There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Jan19: Vowels, Ablaut, Stem Formation
From: neo gu
1b. Re: Jan19: Vowels, Ablaut, Stem Formation
From: neo gu
1c. Re: Jan19: Vowels, Ablaut, Stem Formation
From: neo gu
2a. Re: Child Speak
From: BPJ
2b. Re: Child Speak
From: Leonardo Castro
2c. Re: Child Speak
From: Krista D. Casada
2d. Re: Child Speak
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
2e. Re: Child Speak
From: Patrick Dunn
2f. Re: Child Speak
From: Logan Kearsley
2g. Re: Child Speak
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
3a. Re: The language previously known as hɛlo, Take 5
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
4a. Re: A uniform linked-clause grammar
From: Gary Shannon
5a. vowels: five to three?
From: Patrick Dunn
5b. Re: vowels: five to three?
From: Dirk Elzinga
5c. Re: vowels: five to three?
From: Roger Mills
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Jan19: Vowels, Ablaut, Stem Formation
Posted by: "neo gu" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:13 pm ((PST))
I've greatly revised the section on nouns (after dashed line; the top part is
included for reference). Let's hope the LISTSERVE interface doesn't garble it.
Jan19 derives stems from roots using ablaut. The roots are mostly CVCVC with
some CVC and maybe a few irregular ones. Historically, there are 3 vowels: *i,
*a, and *u. They can appear as the following vowels:
Letter Short Long
i [i] [i:]
e [e] [e:]
æ [E]
a [a] [a:]
o [o] [O:]
u [u] [u:]
The grades determine which vowel appears for a given historical vowel at a
given place in the paradigms.
Grade *i *a *u
1 [i] [a] [u]
2 [i:] [O:] [u:]
3 [E] [i] [o]
4 [a:] [e:] [O:]
0 0/[e] 0/[e] 0/[e]
Grade 0 = 0 or [e] depending on the rules for initial and medial clusters.
The stem paradigms are made up of C's, which tell where the consonants go, and
grade numbers, which tell which vowel grade can appear. An |e| in a paradigm
refers to [e].
Verb Stems
A verb can have up to 5 ablaut stems. For CVCVC roots they are:
(A) C3C0C tæmk- most active forms use this
(B) C0C4C tmok- most passive forms use this
(C) C2C3C timok used for the active infinitive
(D) C0C1C tmuk used for the passive infinitive
(E) C0C3C tmok used as a base for affix-extended stems
For CVC roots they are:
(A) C2C xil-
(B) C4C xal-
(C) C3C xæl
(D) C1C xil
(E) C3C xæl
Tense or aspect may be prefixed; suffixes on the (A) and (B) stems determine
the clause type as well as person and number of the subject (where the clause
type permits). The affix-extended stems may include thematic and reflexive
inversions. Stems (A), (B), and (E) are also used for derived nouns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noun Stems
Jan19 nouns are inflected only for number, although historically, there was
also case-marking. There are 3 kinds of nouns: root nouns, suffixing nouns, and
compound nouns.
The root nouns form their plurals through either ablaut or suppletion:
Singular Plural
C2C3C tobis C1C0Ce tabse
C3C gis C1C gas
--- gû --- bî
The suffixing nouns have subgroups. They all form their plurals by adding |a|
if the noun is animate or |u| is the noun is inanimate. The final |e|, if any,
is deleted. The 1st group have noun roots, with minimal suffixes (historically
w, y, h, or 0 with the case-marking vowel):
Singular Plural
C3C0C-e mæfte C3C0C-1 mæfta (0)
C0C4C-e smare C0C4C-1 smaru (h)
C0C1C smir C0C2C-1 smira (w/y)
C1C nix C2C-1 nixu (w/y)
The 2nd group are derived from verb roots:
Singular Plural
C0C1C-3C tmukix C0C1C-eC1 tmukxu (w/y)
C0C4C-3C tmokom C0C4C-eC1 tmokemu (h)
C3C0C-3C tæmkæs C3C0C-eC1 tæmkesa (0)
C4C-3C xelæn C4C-eC1 xelena (h)
C2C-3C xolit C1C-0C1 xaltu (0)
The 3rd group include words derived from nouns:
Singular Plural
C0C2C-VC smirik C0C1C-0C1 smirka (w/y)
The compound nouns may or may not have suppletive bases (which are generally
forms of suppletive nouns). The compound structure is:
BaseNoun-ConnectingVowel-ModifierVerb
The modifier verb is (C0)C3C in the singular and (C0)C1C in the plural. The
connecting vowel indicates the gender of the compound, with |i| for animate and
|o| for inanimate. The base noun uses the plural stem minus any final vowel,
except that suppletive bases use the singular stem for the singular compound.
Singular Plural
ræxt-o-flin ræxt-o-flan
tabs-o-flin tabs-o-flan
tmoket-o-flin tmoket-o-flan
go-flin bæ-flan
The hyphens are shown here only for clarity.
Here are some derivational suffixes with both singular and plural forms shown,
along with the historical form, the stem type, and the usage.
Hist. Stem Sing. Plur. Usage
*wik (D) -ik -(e)ka diminutive, animate
*wik (D) -ik -(e)ku diminutive, inanimate
*yax (D) -ix -(e)xu nominal, action
*is (A) -æs -esa nominal, agent
*hin (B) -æn -ena nominal, patient 1
*huf (B) -of -efu nominal, patient 2
*at (A) -it -etu nominal, instrument
*hum (B) -om -emu nominal, product
*hal (B) -il -elu nominal, location
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Jan19: Vowels, Ablaut, Stem Formation
Posted by: "neo gu" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:36 pm ((PST))
Argh. I've already found another type of compound noun, ModifierVerb-BaseNoun.
For example, flinræxte (or fleræxte) instead of ræxtoflin. The noun-last type
must be the older type of compound with the noun-first type appearing by
influence of another language or maybe the VO/HM syntax.
Why are some conlangs so difficult to figure out while others (like Jan12) seem
to construct themselves?
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Jan19: Vowels, Ablaut, Stem Formation
Posted by: "neo gu" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:26 am ((PST))
I have a specific question about citation forms in the vocabulary.
In Jan19, transitive and ditransitive verbs have active and passive forms. For
these verbs, the active infinitive has all the information needed to construct
the other forms, except for irregular verbs, and is thus used as the citation
form. For univalent and relational verbs, the basic form corresponds to the
passive. The passive infinitive might be used as the citation form for these
since it has the information needed to construct all the passive forms.
However, the active forms are regularly used as causatives and need the active
infinitive.
So, should I use the active infinitive for all but a few verbs? If so, should I
gloss the univalent and relational verbs as causatives rather than glossing the
basic meaning? e.g. "whiten" vs "white".
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Child Speak
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:13 am ((PST))
On 2013-01-29 02:41, Leonardo Castro 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.
>
My grandson who is 3:4 still thought _mamma_ and _pappa_ was
specifically *his* parents, *and* refused to acknowledge that
they had other names (though he obviously knew it very well)
until less than 6 months ago. His first 'slip' as I know was when
I asked him whom my son calls _mamma_ and he answered correctly,
but when I asked him whom my son calls _pappa_ he said I was
'stupid'! :-)
Leonardo mentioned that palatalization is
characteristic of small children's speech. IIUC that's
because their tung is relatively larger compared to
their oral cavity than in adults. One thing about small
children's pronounciation which I've noticed makes it
hard to understand for adults is that they tend to
assimilate all consonants of a word to the same point
of articulation, and sometimes also manner of
articulation, with a preference for coronals and stops.
E.g. my son pronounced _vatten_ 'water' as [ˈdatːən]
while _Philip_ (his name) became [ˈfiːvip]. His
nephew says [ˈdatːən] as well but turns _Philip_
into [tʰiːli(p)], with the final [p] missing more
often than not. I've also noticed that early on
many children omit word-initial consonants
entirely, which also makes them hard to
understand. Rhotics tend to be acquired late,
being replaced by [w] (even where there is no [w]
in the local language!) or [j]. The funny thing
is that these kinds of substitutions hardly ever
occur as diachronic sound changes in adult speech.
I've often wondered why. I had the Vr > Vj change
in a conlang once, but then noticed that I'd never
seen an ANADEW for it other than children's speech;
the rule in adult speech is rather Vr > Vː .
It's interesting that while l > d as a remote
assimilation is relatively common with children
d > l as a remote *dissimilation* is moderately
common as a sound change!
/bpj
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Child Speak
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:12 am ((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.
It's funny that my daughter understands the Portuguese word for "dog",
but she seems to prefer the onomatopeic "au-au". Glenn Doman would not
approve this...
[...]
2013/1/29 Roger Mills <[email protected]>:
> --- On Mon, 1/28/13, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2013/1/29 Jeff Sheets <[email protected]>:
>
> 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?
In this issue, Portuguese is an exception, because its "simple past
tense" (called "pretérito perfeito") is very common and can express
both the ideas of English present perfect and simple past.
If you say the word-by-word Portuguese equivalent of "yo he puesto",
which is "eu tenho posto", it would be understood as "I have been
putting" instead of "I have put".
So, Brazilian children really tend to regularize some preterit verbs:
* verb "to do" (fazer) : children may say "eu fazi" instead of "eu
fiz" (I have done/ I did);
* "to bring" (trazer) : "eu trazi" instead of "eu trouxe";
* "to know" (saber): "eu sabi" instead of "eu soube";
etc.
Insterestingly, as the 1st-person present tense of "fazer" is "eu
faço", there are people who maintain the 1st-person marker -o and say
"eu fiço" for the preterit, instead of "eu fiz".
As Portuguese has three conjugation patterns, for -ar, -er and -ir
verbs, there children who also use the wrong pattern in the preterit,
usually using -ir pattern for -er verbs:
* "eu escovi" instead of "eu escovei" (I brushed);
* "eu pari" (I gave birth) instead of "eu parei" (I stopped) - my
cousin made this confusion that's very funny;
etc.
[...]
2013/1/29 BPJ <[email protected]>:
>
> Leonardo mentioned that palatalization is
> characteristic of small children's speech. IIUC that's
> because their tung is relatively larger compared to
> their oral cavity than in adults. One thing about small
> children's pronounciation which I've noticed makes it
> hard to understand for adults is that they tend to
> assimilate all consonants of a word to the same point
> of articulation, and sometimes also manner of
> articulation, with a preference for coronals and stops.
> E.g. my son pronounced _vatten_ 'water' as [ˈdatːən]
> while _Philip_ (his name) became [ˈfiːvip]. His
> nephew says [ˈdatːən] as well but turns _Philip_
> into [tʰiːli(p)], with the final [p] missing more
> often than not. I've also noticed that early on
> many children omit word-initial consonants
> entirely, which also makes them hard to
> understand.
Frequently, my daughter usually pronounce only the stressed syllable
of a word, but, as many words of Germanic languages are already
monosyllabics and have more consonants per syllable, it makes sense
that they omit consonants.
BTW, I used to think that open syllables should be more "natural" for
children, but I have noted that sometimes my daughter prefers to end
the words in the consonant. For instance, she usually says /of/ for
"ovo" and /uf/ for "uva". And she tends to duplicate monosyllabic CV
words: "pepé" instead of "pé" (foot) and "dadá" instead of "dá"
(give).
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Child Speak
Posted by: "Krista D. Casada" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:09 am ((PST))
This has probably already been mentioned--sorry if I missed it--but many adult
speakers of Spanish add an -s to the preterite of the second person singular of
regular verbs, as in *hablastes, making these forms match the -s ending in the
present tense.
Krista C.
________________________________________
From: Constructed Languages List [[email protected]] on behalf of
Roger Mills [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 9:45 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Child Speak
=======================================
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 (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Child Speak
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:28 pm ((PST))
I'm asking if I can use what we would consider incorrect grammar such as an
incorrect past tense as a part of my conlang. In other words, if I make
taked the past tense of take in my conlang would that work or would an
Earthling correct it, thinking it was a misuse of took.
Emerging poet
Pen Name Mellissa Green
Budding novelist
tweet me
GreenNovelist
blog
www.theworldofyemora.wordpress.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Stutter" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: Child Speak
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 (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: Child Speak
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:32 pm ((PST))
Nicole,
Linguists don't really talk about "incorrect" grammar. They prefer a
descriptive rather than prescriptive approach to language.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm asking if I can use what we would consider incorrect grammar such as
> an incorrect past tense as a part of my conlang. In other words, if I make
> taked the past tense of take in my conlang would that work or would an
> Earthling correct it, thinking it was a misuse of took.
>
> Emerging poet
> Pen Name Mellissa Green
> Budding novelist
> tweet me
>
>
>
> GreenNovelist
>
> blog
>
>
> www.theworldofyemora.**wordpress.com<http://www.theworldofyemora.wordpress.com>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Stutter" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 7:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Child Speak
>
>
>
> 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<http://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 (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: Child Speak
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:40 pm ((PST))
On 29 January 2013 14:28, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm asking if I can use what we would consider incorrect grammar such as an
> incorrect past tense as a part of my conlang. In other words, if I make
> taked the past tense of take in my conlang would that work or would an
> Earthling correct it, thinking it was a misuse of took.
The question does not make sense, because those are not conlang words-
they are English words.
If you mean "can I have correct and incorrect forms in my conlang, and
portray people as using the incorrect forms sometimes", then yes,
clearly you can, because natural languages actually do that, but no
English speaker will know the difference unless you tell them, just
like a monolingual French speaker would have no idea that "taked" is
"bad English".
-l.
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2g. Re: Child Speak
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:46 pm ((PST))
I'm asking can I use incorrect English forms in my conlang. Thanks for
helping me clarify. In other words, it would be a deliberate incorrection of
English grammar.
Emerging poet
Pen Name Mellissa Green
Budding novelist
tweet me
GreenNovelist
blog
www.theworldofyemora.wordpress.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Logan Kearsley" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Child Speak
> On 29 January 2013 14:28, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm asking if I can use what we would consider incorrect grammar such as
>> an
>> incorrect past tense as a part of my conlang. In other words, if I make
>> taked the past tense of take in my conlang would that work or would an
>> Earthling correct it, thinking it was a misuse of took.
>
> The question does not make sense, because those are not conlang words-
> they are English words.
> If you mean "can I have correct and incorrect forms in my conlang, and
> portray people as using the incorrect forms sometimes", then yes,
> clearly you can, because natural languages actually do that, but no
> English speaker will know the difference unless you tell them, just
> like a monolingual French speaker would have no idea that "taked" is
> "bad English".
>
> -l.
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: The language previously known as hɛlo, Take 5
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:09 am ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
On Monday 28 January 2013 06:16:26 Sylvia Sotomayor wrote:
> 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.
Yours is a very interesting language, Sylvia. It encodes the
predicate-argument structure in a unique way I have never seen
in any other language, not even a conlang (it reminds me a bit
of H. S. Teoh's Ebisedian, but it is still quite different from
that); and it is crafted very beautifully and in quite a
naturalistic way: it does not feel much like an engelang.
The noun class system also makes perfect sense and does not
feel too artificial.
Any chance we will see a grammar sketch soon? I find it easier
to analyse a glossed text sample when I have an overview of the
paradigms involved at hand.
--
... 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 (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: A uniform linked-clause grammar
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:48 am ((PST))
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:32 PM, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
---
>>
>
> How do you treat noun phrases modified by prepositional phrases ("the man
> with a beard")?
>
> stevo
>
I classify words by their role in the sentence. Part of speech is not
intrinsic to the word itself. Consider: "The fast boy on a fast not
only can fast, but he can run fast." The word "fast" is an adjective,
then a noun, then a verb, and finally an adverb. Or what about "Flies
fly like a bee flies."
The word "with" can be either a preposition, when pre-positioned, or a
conjunction, when it joins two noun phrases:
"I left AT noon." where "at" stands alone at the head of the phrase;
This "at" is a preposition.
In "the man WITH a beard..." the word 'with' can be taken to be a
conjunction joining "The man" to "a beard".
This puts this type of preposition in the same category with other
conjunctions as in: "a mustache AND a beard". This is allowed under
the rule that says a pair of noun phrases can be joined by a
conjunction and function as a noun phrase.
Obviously a "preposition" (in the conventional sense) can take on
either role. Compare: "I'm standing AT the window." (preposition) and
"I know the man AT the window." (conjunction). The word "at" can be
either a preposition or a conjunction (under my definition).
While this is unconventional, it is consistent, and I think it has a
certain elegant simplicity.
--gary
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. vowels: five to three?
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:43 pm ((PST))
I know that three-vowel systems sometimes become five vowel systems, but
are there attestations of five-vowel systems collapsing into a three-vowel
system? I'm toying with /ɑ/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ in a protolanguage
collapsing into /ɑ/ , /i/, /u/, with length distinctions, in the daughter
language. Perhaps via:
/ɑ/ < /ɑ/
/i/ < /i/
/u/ < /u/
/ɑu/ < /o/
/ɑi/ < /e/
Then maybe the diphthongs in unstressed syllables might simplify to /u:/
and /i:/, remaining diphthongs in stressed syllables.
I often wish I had taken phonology in grad school. It was one of the only
linguistics classes I missed out on.
--Patrick
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: vowels: five to three?
Posted by: "Dirk Elzinga" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:20 pm ((PST))
Hmmm. The diphthongization just looks weird to me. Here's another idea:
Stressed vowels:
*í > i:
*é > i
*ú > u:
*ó > u
*á > a:
Unstressed vowels:
*ĭ > i
*ĕ > a
*ŭ > u
*ŏ > a
*ă > a
There are two sets of neutralizations: 1) {*é *ĭ} and {*ó *ŭ} neutralizing
to i and u, respectively; and 2) unstressed {*ĕ *ŏ *ă} all collapsing to a.
I'm not sure how much more plausible this is, but IMO it's more
interesting. :-)
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
> I know that three-vowel systems sometimes become five vowel systems, but
> are there attestations of five-vowel systems collapsing into a three-vowel
> system? I'm toying with /ɑ/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ in a protolanguage
> collapsing into /ɑ/ , /i/, /u/, with length distinctions, in the daughter
> language. Perhaps via:
>
> /ɑ/ < /ɑ/
> /i/ < /i/
> /u/ < /u/
> /ɑu/ < /o/
> /ɑi/ < /e/
>
> Then maybe the diphthongs in unstressed syllables might simplify to /u:/
> and /i:/, remaining diphthongs in stressed syllables.
>
> I often wish I had taken phonology in grad school. It was one of the only
> linguistics classes I missed out on.
>
> --Patrick
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. Re: vowels: five to three?
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:24 pm ((PST))
--- On Tue, 1/29/13, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
I know that three-vowel systems sometimes become five vowel systems, but
are there attestations of five-vowel systems collapsing into a three-vowel
system? I'm toying with /ɑ/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ in a protolanguage
collapsing into /ɑ/ , /i/, /u/, with length distinctions, in the daughter
language. Perhaps via:
/ɑ/ < /ɑ/
/i/ < /i/
/u/ < /u/
/ɑu/ < /o/
/ɑi/ < /e/
Then maybe the diphthongs in unstressed syllables might simplify to /u:/
and /i:/, remaining diphthongs in stressed syllables.
===================================================
That all seems plausible. Another route might be for *e and *o simply to raise
> i, u.
Messages in this topic (3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
