There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: Allison Swenson
1b. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: Roger Mills
1c. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: Tony Harris
1d. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: Gary Shannon
2a. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
2b. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
From: Daniel Burgener
2c. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
From: Cosman246
2d. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
From: David McCann
2e. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
From: Sally Caves
2f. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
From: Krista D. Casada
3a. OT: how to get ahold of Russian work in linguistics?
From: Amanda Babcock Furrow
3b. Re: OT: how to get ahold of Russian work in linguistics?
From: Roman Rausch
4a. Re: Proto-Jardic noun morphology
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
5a. Re: Conlang the Movie
From: Gary Shannon
6. Odd Cases with Even Names
From: Nikolay Ivankov
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "Allison Swenson" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:05 am ((PST))
I'm the same as you, except for conch, which I've always pronounced with
the FATHER vowel. Pronouncing it with CAUGHT makes me feel like I'm from
Boston!
If you're looking for geographic reference, I'm from lower Michigan. I know
we have some differences from the "standard" Midwestern accent (though for
the life of me I still can't hear those differences).
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:02 AM, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
> Using comp, pomp, stomp, swamp - all FATHER.
> Using bonk, conch, donkey, honk, honky-tonk, zonk - all CAUGHT, (but monk,
> monkey like DRUNK)
> I guess I'm group 4.
>
> stevo
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:48 PM, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > A question about ONLY people who rhyme FATHER & BOTHER but distinguish
> COT
> > from CAUGHT:
> >
> > I. Which of the following statements is truest:
> >
> > In words spelt <-omp> and <-onk>
> > (1) Everyone with the accent described above has the FATHER vowel in all
> > such words
> > (2) Everyone with the accent described above has the CAUGHT vowel in all
> > such words
> > (3) Everyone with the accent described above has the FATHER vowel in all
> > such words or has the CAUGHT vowel in all such words
> > (4) Some speakers have the FATHER vowel in some such words and the CAUGHT
> > vowel in other such words.
> >
> > II. If you don't know which is truest, which type (1/2/3/4) are you?
> >
> >
> > --And.
> >
>
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:38 am ((PST))
I too prefer conch with the FATHER vowel-- and I think I've heard it pronounced
that way in Key West, The Conch Republic :) . But one can get [kONkt] on the
head with a [kANk] shell....
--- On Tue, 2/12/13, Allison Swenson <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm the same as you, except for conch, which I've always pronounced with
the FATHER vowel. Pronouncing it with CAUGHT makes me feel like I'm from
Boston!
If you're looking for geographic reference, I'm from lower Michigan. I know
we have some differences from the "standard" Midwestern accent (though for
the life of me I still can't hear those differences).
==============================================
I've lived in lower Mich. since 1964, doubt if I heard any ref. to the bivalve
before that time (studying linguistics/ethnology/folklore et al.).
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "Tony Harris" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:14 am ((PST))
Interestingly I am originally from Massachusetts, but not the Boston
end, so we would use the FATHER vowel in conch as well. Eastern and
Western Massachusetts accents are quite noticeably different.
Although I confess I never realized the 'ch' at the end was /k/ and had
pronounced it /kAntS/ all these years, making me really sound strange,
I'm sure!
On 02/12/2013 10:38 AM, Roger Mills wrote:
> I too prefer conch with the FATHER vowel-- and I think I've heard it
> pronounced that way in Key West, The Conch Republic :) . But one can get
> [kONkt] on the head with a [kANk] shell....
>
> --- On Tue, 2/12/13, Allison Swenson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm the same as you, except for conch, which I've always pronounced with
> the FATHER vowel. Pronouncing it with CAUGHT makes me feel like I'm from
> Boston!
>
> If you're looking for geographic reference, I'm from lower Michigan. I know
> we have some differences from the "standard" Midwestern accent (though for
> the life of me I still can't hear those differences).
> ==============================================
> I've lived in lower Mich. since 1964, doubt if I heard any ref. to the
> bivalve before that time (studying linguistics/ethnology/folklore et al.).
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:20 am ((PST))
I was born and raised in S.W. Michigan and moved to Los Angeles at age
12 or so. I have NEVER heard the "ch" at the end of "conch" pronounced
as anything but the ch of church. I've certainly never heard it
pronounced K.
--gary
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Tony Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> Interestingly I am originally from Massachusetts, but not the Boston end, so
> we would use the FATHER vowel in conch as well. Eastern and Western
> Massachusetts accents are quite noticeably different.
>
> Although I confess I never realized the 'ch' at the end was /k/ and had
> pronounced it /kAntS/ all these years, making me really sound strange, I'm
> sure!
>
> On 02/12/2013 10:38 AM, Roger Mills wrote:
>>
>> I too prefer conch with the FATHER vowel-- and I think I've heard it
>> pronounced that way in Key West, The Conch Republic :) . But one can get
>> [kONkt] on the head with a [kANk] shell....
>>
>> --- On Tue, 2/12/13, Allison Swenson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm the same as you, except for conch, which I've always pronounced with
>> the FATHER vowel. Pronouncing it with CAUGHT makes me feel like I'm from
>> Boston!
>>
>> If you're looking for geographic reference, I'm from lower Michigan. I
>> know
>> we have some differences from the "standard" Midwestern accent (though for
>> the life of me I still can't hear those differences).
>> ==============================================
>> I've lived in lower Mich. since 1964, doubt if I heard any ref. to the
>> bivalve before that time (studying linguistics/ethnology/folklore et al.).
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:01 am ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
On Tuesday 12 February 2013 03:29:59 Gary Shannon wrote:
> For my money, quality trumps quantity, and it's my humble opinion (as
> a male conlanger) that female conlangers have created some
> significantly better conlangs. (Don't ask me to explain my criteria.
> This is just my gut reaction: "Women's conlangs are, as a rule, better
> conlangs.")
This may be true (Kēlen and Teonaht come to mind). I have seen
many poor conlangs made by males but few by females, but I cannot
put the finger on it.
I got a similar impression with role-playing games, where women
are a minority but seem to be better roleplayers with richer and
deeper characters, more creative and less violent strategies, and
less powergaming.
It seems that women are overall less "nerdy" than men, and good
conlanging (as well as good roleplaying) requires "un-nerdy"
qualities. Of course, conlanging and RPGs are activities that
are widely considered "nerdy", such that many of those who could
perform better do not enter them in the first place. This is
probably also the reason why so few women do these things.
--
... 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 (13)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
Posted by: "Daniel Burgener" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:27 am ((PST))
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]>wrote:
[snip]
> such that many of those who could
> perform better do not enter them in the first place.
>
I imagine this is a significant factor. I have noticed in the high school
band world that people playing instruments mostly dominated by the opposite
gender tend to be very good at them. And I have always assumed that this
is because only someone who was truly passionate about that instrument
would overcome the gender stereotypes to play it. And passion frequently
leads to success.
Probably not the end all, be all, but likely a significant piece of the
puzzle.
-Daniel
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
Posted by: "Cosman246" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:29 am ((PST))
>I'm not sure of the stats in regards to conlanging, but in the linguistics
classes I've taken at university, they've been overwhelmingly dominated by
women--my current class has two men and perhaps twenty-five women, and my
last one had about three men and thirty women.
Hmm. I can notice a similar trend at the University of Washington, but it's
nowhere near that extreme.
-Yash Tulsyan
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Allison Swenson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not sure of the stats in regards to conlanging, but in the linguistics
> classes I've taken at university, they've been overwhelmingly dominated by
> women--my current class has two men and perhaps twenty-five women, and my
> last one had about three men and thirty women. I think it's mostly because
> the majority of people taking the classes are going into some form of
> education (either teaching English (the subject) or ESL), and education
> programs do tend to be dominated by women.
>
> Conlanging is a bit of a different beast than simply learning about
> linguistics, I suppose. I wonder if the fact that more "nerdy" things have
> conlangs (Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, etc.) nudges it toward the male
> side of the spectrum? Not that women don't get involved in such things,
> it's just that more men than women tend to be big fans, so they'd have more
> exposure to conlangs in the first place.
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Jennifer Collins-Jai <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It does perplex me though. The ratio of guys to girls in Linguistics at
> my
> > school is probably 1:70. No joke. I know not all conlangers are
> linguists,
> > but more females seem to be learning it. Our Linguistics club's
> > excectutives are all female as well. Interesting fact though!
> >
> > Jennifer (Jai)
> > On Feb 11, 2013 11:22 PM, "Adam Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > That's probably because they actually care about vocabulary and such
> > > things as make an actual language. Too many, IMHO far too many, male
> > > conlangers never do anything but fiddle with grammers and syntactic
> > > alignments and all the geegaws under the hood and never get around to
> > > creating anything useable. Let alone lived in.
> > >
> > > Adam
> > >
> > > On 2/11/13, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > For my money, quality trumps quantity, and it's my humble opinion (as
> > > > a male conlanger) that female conlangers have created some
> > > > significantly better conlangs. (Don't ask me to explain my criteria.
> > > > This is just my gut reaction: "Women's conlangs are, as a rule,
> better
> > > > conlangs.")
> > > >
> > > > --gary
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Sai <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> See discussion in comments @
> > > >> https://plus.google.com/103112149634414554669/posts/hQxeizKUaLS for
> > > >> some starters.
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, where are the results of the previous Lunatic Surveys I tried
> > > >> looking for them to grab the gender ratio stat but couldn't find it.
> > > >> :-/
> > > >>
> > > >> - Sai
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
Posted by: "David McCann" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:41 am ((PST))
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:08:54 +0100
"Elena ``of Valhalla''" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Could it be that conlanging is a geeky endeavour, and that society
> still puts quite a pressure on females to avoid geekdom and focus
> on social activities?
That's certainly true. "Play bridge, not poker; play tennis, not
cricket; make cakes, not engineering models." There's also the point
that women are also busier!
The quality question may partly be a matter of "only the determined
swim against the stream" but there's also the point that women are
trained to expect scrutiny, whether of their appearance or their
housekeeping. This must inculcate a belief in doing things properly.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
Posted by: "Sally Caves" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:08 am ((PST))
Sai wrote this to me, and directed me to your discussion:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Sai <[email protected]> wrote:
See discussion in comments @
https://plus.google.com/103112149634414554669/posts/hQxeizKUaLS for
some starters.
Also, where are the results of the previous Lunatic Surveys I tried
looking for them to grab the gender ratio stat but couldn't find it.
:-/
Here's my response:
You'll find a discussion of gender in my book on Hildegard, chapter 5. The
previous lunatic surveys (yours truly) are irrecoverable in print form; you
should see my house. I may still have them archived from my old computer,
they were conducted over a decade ago. I've typed in the relevant
paragraphs from _Hildegard of Bingen's Unknown Language: An Edition,
Translation and Discussion_ (New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2007), by Sarah
L. Higley (moi).
Page 86: "Women Inventors on the Internet"
Because this book revolves around the invention of a remarkable medieval
woman and its context within similar inventions, it behooves me to focus as
well on contemporary language inventions by women. I repeat, however, what
I said in my introduction: in the contemporary conlangs by women, which I
have perused, i do not find a marked "feminine" approach to language
invention, nor do any of them seem any more inspired by Hildegard's Ignota
Lingua than male inventors are. Hildegard's Unknown Language has simply
been too unknown. Nevertheless, the gender inequality of both the list and
the board is harder to explain. A traditional and unsatisfactory answer is
that men are more often trained in symbolic systems and computer sciences
than women, but that gap is closing. It may be that men and women online
feel more comfortable in same-sex venues where there is some discursive,
argumentative, and cultural commonality--such as the message boards that
are newer than the old-fashioned Listservs. Hundreds of men have
contributed on CONLANG compare to those thirty contributing women over the
years I have frequented it. The structure of a message board with its
graphics, its sorted threads, and its pseudonym encourages anonymity,
playfulness, and consequently a kind of equalizing of gender, expertise,
and education.
Many women today obviously enjoy systems analysis, role=playing, and
mythopoeia, but my sense is that women are being trained to pursue print
publication and other achievements that will establish their importance in
a more visible community. It may merely be that men have traditionally had
more freedom than women to relax that pragmatism in the pursuit of
seemingly inutile projects, just as Hildegard, in her freedom from marriage
and her exposure to literacy, could write and experiment with language. the
objection raised by a woman novelist to a lecture I gave on language
invention is telling: in a fantasy novel, she said in so many words, it
will be the novel that sells and its story--not the created language in the
novel. Do as Jonathan Swift did and give us only a few sentences of
Lilliputian, saving your energy for the work that will publish. This
advice is not an example of feminine indifference to system. It is a
novelist's practicality and one that makes sense, but it could easily have
been uttered by a man. It does not address, however the art of language
invention which satisfies a unique form of creativity for both women and
men.
(from Hildegard of Bingen's Unknown Language, p. 86)
[IN OTHER WORDS, AND THIS IS NOT THE BOOK so don't quote it as such: what I
was trying to say six years ago is that it's not fewer women who are
trained in math and systems analysis, but that fewer women are encouraged
to be GEEKS. Because of the job market, and the competition with men, smart
women are rigorously trained in pragmatic thinking. Is my time better spent
inventing a language which is an enormous investment of time, much less
hanging out on a chatboard about it, or better spent getting into grad
school, training to be that concert pianist, writing that book on
linguistics, working hard to get into business school, learning Italian
fluently so I am the best candidate for a prestige position? Men do this
too, obviously, but for them the "time off" doing geeky things is easier
for some reason, and I think it's cultural. Women worry more, perhaps,
about how they "look." Cool is very important, on target is very important.
[GEEKS however have acquired "cool factor"] And then again, this might be
completely wrong. It also might be dated. Maybe conlanging will always be
unbalanced when it comes to gender. But what other hollow pursuits are? ;)
;) What about making miniature trains?
This is something interesting, though. Women have no problem involving
themselves in virtual worlds. The women outnumber the men on Second Life.
;) ;) But what Second Life and Chat Boards do is offer you an avatar. You
can select your name. After all, I didn't publish anything about Teonaht
under my REAL name. I was very very careful about that, and cared more that
that be kept secret than my involvement in Star Trek. I guess that has
changed.
Hope this helps,
Sally Caves
>
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
Posted by: "Krista D. Casada" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:15 am ((PST))
I think women in general, as has been mentioned, are under more pressure than
men are to justify how they spend their free time. I read something a couple of
days ago where a woman remarked to the effect that mothering was like having
homework every night for the rest of your life.
Krista Casada
________________________________________
From: Constructed Languages List [[email protected]] on behalf of
David McCann [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:41 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:08:54 +0100
"Elena ``of Valhalla''" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Could it be that conlanging is a geeky endeavour, and that society
> still puts quite a pressure on females to avoid geekdom and focus
> on social activities?
That's certainly true. "Play bridge, not poker; play tennis, not
cricket; make cakes, not engineering models." There's also the point
that women are also busier!
The quality question may partly be a matter of "only the determined
swim against the stream" but there's also the point that women are
trained to expect scrutiny, whether of their appearance or their
housekeeping. This must inculcate a belief in doing things properly.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. OT: how to get ahold of Russian work in linguistics?
Posted by: "Amanda Babcock Furrow" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:04 am ((PST))
samapian teastotetce!
I would really like to read some of the scholarship in Russian on Yeniseic
and Caucasian languages. There is still no amazon.ru, though, so I haven't
the faintest idea how to go about finding Russian scholarly books for sale.
Anybody here have some experience in this area?
tylakɛhlpe'fo,
Amanda
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: OT: how to get ahold of Russian work in linguistics?
Posted by: "Roman Rausch" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:56 am ((PST))
>I would really like to read some of the scholarship in Russian on Yeniseic
>and Caucasian languages. There is still no amazon.ru, though, so I haven't
>the faintest idea how to go about finding Russian scholarly books for sale.
>Anybody here have some experience in this area?
The site books.ru, for example, has international shipment; and gives some hits
on Yeniseic, like this:
http://www.books.ru/books/ocherk-fonologii-i-grammatiki-ketskogo-yazyka-3112099/?show=1#
(And then of course, Russia is big on torrents and filesharing...)
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Proto-Jardic noun morphology
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:28 am ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
On Tuesday 12 February 2013 05:30:08 Herman Miller wrote:
> I've pretty much settled on final vowels being lost between Proto-Jardic
> and modern Jarda (e.g., *nosi > noś, *kuḍa > kóṛ). But many noun
> inflections in Jarda end in a vowel. One of two things must have
> happened: either a consonant was lost (/ɣ/ is one option), or only short
> vowels were lost while diphthongs were reduced to short vowels.
I hit upon a similar problem with Old Albic. I found out that
Proto-Albic had no final vowels in polysyllabic words, but some
noun forms (the agentive and instrumental cases) and all neutral-
version[1] finite verb forms end in vowels.
With the noun forms, I found that a lost final consonant
*/3/ ("probably" a pharyngeal approximant, but as with the PIE
"laryngeals", the precise phonetic value is undetermined) explains
what happened (I also found a way to connect this final */3/ in
the agentive case with the PIE sigmatic nominative).
The verbs are trickier. One idea is that the neutral version
originally was not marked with zero but with */-3/. However,
there are accentual peculiarities of the finite verb forms that
indicate that the personal endings once were enclitic pronouns
(the agentive endings are homophonous to the personal pronouns,
the objective ones to the demonstratives which distinguish three
degrees of deixis related to the three persons), and this may
explain why the final vowels are not lost. I like this latter
theory better.
[1] "Version" is a verbal category similar to voice. There is
a neutral version, a centripetal version ("X verbs for himself")
and a centrifugal version ("X verbs for someone else").
> Take the animate ablative suffix -lü for example: it could have been
> *-lui in Proto-Jardic.
>
> *teige-lui > tig-lü
> *kiṭal-lui > ķitṛa-lü
Makes sense.
> So far so good. But the inanimate ablative suffix is -öl after
> consonants and -l after vowels, and it's -ol after consonants and -l
> after vowels for abstract nouns. This starts to get tricky.
>
> *siaḍu-ile > śaṛ-öl
> *zakiğ-ile > zaķi-l ?
>
> *vieze-elu > véz-ol
> *guleviğ-elu > gulvi-l ?
This all works, I think; of course, not knowing the details of
Jarda phonology I cannot say how well they fit the whole thing
and which alternatives there are.
> Here's the whole set of noun suffixes in Jarda:
>
> animate inanimate abstract
> ergative tig-ṛa ķitṛa-ṛa* śaṛ-ka zaķi-ka véz-ma gulvi-ma
> absolutive tig-Ø ķitṛa-Ø śaṛ-Ø zaķi-Ø véz-Ø gulvi-Ø
> ablative tig-lü ķitṛa-lü śaṛ-öl zaķi-l véz-ol gulvi-l
> dative tig-na ķitṛa-n śaṛ-in zaķi-n véz-na gulvi-n
> instrumental tig-ta ķitṛa-ta śaṛ-ŏt zaķi-ŏt véz-ta gulvi-ta
> genitive tig-i ķitṛa-i śaṛ-é zaķi-é véz-a gulvi-ja
> locative tig-vi ķitṛa-vi śaṛ-vö zaķi-vö véz-vo gulvi-vo
>
> *actually ķitṛa-la, a slightly irregular form ... one reason I've
> reconstructed the Proto-Jardic word with a final -l.
These seem to have resulted from a complex interplay of gender
markers and case suffixes, and it is certainly an interesting
challenge to untangle this. I would assume that the gender
suffix preceded the case suffix (the other order seems weird
to me) and influenced the vowels of the case suffixes in some
ways. The inanimate gender marker may have been some sort of
front vowel, the abstract one some sort of back vowel. The
ergatives look irregular and may involve suffixed pronouns.
> I think I'll end up coming up with a set of suffixes that makes sense in
> Proto-Jardic, and assume that analogical leveling regularized the
> endings by the time it got to modern Jarda. Or I might just scrap the
> modern Jarda endings and see what would make more sense coming from
> Proto-Jardic.
It is always easier to scrap the modern endings and do something
new from the proto-endings, but it is more interesting to treat
the endings of the target languages as a done deal and try to
find out how they could have come about. I once changed the
case endings in Old Albic in an early stage of the language's
development (in the old system, *all* of them ended in vowels);
it later turned out that some of them were virtually identical
to the Proto-Hesperic forms!
--
... 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 (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Conlang the Movie
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:07 am ((PST))
There are some excerpts and trailers on YouTube, Go to the you tube
web site and search of "conlang the movie".
--gary
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Matthew A. Gurevitch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Conlang-L,
>
> I know I am a few years late to ask about it, but would anyone happen to
> know where I could try and get a copy of Conlang the Movie? The website is
> not up, and I cannot find any way of contacting the creators. Thank you for
> your help.
>
> All my best,
> Matthew Gurevitch
>
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6. Odd Cases with Even Names
Posted by: "Nikolay Ivankov" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:01 am ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
Sivarian language on which I'm working now has 2 genders - Active and
Stative - and 6 cases that I call
Nominative
Ergative
Accusative
Dative
Locative
Vocative
The problem is that Sivarian, like Basque and Irish, has analytic verb
declination, with a small number of auxiliaries that are used with verbal
nouns. The normal word order is ASVOI with A - auxiliary, V - the verbnoun
and I - indirect object. Now, though the names of the cases don't sound
new, they are used somewhat differently from what is common for, say, IE
languages.
Thus, Dative, Ergative and Accusative are used for direct and indirect
object depending on their relative genders, Locative is used not only for
``being at/in'' but also for ``being near'' and tends in addition to take
the role of commitative, and Vocative is sometimes used ``normal'' Ergative
for several exceptions.
The names, as the story goes, represent much more what the cases used to be
when the protolanguage underwent the transition from the active/stative
through Philippine to modern scheme.
How do You call Your weird cases? Do You try to stick with familiar names
used for weird notions, or You find more ``proper'' names to make the
distinction clear? Maybe also I should call my Accusative and Ergative
something like Accudative and Erdative to make the distinction (though the
name Accudative is already used for the merged Accusative and Dative), and
replace Locative with something like Proximative?
Thanks,
Kolya
Messages in this topic (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
