There are 6 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Is there a word for this?
From: Ralph DeCarli
2a. A uniform linked-clause grammar
From: Gary Shannon
2b. Re: A uniform linked-clause grammar
From: MorphemeAddict
3a. Re: Child Speak
From: Leonardo Castro
3b. Re: Child Speak
From: Roger Mills
3c. Re: Child Speak
From: Roger Mills
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Is there a word for this?
Posted by: "Ralph DeCarli" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:11 pm ((PST))
You might find Apertium helpful in your term search.
http://wiki.apertium.org/wiki/Main_Page
The Apertium translation system uses an intermediate 'wrapper' layer
for translating between romance languages. Their descriptions of the
meta-grammatical categories might help.
Their wrapper layer was one of the sources of inspiration for my
conlang. They have a similar, yet different wrapper for every language pair
and the classic way to avoid the proliferation wrappers is to create
a single intermediate format that can comprehend all languages.
I know that's not possible, but it was an influence.
Ralph
------------
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:03:55 -0800
Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
--
Have you heard of the new post-neo-modern art style?
They haven't decided what it looks like yet.
Messages in this topic (29)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. A uniform linked-clause grammar
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:19 pm ((PST))
Each sentence consists of one or more clauses connected by linking
words. The final clause has no linking word, but ends in a full stop
instead.
The clause consists of five components:
P - An optional prepositional phrase consisting of a preposition and
a noun phrase, usually specifying time or place.
S - A noun phrase consisting of either a noun with adjectives, or a
pronoun. The pronoun "it" or "they" may be dropped when it is clearly
implied by a preceding clause.
V - A verb phrase consisting of auxiliary verbs, the main verb, and
optional adverb(s).
O - A noun phrase with the same rules as S above.
L - a linking word that connects two clauses together. This is
required except in the last clause of a sentence.
And example from this morning's Yahoo news:
Original:
Sixteen people across five states have fallen ill from Salmonella
poisoning, several from a raw ground-beef dish served at a single
restaurant, the CDC said on Monday.
Translated into PSVOL structure:
P(On Monday) S(the CDC) V(said) O() L(that)
P(Across five states) S(16 people) V(were made) O(ill) L(because)
P() S(salmonella) V(poisoned) O(them) L().
P(At a single restaurant) S(several people) V(became) O(ill) L(because)
P() S(they) V(were served) O(a dish) L(that)
P() S() V(contained) O(raw ground beef).
Original:
Seven people reported eating a raw ground-beef dish at a restaurant,
the CDC said, adding that roughly half of the people were
hospitalized, although none died.
Translated:
P() S(The CDC) V(said) O() L(that)
P() S(Seven people) V(reported) O() L(that)
P(at a restaurant) S(they) V(ate) O(a raw ground-beef dish).
P() S(The CDC) V(added) O() L(that)
P() S(roughly half of the people) V(were hospitalized) O() L(although)
P() S(none) V(died) O().
By using an absolutely uniform sentence structure building and parsing
sentences becomes very simple, even for a computer. I need to work a
little more on a simplified uniform specification for noun phrases to
be sure I have the bases covered. Note that some complex ENglish
sentences may need to be translated into two or more PSVOL sentences.
Comments welcome.
--gary
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: A uniform linked-clause grammar
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:33 pm ((PST))
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Each sentence consists of one or more clauses connected by linking
> words. The final clause has no linking word, but ends in a full stop
> instead.
>
> The clause consists of five components:
>
> P - An optional prepositional phrase consisting of a preposition
> and
> a noun phrase, usually specifying time or place.
> S - A noun phrase consisting of either a noun with adjectives, or a
> pronoun. The pronoun "it" or "they" may be dropped when it is clearly
> implied by a preceding clause.
>
How do you treat noun phrases modified by prepositional phrases ("the man
with a beard")?
stevo
> V - A verb phrase consisting of auxiliary verbs, the main verb, and
> optional adverb(s).
> O - A noun phrase with the same rules as S above.
> L - a linking word that connects two clauses together. This is
> required except in the last clause of a sentence.
>
> And example from this morning's Yahoo news:
>
>
> Original:
>
> Sixteen people across five states have fallen ill from Salmonella
> poisoning, several from a raw ground-beef dish served at a single
> restaurant, the CDC said on Monday.
>
> Translated into PSVOL structure:
>
> P(On Monday) S(the CDC) V(said) O() L(that)
> P(Across five states) S(16 people) V(were made) O(ill) L(because)
> P() S(salmonella) V(poisoned) O(them) L().
>
> P(At a single restaurant) S(several people) V(became) O(ill)
> L(because)
> P() S(they) V(were served) O(a dish) L(that)
> P() S() V(contained) O(raw ground beef).
>
> Original:
>
> Seven people reported eating a raw ground-beef dish at a
> restaurant,
> the CDC said, adding that roughly half of the people were
> hospitalized, although none died.
>
> Translated:
>
> P() S(The CDC) V(said) O() L(that)
> P() S(Seven people) V(reported) O() L(that)
> P(at a restaurant) S(they) V(ate) O(a raw ground-beef dish).
>
> P() S(The CDC) V(added) O() L(that)
> P() S(roughly half of the people) V(were hospitalized) O()
> L(although)
> P() S(none) V(died) O().
>
> By using an absolutely uniform sentence structure building and parsing
> sentences becomes very simple, even for a computer. I need to work a
> little more on a simplified uniform specification for noun phrases to
> be sure I have the bases covered. Note that some complex ENglish
> sentences may need to be translated into two or more PSVOL sentences.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> --gary
>
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Child Speak
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:41 pm ((PST))
2013/1/29 Jeff Sheets <[email protected]>:
>
> 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.
I didn't know this could happen. My daughter made this distinction
very early. Actually, I guess that she thought that my name was
"papai" and my wife's name was "mamãe". But now she sees us talking
about the "papai" and "mamãe" of other kids, so she is generalizing
these concepts. She got very confused when she saw people calling
Santa Claus "Papai Noel". Now, when she sees Santa Claus, she says
"papai", then she point the finger at me and says "papai" again. Not
sure if she thinks I'm Santa Claus.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Child Speak
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:37 pm ((PST))
--- On Mon, 1/28/13, 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?
====================================================
In almost every culture/every language, I suspect, parents (esp. mothers) and
their small children tend to develop idiosyncratic words for things-- usually
it starts with the child misunderstanding something or not being able to
pronounce a certain sound, then the parents etc. imitate it because it's "cute".
In the literature this is called "Motherese" (a fairly new bit of linguistic
jargon, I think)-- aka baby-talk or nursery speech.
In my family, either my sister or I coined "bish" for 'basement', "didy"
['daidi] for 'diaper', toidy for 'toilet' and others I don't remember offhand.
Sometimes these usages linger on into adulthood, for humorous effect. Think of
pee-pee, poo-poo ~ poop et al.
But outright grammar mistakes like "taked', "goed", "chee" (for cheese) etc.
tend to be corrected by the parent IMO.
If your conlang has absolutely regular past tense formations, then a mistake
like taked (or tooken, which I've heard) for _took_ simply can't happen.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Child Speak
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:45 pm ((PST))
--- On Mon, 1/28/13, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]> wrote:
2013/1/29 Jeff Sheets <[email protected]>:
>
> 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.
I didn't know this could happen. My daughter made this distinction
very early. Actually, I guess that she thought that my name was
"papai" and my wife's name was "mamãe". But now she sees us talking
about the "papai" and "mamãe" of other kids, so she is generalizing
these concepts. She got very confused when she saw people calling
Santa Claus "Papai Noel". Now, when she sees Santa Claus, she says
"papai", then she point the finger at me and says "papai" again. Not
sure if she thinks I'm Santa Claus.
=======================================
In my just-sent response to Nicole, I suggested that outright grammar mistakes,
like "taked" for "took" et al. (the result of false analogy) tend to be
corrected, while other childish usages/coinages are thought to be "cute" and so
survive at least for a while.
This got me to wondering-- in a language like Portuguese (or Spanish, which I
know better), do young children ever falsely analogize incorrect tense forms?
For ex., from Sp,. poner 'to put', the preterit is irreg. puse etc., the past
ppl. is puesto (probably similar in Port.). Is a Spanish speaking child ever
likely to form a preterit "regularly" (*poní) or past ppl. *ponido? (I have to
confess to that error when I was 14, just learning the lang. :-((( )
I'd suspect, since the preterit is rather rare anyway, proper learning of it
might come much later; not so the past ppl. perhaps. And I'm sure other
languages with irregularities would offer the same opportunities for incorrect
formations. In others' experience, does that happen?
Messages in this topic (9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
