There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
From: Daniel Prohaska
1b. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
From: Krista D. Casada
1c. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
From: Randy Frueh
2a. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: Allison Swenson
2b. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: Zach Wellstood
2c. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: Gary Shannon
2d. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: Alex Fink
2e. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: James Kane
2f. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: Randy Frueh
2g. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: And Rosta
2h. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: Tony Harris
2i. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: Daniel Prohaska
2j. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: Tim Smith
3a. Re: Proto-Jardic noun morphology
From: Alex Fink
4a. Re: OT: reading an unfamiliar language
From: Adam Walker
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
Posted by: "Daniel Prohaska" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:30 am ((PST))
OK, Girls and Women!!!! Please feel free here to be as geeky as can be!!!!
Dan
On Feb 12, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Krista D. Casada wrote:
> 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 (16)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
Posted by: "Krista D. Casada" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:01 am ((PST))
:-)
________________________________________
From: Constructed Languages List [[email protected]] on behalf of
Daniel Prohaska [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 12:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
OK, Girls and Women!!!! Please feel free here to be as geeky as can be!!!!
Dan
On Feb 12, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Krista D. Casada wrote:
> 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 (16)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
Posted by: "Randy Frueh" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:43 pm ((PST))
My girlfriend has an interest in many 'geeky' activities: roleplaying,
linguistics, ancient cultures, and other things. But she tells me that it
is hard to fit these less than critical activities into her life.
I'd probably be more successful were I as driven as she is. But my
priorities are different. I've noticed that she cares A LOT about how
others see her. I couldn't care less about what others think of me.
Is this a common difference? Men and women of the list; what are your
impressions on this?
(Sorry if this is getting away from the OP's question but I feel that the
comparative geekdom of men and women may be closely related to the topic.)
On Feb 12, 2013 1:01 PM, "Krista D. Casada" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> :-)
> ________________________________________
> From: Constructed Languages List [[email protected]] on behalf
of Daniel Prohaska [[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 12:30 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
>
> OK, Girls and Women!!!! Please feel free here to be as geeky as can be!!!!
> Dan
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Krista D. Casada wrote:
>
> > 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
> > 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 (16)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "Allison Swenson" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:50 am ((PST))
I used to say it /tS/, but then somewhere I heard it was /k/, so I assumed
I'd been mispronouncing it all along. I'm still not really certain what the
standard pronunciation of it is.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 (22)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "Zach Wellstood" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:55 am ((PST))
I'm from upstate NY and I have the FATHER vowel in all -omp and -onk words.
Except "monk." And probably other words I haven't thought of. However, I
would by default use the FATHER vowel for nonsense words like fomp, lomp,
or sonk.
On Feb 12, 2013 1:48 PM, "Allison Swenson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I used to say it /tS/, but then somewhere I heard it was /k/, so I assumed
> I'd been mispronouncing it all along. I'm still not really certain what the
> standard pronunciation of it is.
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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 (22)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:10 am ((PST))
I looked it up in several online dictionaries and apparently everyone
else pronounces it /k/. All I can say about that is that clearly
everyone else is wrong! ;-)
--gary
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Allison Swenson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I used to say it /tS/, but then somewhere I heard it was /k/, so I assumed
> I'd been mispronouncing it all along. I'm still not really certain what the
> standard pronunciation of it is.
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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 (22)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:22 am ((PST))
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:10:56 -0800, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>I looked it up in several online dictionaries and apparently everyone
>else pronounces it /k/. All I can say about that is that clearly
>everyone else is wrong! ;-)
Yeah, that's sò not my reaction when I discover a (historical) spelling
pronunciation in my own usage. My reaction is more like "kill the mutant with
fire! restore my lect to a state of righteousness!". It should be no surprise
that for me "conch" is /kANk/; I don't remember if I ever had /tS/ there. (I
merge cot & caught, so am not a data point for And.)
Alex
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "James Kane" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:48 pm ((PST))
As I am from New Zealand, I keep all the vowels in father, bother/cot and
caught separate, so I am not useful in that respect. I have however never heard
conch as anything other than /kOntS/ (which for me has the same vowel as
bother/cot) by anyone here and definitely never with a /k/ even by older
speakers or by people from other parts of the English speaking world.
Sent from my iPhone
On 13/02/2013, at 8:22 AM, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:10:56 -0800, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I looked it up in several online dictionaries and apparently everyone
>> else pronounces it /k/. All I can say about that is that clearly
>> everyone else is wrong! ;-)
>
> Yeah, that's sò not my reaction when I discover a (historical) spelling
> pronunciation in my own usage. My reaction is more like "kill the mutant
> with fire! restore my lect to a state of righteousness!". It should be no
> surprise that for me "conch" is /kANk/; I don't remember if I ever had /tS/
> there. (I merge cot & caught, so am not a data point for And.)
>
> Alex
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "Randy Frueh" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:52 pm ((PST))
On Feb 12, 2013 1:22 PM, "Alex Fink" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:10:56 -0800, Gary Shannon <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> >I looked it up in several online dictionaries and apparently everyone
> >else pronounces it /k/. All I can say about that is that clearly
> >everyone else is wrong! ;-)
>
> Yeah, that's sò not my reaction when I discover a (historical) spelling
pronunciation in my own usage. My reaction is more like "kill the mutant
with fire! restore my lect to a state of righteousness!". It should be no
surprise that for me "conch" is /kANk/; I don't remember if I ever had /tS/
there. (I merge cot & caught, so am not a data point for And.)
>
> Alex
I have always said it with the ch- as in church as well... however, I don't
think that I've ever heard the word spoken. I'm from the midwest so it
doesn't come up in common conversation often.
~totally horrified at the thought of having mispronounced it~
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
2g. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:19 pm ((PST))
Big thanks to respondents. And also for the forbearance of everybody else.
I realized as soon as I'd sent the message that I should have split statement
(4) into two, and responses bear this out.
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:48 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) the FATHER vowel in all such words
>> (2) the CAUGHT vowel in all such words
>> (4) the FATHER vowel in some such words and the CAUGHT vowel in other such
>> words.
(4a) the FATHER vowel in -omp words (but not -onk words) and the CAUGHT vowel
in -onk words (but not -omp words).
(4b) FATHER in some -omp words and CAUGHT in others, and/or FATHER in some -onk
words and CAUGHT in others.
The likeliest form of (4b) is (4c):
(4c) FATHER in all -omp words and some -onk words and CAUGHT in other -onk
words.
I presume -ong words pattern with -onk words.
I had been trying to work out how many phonologically short vowels North
American accents have. There are grounds for counting only 5 (KIT, DRESS, TRAP,
STRUT, FOOT), or for counting 6, or (especially for (4b/c) dialects) for
counting 7. (Not counting extras due to e.g. BAD/LAD split.)
My tally of responses (based on info given in responses):
Zach (1)
Tony (2) [perplexing! -- Tony: what words have the COT vowel? Sob? Bomb? Blond?
Sconce? Mop? Or does BOTHER not have the COT vowel?]
Tim (4a)
Stevo (4a)
Roger (4a) ((4c) counting _conch_)
Allison (4a) ((4c) counting _conch_)
Gary (4c)
Herman (4c)
For the 4c-ers, it seems as though the incidence of FATHER in -onk -- and
-ong?? -- is sufficiently rare that they might be considered special exceptions
(like e.g. _boing_ and _oink_ are).
Sai, On 12/02/2013 02:27:
> I'm not a field linguist so I have no idea what the perceptual
> distribution is,
I'm not a field linguist either. I'm a sworn adherent of armchair linguistics.
I do do a bit of field linguistics, but only what can be done from the comfort
of my own armchair (or classroom). [Discussion topic for a new thread: Among
professional linguisticians, armchair linguists are many and field linguists
are few; among conlangers interested in careers or advanced academic studyin
linguistics, would-be field linguists are many and would-be armchair linguists
are few. How come?]
>but I am a person with that rhyme distinction.
>
> All -omp/k words Alex could think of have the same vowel to me. It's
> pretty close to to COT but a little different, and very distinct from
> CAUGHT and FATHER.
I didn't understand this. FATHER rhymes with BOTHER, but these are very
different from COT? Which words spelt with O have the BOTHER vowel and which
have the COT?
> So� none of the below. :-P You sure you have your orientation correct,
> if you're a cot/caught collapser?
I didn't understand this question either.
--And.
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
2h. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "Tony Harris" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:31 pm ((PST))
Hmm.
Sob, Bomb, and Mop all definitely have the COT vowel. Sconce does too
if you know what it is and how to pronounce it, otherwise it's probably
/skOwns/.
To me, BOTHER has the same vowel as CAUGHT, not COT. COT, hot, tot,
not, knot, pot, rot, are all the same vowel. CAUGHT, bought, wrought,
fought, taut, nought (but not NOT), and ought are all the same as each
other, but not the same as COT.
This is the same discussion as whether Mary, marry, and merry are the
same, I think. To me, the first two (Mary and marry) sound the same,
but merry sounds different. The 'e' in merry is shorter I think.
Having a hard time putting my finger on it, though I can hear the
difference.
Does that help? Does it even make any sense?
On 02/12/2013 05:17 PM, And Rosta wrote:
> Big thanks to respondents. And also for the forbearance of everybody
> else.
>
> I realized as soon as I'd sent the message that I should have split
> statement (4) into two, and responses bear this out.
>
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:48 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) the FATHER vowel in all such words
>>> (2) the CAUGHT vowel in all such words
>>> (4) the FATHER vowel in some such words and the CAUGHT vowel in
>>> other such words.
>
> (4a) the FATHER vowel in -omp words (but not -onk words) and the
> CAUGHT vowel in -onk words (but not -omp words).
> (4b) FATHER in some -omp words and CAUGHT in others, and/or FATHER in
> some -onk words and CAUGHT in others.
>
> The likeliest form of (4b) is (4c):
> (4c) FATHER in all -omp words and some -onk words and CAUGHT in other
> -onk words.
>
> I presume -ong words pattern with -onk words.
>
> I had been trying to work out how many phonologically short vowels
> North American accents have. There are grounds for counting only 5
> (KIT, DRESS, TRAP, STRUT, FOOT), or for counting 6, or (especially for
> (4b/c) dialects) for counting 7. (Not counting extras due to e.g.
> BAD/LAD split.)
>
> My tally of responses (based on info given in responses):
> Zach (1)
> Tony (2) [perplexing! -- Tony: what words have the COT vowel? Sob?
> Bomb? Blond? Sconce? Mop? Or does BOTHER not have the COT vowel?]
> Tim (4a)
> Stevo (4a)
> Roger (4a) ((4c) counting _conch_)
> Allison (4a) ((4c) counting _conch_)
> Gary (4c)
> Herman (4c)
>
> For the 4c-ers, it seems as though the incidence of FATHER in -onk --
> and -ong?? -- is sufficiently rare that they might be considered
> special exceptions (like e.g. _boing_ and _oink_ are).
>
> Sai, On 12/02/2013 02:27:
>> I'm not a field linguist so I have no idea what the perceptual
>> distribution is,
>
> I'm not a field linguist either. I'm a sworn adherent of armchair
> linguistics. I do do a bit of field linguistics, but only what can be
> done from the comfort of my own armchair (or classroom). [Discussion
> topic for a new thread: Among professional linguisticians, armchair
> linguists are many and field linguists are few; among conlangers
> interested in careers or advanced academic studyin linguistics,
> would-be field linguists are many and would-be armchair linguists are
> few. How come?]
>
>> but I am a person with that rhyme distinction.
>>
>> All -omp/k words Alex could think of have the same vowel to me. It's
>> pretty close to to COT but a little different, and very distinct from
>> CAUGHT and FATHER.
>
> I didn't understand this. FATHER rhymes with BOTHER, but these are
> very different from COT? Which words spelt with O have the BOTHER
> vowel and which have the COT?
>
>> So� none of the below. :-P You sure you have your orientation correct,
>> if you're a cot/caught collapser?
>
> I didn't understand this question either.
>
> --And.
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
2i. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "Daniel Prohaska" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:49 pm ((PST))
<Conch> is very region specific. When pronounced /kANk/ it refers to the Creole
influenced varieties of Floride, especially the Keys... AFAIK.
Dan
Sent from my iPhone
On 12.02.2013, at 22:46, James Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
> As I am from New Zealand, I keep all the vowels in father, bother/cot and
> caught separate, so I am not useful in that respect. I have however never
> heard conch as anything other than /kOntS/ (which for me has the same vowel
> as bother/cot) by anyone here and definitely never with a /k/ even by older
> speakers or by people from other parts of the English speaking world.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 13/02/2013, at 8:22 AM, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:10:56 -0800, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I looked it up in several online dictionaries and apparently everyone
>>> else pronounces it /k/. All I can say about that is that clearly
>>> everyone else is wrong! ;-)
>>
>> Yeah, that's sò not my reaction when I discover a (historical) spelling
>> pronunciation in my own usage. My reaction is more like "kill the mutant
>> with fire! restore my lect to a state of righteousness!". It should be no
>> surprise that for me "conch" is /kANk/; I don't remember if I ever had /tS/
>> there. (I merge cot & caught, so am not a data point for And.)
>>
>> Alex
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
2j. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "Tim Smith" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:00 pm ((PST))
On 2/12/2013 4:52 PM, Randy Frueh wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2013 1:22 PM, "Alex Fink" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:10:56 -0800, Gary Shannon <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>>> I looked it up in several online dictionaries and apparently everyone
>>> else pronounces it /k/. All I can say about that is that clearly
>>> everyone else is wrong! ;-)
>>
>> Yeah, that's sò not my reaction when I discover a (historical) spelling
> pronunciation in my own usage. My reaction is more like "kill the mutant
> with fire! restore my lect to a state of righteousness!". It should be no
> surprise that for me "conch" is /kANk/; I don't remember if I ever had /tS/
> there. (I merge cot & caught, so am not a data point for And.)
>>
>> Alex
>
> I have always said it with the ch- as in church as well... however, I don't
> think that I've ever heard the word spoken. I'm from the midwest so it
> doesn't come up in common conversation often.
> ~totally horrified at the thought of having mispronounced it~
>
You haven't been mispronouncing it! I've just looked in two print
dictionaries (as opposed to online dictionaries), and they both show
both pronunciations (although they both list the /Nk/ pronunciation
first, indicating that it's "preferred" (but preferred by whom?)).
Admittedly they're both rather old dictionaries: The Random House
Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition, 1969, and the
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1970. So it's
conceivable that the /tS/ pronunciation has become less accepted over
the past four decades or so. Are the people who say /kAntS/ (I'm one of
them, and I'm 63) older on average than those who say /kANk/? (I have
to say, though, that this strikes me as unlikely. I would expect a
spelling pronunciation to get _more_ accepted over time, not less.)
- Tim
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Proto-Jardic noun morphology
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:56 am ((PST))
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:30:08 -0500, Herman Miller <[email protected]> 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.
Diphthongs being retained while simple vowels are lost is certainly plausible
enough. Also, the change you're looking for might be stress-conditioned.
Something like that immediate post-stress vowels are lost; or the same
restricted to word-finally; or vowels in certain weak positions in feet are
lost.
But the main thing I'd point out here is that your case markers could have
finished grammaticalising *after* proto-Jardic, and grammaticalisation can drop
phones due to allegro speech effects! (People tend to rely on regular sound
change and regular sound change alone too much, and that's a bad habit.)
Maybe, e.g.:
>Take the animate ablative suffix -lü for example: it could have been
>*-lui in Proto-Jardic.
>
>*teige-lui > tig-lü
>*kiṭal-lui > ķitṛa-lü
Maybe there was e.g. a consonant in the antecedent of _-lü_, so that the
protoform was actually a (possibly cliticised) postposition of the shape
*-luCi, with the C something weakish that was lost when it reduced to a case
marker. That wouldn't be better than just *-lui from the modern perspective,
but it would (probably) help the _protolanguage_ look more naturalistic, i.e.
it would avoid having an unnaturally large set of postpositions / case markers
all ending in diphthongs.
[Incompatible idea coming below:]
>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 ?
I, for one, would not be satisfied with -öl and -ol having been _further apart_
in the proto-language, as with this -ile and -elu; I would want to draw them
together.
That is, if you do want to keep your modern table of inflections, it probably
dictates what the most likely vowel coalescences from proto-Jardic to Jarda
should have been! E.g., here, in the ablative, one wants to explain modern _ö_
< *Vin+Vabl, _o_ < *Vabs+Vabl, where Vin and Vabs were the former theme vowels
of the inanimate and abstracts, and Vabl was the initial vowel of the ablative
clitic. Then one could set up the proto-ablative as *VlV, and account for the
patterns of vowel loss using some kind of metrical explanation. E.g. acute is
stress, possibly secondary, below, and we suppose that a diphthong attracted it
but otherwise it defaulted to the end syllable in words of a suitably canonical
stem shape.
animate: *...C+VlV́ > C-lü
inanimate: *...CV́+VlV > C-öl
abstract: *...CV́+VlV > C-ol
This supposes there was a simple *V that could have become -ü, though!
>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.
Analogy is good too, yes. If you went with the above explanation for the
ablative, you'd either need some analogy to explain things like -na and -ta in
the abstract, carried over from the animate (but why not the inanimate!?), or
else you'd need to project the absence of the abstract theme vowel back in
those cases.
The latter explanation actually stands a chance of being good, here, I think.
That is, perhaps the dative and instrumental were actual cases in proto-Jardic,
while the ablative was made of a clitic following an oblique case (maybe the
same one as the antecedent of the modern absolutive or genitive?). Then we'd
just have to suppose the oblique case ended in V for both inanimate and
abstract, while in other cases the inanimate used a theme vowel and the
abstract didn't.
Another case in your paradigm where analogy looks compelling is the locative.
Especially in view of the ablative. I would reconstruct the proto-locative as
being _identical_ to the first syllable of the ablative in inanimate and
abstract, e.g. the historical endings being _-ö -o_. But some other vowel
juncture in the animate (possibly older!) resulted in_wi_ > _vi_, and the _v_
was then copied to the non-animate genders.
I may as well append a few things I meant to say regarding your earlier
Proto-Jardic threads but never got around to:
- In a language where there are lots of nonsystematic ablauting procedures,
appearing in only a few word-families each, one expects the ablaut to be _old_.
If I were you, I would not be trying to explain all the Jarda ablaut in
Proto-Jarda! I'd be trying to explain some of it, especially the more
contemporarily systematic parts, but then leave the residue as ablaut in the
proto-language, to have arisen at an even earlier stage.
(Differential treatment in loans of course helps too, but that is likelier to
give all-out doublets than cases with systematic derivation-looking function.)
- IMO the idea of having a whole proto-series of retroflexes to explain your
modern _ṛ_ is unlikely. It is very rare for whole place-of-articulation series
to implode that catastrophically (manner series do it a bit more). Spontaneous
retroflexion of a rhotic, on the other hand, *is* likely; it helps exaggerate
the so-called flatness which is one of the perceptual cues of these sounds (a
lowering of whatever formant it is). I suspect you just had an alveolar *r of
some sort in the proto-language, which has gone to modern Jarda _ṛ_. Similarly:
>*actually ķitṛa-la, a slightly irregular form ... one reason I've
>reconstructed the Proto-Jardic word with a final -l.
You don't need that. Dissimilation in *r...r sequences, with one of the *r
becoming an *l, is extremely common.
Alex
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: OT: reading an unfamiliar language
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:57 pm ((PST))
Looking for common personal names like Mohammed should tell you
quickly if personal names inflect for case and such. Then once you
find some place names you can do likewise for those to see if they are
treated the same way. If you do find case endings on proper names,
then you may be able to find a great many nouns by looking for those
endings.
Adam
On 2/11/13, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Krista D. Casada <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Knowing numerals might also help identify words for currency or streets,
>> roads, etc.
>
>
> I already thought of this, too, but, aside from page numbers, there aren't
> a lot of numerals. It's a novel, after all, and numerals don't occur often
> in novels in English, either.
>
> stevo
>
>
>> Immediate repetition of a word might also indicate it's an interjection,
>> or at least carries high emotional content. My (very, very slight)
>> experience with Dari suggests you might find more IE cognates than you
>> think. (I do this kind of thing a lot, and get a huge kick out of it.)
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Constructed Languages List [[email protected]] on behalf
>> of MorphemeAddict [[email protected]]
>> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 10:23 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: OT: reading an unfamiliar language
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> stevo
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Krista D. Casada <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > ________________________________________
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Sun, 2/10/13, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > This is about unfamiliar languages in general, but it's prompted by a
>> > particular book in Modern Persian (it looks like a novel) that I have.
>> > There are no pictures, charts, or diagrams. It's just text.
>> >
>> > I know the Persian alphabet and number symbols. How much of this novel
>> > is
>> > it possible to figure out without any references or other materials? I
>> > suspect things like dialogue would help with identifying verbs of
>> > speech
>> > and pronouns, but is there anything else I should look for?
>> > ============================================
>> >
>> > Hunt for proper nouns, which might be indicated by rare letter
>> > combinations, since you won't have upper- and lower-case letters to
>> > help.
>> > Especially be on the lookout for familiar place names or punctuation
>> > that
>> > might indicate direct address (although that probably varies a lot, as
>> with
>> > Arabic.)
>> >
>> > Krista
>>
>
Messages in this topic (8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
