)
Interesting!
I think I was first indirectly exposed to this concept by means of
Lojban. Then, in my conlang, I decided that each verb could have only
2 slots ("subject" and "object"). The main goal is to have the passive
voice of each verb unambiguously.
In the book "Inferências Lexicais e Interpretação de Redes de
Predicados" (the second author of this book was my professor), they
apply the Graph Theory (from Maths) to predicates, considering all
language relations as "directed graphs". They even define figures of
speech by means of mathematics-like functions.
Messages in this topic (28)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Child Speak
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:55 pm ((PST))
Are there any rules on child speak use in conlang? For example, can I use the
word taked for took in my conlang or would that make it too childlike?
Emerging poet
Pen Name Mellissa Green
Budding novelist
tweet me
GreenNovelist
blog
www.theworldofyemora.wordpress.com
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Child Speak
Posted by: "Sam Stutter" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:09 pm ((PST))
I'm not sure I understand.
1) "Taked" vs "took" isn't such a good example of "child speak". The
development of language among children is pretty complicated and I'll leave it
to people who understand the topic to explain it better than I ever could.
2) "Taked" vs "took" is a case of a child attempting to apply a grammatical law
it has learnt in a situation where it is not applicable.
3) This is an English grammar law, not one which is universal. It's not one
which is present in Spanish for example.
4) If the question is "do children who speak my conlang occasionally mess up
their grammar?" then, if they are human, then definitely yes.
5) If the question is "do people who speak my language use incorrect grammar
forms on a usual basis?" then the answer is plainly "no". If everyone who spoke
English used "taked" instead of "took" then "taked" would be the correct form
and "took" would be incorrect.
6) If your conlang is simply replacing English words like-for-like, then that
is not a conlang - it's a cypher - a simple replacement code.
Could you clarify the question a bit?
On 28 Jan 2013, at 23:54, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Are there any rules on child speak use in conlang? For example, can I use the
> word taked for took in my conlang or would that make it too childlike?
>
> Emerging poet
> Pen Name Mellissa Green
> Budding novelist
> tweet me
>
>
>
> GreenNovelist
>
> blog
>
>
> www.theworldofyemora.wordpress.com
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: Child Speak
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:11 pm ((PST))
As far as I know, children really tend to conjugate irregular verbs as
if they were regular. Then, a "regularized English" can sound
childlike if one doesn't realize that he or she is speaking another
language that's not English.
By the way, it seems that palatization is generally associated to child speak.
Até mais!
Leonardo
2013/1/29 Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <[email protected]>:
> Are there any rules on child speak use in conlang? For example, can I use the
> word taked for took in my conlang or would that make it too childlike?
>
> Emerging poet
> Pen Name Mellissa Green
> Budding novelist
> tweet me
>
>
>
> GreenNovelist
>
> blog
>
>
> www.theworldofyemora.wordpress.com
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: Child Speak
Posted by: "Peter Collier" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:57 pm ((PST))
Well, thinking of my own children, there was an over-regularisation of
grammar of course (your *taked example), some pretty clever (if long-winded)
work-arounds to counter a limited vocabulary, and mistakes arising from a
misunderstanding of the meanings of some words.
With regards to pronunciation I understand there tends to be an order in
which phonemes are acquired, based on their 'ease' of articulation. As far
as I can tell /m/ seems to be one of the first in any language. IIRC, the
/T/ phoneme (the sound written 'th' at the start of 'think') is one of the
last to be acquired in English. Obviously, while a phoneme is still missing
words are going to be mispronounced.
My son's first word was, unusually I'm told, 'cake' (initially as /kEk/,
then /keIk/ very shortly thereafter). My daughter's first was a more typical
'no' (/n:@U/). Both would turn out to be pretty accurate indicators of their
developing personalities.....
P.
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
Sent: 28 January 2013 23:55
To: [email protected]
Subject: Child Speak
Are there any rules on child speak use in conlang? For example, can I use
the word taked for took in my conlang or would that make it too childlike?
Emerging poet
Pen Name Mellissa Green
Budding novelist
tweet me
GreenNovelist
blog
www.theworldofyemora.wordpress.com
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4e. Re: Child Speak
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:57 pm ((PST))
Why would you use either word in your conlang? They're English words.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Are there any rules on child speak use in conlang? For example, can I use
> the word taked for took in my conlang or would that make it too childlike?
>
> Emerging poet
> Pen Name Mellissa Green
> Budding novelist
> tweet me
>
>
>
> GreenNovelist
>
> blog
>
>
> www.theworldofyemora.wordpress.com
>
--
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 (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4f. Re: Child Speak
Posted by: "Jeff Sheets" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:03 pm ((PST))
>From what I remember, human children on typical development paths follow a
set of stages. First, children begin producing noises, babbles. After a
bit they begin alternating between one noise and another, such as going
from:
ma ma ma ma ma ma ma
to:
ma ba ma ba ma ba ma ba
During this time, nearly any noise on the IPA chart is fair game.
Eventually, however, the sounds that are distinctive in their environment
will become "solidified" in the language centers, and other sounds will be
forgotten.
After this, babies learn a few words, the more common ones that they hear
all the time from their environment. They use these words in isolation. The
next stage is evidenced by the combination of two or three words. In
addition, words can be overgeneralized or overspecified. "Dog" may mean all
pets to a baby. "Mama" might mean both parents. The opposite is also
possible, a baby might mistakenly think that "pet" means only dogs.
Differing meanings, sort of sideways are also possible, such as:
No laugh me! More outside! Bite!
meaning:
Don't tickle me! I want to go out and play! Our pet dog is biting
something, look Mom and Dad!
This early, there is minimal grammar as well. "Laugh" may or may not
contain tense information for a baby, etc. At this stage, the words contain
no morphological variation, or little. Next, morphology occurs, and this is
when we hear sentences such as:
I taked a bath already Mommy.
Note, at this stage the child is working out the grammar of their native
language, and will generally ignore corrections at this point. Most
everything will be very regular. A parent may correct their child by
insisting that they say "took", but it generally won't have any effect for
a while. Obviously, such corrections do eventually occur, but it's very
much on the child's time schedule. By this point, the grammar is well
known, irregularities are learned and, while the vocabulary may be small,
the child is for all intents and purposes a fluent adult-like speaker of
their native language.
If you're just worried that too much regularity in your conlang is a bad
thing... you can choose too stop worrying about that, or you could
introduce irregularities to some words.
The irregularities of take, took and other verbs is, IIRC, a result of the
history of English as a Germanic language that went through at least one
Great Vowel Shift. Verbs that don't follow the pattern are either more
recent borrowings or were lucky enough to not be affected by such
phonological shifts. I do think there is an inherent tendency to regularize
words... such as with hang, hung, hanged.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]>wrote:
> As far as I know, children really tend to conjugate irregular verbs as
> if they were regular. Then, a "regularized English" can sound
> childlike if one doesn't realize that he or she is speaking another
> language that's not English.
>
> By the way, it seems that palatization is generally associated to child
> speak.
>
> Até mais!
>
> Leonardo
>
>
> 2013/1/29 Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <[email protected]>:
> > Are there any rules on child speak use in conlang? For example, can I
> use the word taked for took in my conlang or would that make it too
> childlike?
> >
> > Emerging poet
> > Pen Name Mellissa Green
> > Budding novelist
> > tweet me
> >
> >
> >
> > GreenNovelist
> >
> > blog
> >
> >
> > www.theworldofyemora.wordpress.com
>
Messages in this topic (6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
