There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: "Glossarch" is officially a word
From: Roger Mills
1b. Re: "Glossarch" is officially a word
From: Garth Wallace
2a. Re: Glossotechnia
From: Daniel Demski
3a. Re: On Creating Altlangs
From: James Kane
3b. Re: On Creating Altlangs
From: BPJ
4a. What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
From: Matthew George
4b. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
From: And Rosta
4c. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
From: Daniel Burgener
4d. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
From: Matthew Boutilier
4e. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
From: Matthew George
4f. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
From: Matthew George
4g. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
From: Patrick Dunn
4h. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
From: Matthew George
4i. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
From: And Rosta
5a. Re: Lexical existence (was The evolution of Angosey: 5 Translations
From: BPJ
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: "Glossarch" is officially a word
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 19, 2013 8:30 pm ((PST))
--- On Tue, 2/19/13, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
He's Norwegian. And he exhibited very troll-like behavior on list.
==================================================
Right you are. My apologies to the entire nation of Brazil......:-))
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: "Glossarch" is officially a word
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:38 pm ((PST))
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Daniel Bowman <[email protected]> wrote:
> The only other user of glossarch is a troll...wonderful.
If usage by jerks negated wordhood, a copy of the Oxford English
Dictionary would be able to fit in a pocket. The large print edition.
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Glossotechnia
Posted by: "Daniel Demski" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:15 pm ((PST))
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
> What about something like this:
>
> "Specify how, when and whether [agency / topicality / definiteness /
> ... / wildcard grammatical category ] is marked. By affix, mutation
> or separate particle? (Coin one or more affixes or particles.)
> Mandatory or optional? On which types of word?"
>
> --
> Jim Henry
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
> http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
>
Come to think of it I have never played an "add inflectional category" card
and then had someone follow up with an additional inflection (invariably
someone creates a past tense and nobody creates any others). So "coin one
or more" sounds like it would be just fine. :)
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: On Creating Altlangs
Posted by: "James Kane" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:14 am ((PST))
> One will notice that the Romansch dialects have similarly
> been influenced by the high German dialects spoken in
> contiguous areas, and the Moorish influence in Spanish is
> noticeable.
>
> I admit Romanian is interesting, but I don't think any more
> or less remarkable than most other Romancelangs (personally
> I find the Reto-romance and the Sardinian dialects more
> interesting). I fail to understand how a living language
> can be "almost a real life altlang."
>
'What if Latin survived in the Balkan sprachbund?'
Probably what I really mean is that Romanian is interesting in its evolution
and divergence.
Of course a language cannot be a real world example of an altlang, but it could
certainly be used as an example of language changes that make a language unique
in that it is not quite Balkan or Slavic or Greek but influenced by all of
these and quite far from the other Romance languages in terms of its irregular
plurals and noun case and postposed definite article etc. one could say that
about all the Romance languages - the Rhaeto-Romance languages obviously show
similar divergence - or even all languages in the world, but real-life
languages are where conlangers get their inspiration from so I see no problem
in drawing analogues to certain types of conlangs.
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: On Creating Altlangs
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:01 pm ((PST))
On 2013-02-19 20:39, R A Brown wrote:
>>> Yes - there usually has to be some fudging here because
>>> other languages rarely have the same phonetic inventory
>>> as Vulgar Latin.
>>
>> Amen! I had to fudge the sound changes, especially the
>> vowel changes, *a lot* when I was doing Roman Germanech
>> because Common West Germanic is quite far away from
>> Vulgar Latin in terms of phonology!
>
> Always a problem for bogolangers. :)
But that's what allows them to break out of the
bogosphere and into the altosphere (yes, intentiontally
ambiguous coinage!) so it's actually a good thing. I
found that doing a bogolang a second time wasn't
anywhere near as fun as the first time -- especially
not when it wasn't also a way of learning about one of
the languages in the mix -- but starting to think in
terms of what *realistically* could have happened
to language A under conditions B, proved more
interesting, yet you generally need to peg even an
altlang on something, like what features of English and
Welsh are areal/Sprachbund features which perhaps could
have existed in a Brittanno-Romance language. It's
still essentially the same beast -- langauge A on
language B's turf, with the difference that one tries
to create something which *might* have evolved under
normal conditions of language evolution as we know them
by humans like us, as opposed to something that absolutely
*could not* have so evolved.
My own Rhodrese is a case in point: it started out
decades ago as my 'ideal' mix between French and
Italian, which was certainly not realistic: essentially
Italian with apocope, syncope and dipthongization of VL
/e:/ and /o:/ -- actually Spanish style since it
applied in closed syllables as well -- and even of
*Latin* /a:/ since in youthful folly I thought the
merger of Latin /a/ and /a:/ in VL was a terrible loss!
:-) When I decided to redo it some years ago wanted to
strive for realism but I also decided that my aesthetic
predilections were going to have the last word,
preferably coming up with some plausible scenario for
how it came to be so. Unfortunately the result wasn't
too bloody different: Occitan[^1] with Francien-style
diphthongization instead of Italian with bastard Hispano-
Francien-style diphthongization, and only the faintest
Italian influence in vocabulary and verbal system. Its
perhaps most redeeming trait is totally unrealistic:
*Germanic-style* i-umlaut triggered i.a. by an Italian-
style development of -AS, -OS, -ES into */i/. The only
thing which doesn't make it a total parody is the
premise that it beside being at least plausible
above all should reflect its author's aesthetic
predilections; the only thing which could save it
would be finding some more or less a-priori trait
which would both be agreable to those predilections
and capable of being made plausible.
An altlang without side-glances on what actually grew
up in the same soil is just an arbitrary a-posteriori
conlang of indeterminate plausibility, and one which
does make such side-glances runs the risk of becoming a
parody of the thing glanced at, unless it is spiced up
with something which is probably implausible. Neither
is that much of an improvement over the bogolang unless
one keeps in mind that the main goal of conlanging is
aesthetic gratification and learning about Language,
and you may do that as well through both -- perhaps
even more through the bogolang since it gives
opportunity to contemplate *how* and *why* its super-
and substrate differ.
/bpj
[^1]: Occitan, which BTW *is* -- historically speaking,
at least ;-( -- a major Romance language *and* has
front rounded vowels like the whole 'Gallo- Italian'
subgroup.
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
Posted by: "Matthew George" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:22 pm ((PST))
Poetic language often violates principles of grammar regarding syntax and
word order. I think it may be for reasons other than meter and rhyme.
What effect does placing adjectives before the noun they describe have,
compared with placing them after? Afterwards seems like a more logical
method - a gradual focusing within a general field - but since you can't
form a mental representation in adjective-first descriptions until the noun
is given, perhaps it induces people to form mental images differently.
I realize that meaning is expressed equally well either way, but there
might be secondary instrumental effects that vary. I'm a novice at
studying linguistics, and I have very limited experience with languages, so
I have no way of judging from experience. What do those of you who are
fluent in languages that follow different word orders think?
Matt G.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:56 pm ((PST))
Matthew George, On 20/02/2013 21:22:
> Poetic language often violates principles of grammar regarding syntax and
> word order. I think it may be for reasons other than meter and rhyme.
What sorts of principles of grammar regarding syntax and word order does it
violate?
Do you have examples in mind?
(I think I would be inclined to say that poetic language doesn't often violate
principles of grammar regarding syntax and word order.)
--And.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
Posted by: "Daniel Burgener" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:51 pm ((PST))
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
> Matthew George, On 20/02/2013 21:22:
>
> Poetic language often violates principles of grammar regarding syntax and
>> word order. I think it may be for reasons other than meter and rhyme.
>>
>
> What sorts of principles of grammar regarding syntax and word order does
> it violate?
>
> Do you have examples in mind?
>
> (I think I would be inclined to say that poetic language doesn't often
> violate principles of grammar regarding syntax and word order.)
>
> --And.
>
How about the first line of Poe's The Raven? "Once upon a midnight
dreary". In non-poetic speech that would be "a dreary midnight".
-Daniel
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:57 pm ((PST))
But *"Once dreary a midnight upon" would have been an impossible choice for
Poe (unless he were writing in Turkish, incidentally).
Where do you draw the line between poetically grammatical and totally
ungrammatical?
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Daniel Burgener
<[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Matthew George, On 20/02/2013 21:22:
> >
> > Poetic language often violates principles of grammar regarding syntax
> and
> >> word order. I think it may be for reasons other than meter and rhyme.
> >>
> >
> > What sorts of principles of grammar regarding syntax and word order does
> > it violate?
> >
> > Do you have examples in mind?
> >
> > (I think I would be inclined to say that poetic language doesn't often
> > violate principles of grammar regarding syntax and word order.)
> >
> > --And.
> >
>
> How about the first line of Poe's The Raven? "Once upon a midnight
> dreary". In non-poetic speech that would be "a dreary midnight".
>
> -Daniel
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
4e. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
Posted by: "Matthew George" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:27 pm ((PST))
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
> What sorts of principles of grammar regarding syntax and word order does
> it violate?
>
In English - which is the only language I'm sufficiently familiar with
regarding poetry - violating SVO order in normal sentences is not
permitted, and adjectives are supposed to come before the noun. Both of
these rules can be violated in poetic speech, though - both to create an
old-fashioned effect (word order was once more flexible) and possibly for
other reasons.
Presumably other languages have different poetic conventions - I do know
that ancient Greek and Latin verse can't be reproduced in English because
it lacks the long-short vowel distinction.
Matt G.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
4f. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
Posted by: "Matthew George" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:35 pm ((PST))
Here's another example: Emily Dickenson<http://www.bartleby.com/113/4016.html>
:
*The clouds their backs together laid,
The north began to push
*The first line is technically ungrammatical in standard English, but the
weird clause structure is permitted because it's a poem.
What differences, if any, exist in your reaction to "the fast red car"
compared to "the car fast red"?
Matt G.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
4g. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:49 pm ((PST))
"The clouds their backs together laid" isn't ungrammatical. It's not
punctuated the way we'd normally do it now, but it's perfectly grammatical:
The clouds, their backs together, laid . . .
Poetic English permits a slightly freer word order than prose English (and,
in fact, that's only really true of somewhat older poetry -- most
contemporary poetry has a word order not noticeably different from prose).
But it doesn't permit the violation of grammatical constraints.
In fact, putting an adjective after a noun is sometimes done in prose
English for emphasis: "The parts superior are preferred to the parts
inferior."
Inversion of subject and object is also permitted in prose English for
emphasis: "The book, I gave him, not the pen."
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Matthew George <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here's another example: Emily Dickenson<
> http://www.bartleby.com/113/4016.html>
> :
>
> *The clouds their backs together laid,
> The north began to push
>
> *The first line is technically ungrammatical in standard English, but the
> weird clause structure is permitted because it's a poem.
>
> What differences, if any, exist in your reaction to "the fast red car"
> compared to "the car fast red"?
>
> Matt G.
>
--
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 (9)
________________________________________________________________________
4h. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
Posted by: "Matthew George" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:28 pm ((PST))
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
> "The clouds their backs together laid" isn't ungrammatical. It's not
> punctuated the way we'd normally do it now, but it's perfectly grammatical:
>
> The clouds, their backs together, laid . . .
>
Nope; that means something very different. The normal version of the
sentence would be "The clouds laid their backs together". "their backs" is
the object of the verb 'laid'. We know this because letting 'laid' be an
intransitive verb renders the statement meaningless - the semantics
determine how the grammar can be interpreted.
*
To land of gloom with tramp of doom, with roll of drum, we come, we come;
To Isengard with doom we come!
With doom we come, with doom we come!
*
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
4i. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:34 pm ((PST))
Daniel Burgener, On 20/02/2013 22:51:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM, And Rosta<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Matthew George, On 20/02/2013 21:22:
>>
>> Poetic language often violates principles of grammar regarding syntax and
>>> word order. I think it may be for reasons other than meter and rhyme.
>>>
>>
>> What sorts of principles of grammar regarding syntax and word order does
>> it violate?
>>
>> Do you have examples in mind?
>>
>> (I think I would be inclined to say that poetic language doesn't often
>> violate principles of grammar regarding syntax and word order.)
>>
>> --And.
>>
>
> How about the first line of Poe's The Raven? "Once upon a midnight
> dreary". In non-poetic speech that would be "a dreary midnight".
It's not clear what the violated principle is. Probably that for most nouns, a
postposed adjective must be weighty:
a midnight dreary and cold
a midnight drearier than ever
a midnight dreary to behold
tho not for all nouns:
something dreary
Weight rules (phrase size rules) are characteristically gradient rather than
categorical, yielding degrees of acceptability rather than outright
ungrammaticality. Patrick's superior/inferior example shows that focus adds
weight.
Matthew George, On 20/02/2013 23:35:
> *The clouds their backs together laid,
> The north began to push
Patrick gives it a different reading, but if it is taken to mean "The clouds
laid their backs together", then yes it is nowadays ungrammatical. It either
doesn't violate principles of grammar of the time when it was written or it was
written at a time when poetry was often written in an archaic (or
pseudoarchaic) dialect, tho without violating the grammar of that dialect.
The poetic effects (of variant word orders) will derive from (i) the meanings
of the constructions used, (ii) deviance from norms of usage, (iii) information
sequencing.
--And.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Lexical existence (was The evolution of Angosey: 5 Translations
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:08 pm ((PST))
On 2013-02-19 08:44, Garth Wallace wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Daniel Bowman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> @BPJ
>> I see what you are driving at, but I'm not sure I agree. One could argue
>> (as you do) that the very act of using "glossarch" instantiates it as a
>> word, but I don't think it does, particularly because I present it as a
>> technical term in the English language. In other words, "glossarch" is not
>> a word in a conlang - I'm using as if it were actually an English word! If
>> people on the conlang list started saying they were glossarchs, then I
>> think we could call it a legitimate word. But a single person imposing a
>> word on an existing language? I'm not sure.
>
> I think rather than a distinct "in or out", there are gradations to a
> word's existence in a natlang. A one-off, nonce word is on the low end
> of the scale, though one made out of recognizable word-pieces like
> "glossarch" is more existencey than one that isn't, like "gornplatz".
>
I'd actually argue that a word "made out of recognizable
word-pieces" -- and their recognizable meanings --
*is* a word. A nonce-word, yes, and probably not a
Standard <Language of Choice> word, but a word none
the less. I do not put a great deal of store on
prescriptivism and the strange branch of conlanging
called language standardization -- especially not when
the product is peddled as The One True <Language>,
but I can appreciate the gradation, and I said as much.
/bpj
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
