There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: CHAT: Does etymology awareness affect your speech?
From: Padraic Brown
1b. Re: CHAT: Does etymology awareness affect your speech?
From: Garth Wallace
1c. Re: CHAT: Does etymology awareness affect your speech?
From: Adam Walker
1d. Re: CHAT: Does etymology awareness affect your speech?
From: George Corley
1e. Re: CHAT: Does etymology awareness affect your speech?
From: Gary Shannon
2a. OT: Help with Spanish translation
From: [email protected]
2b. Re: OT: Help with Spanish translation
From: Leonardo Castro
2c. Re: OT: Help with Spanish translation
From: Leonardo Castro
3a. Re: "English has the most words of any language"
From: Mechthild Czapp
3b. Re: "English has the most words of any language"
From: Padraic Brown
3c. Re: "English has the most words of any language"
From: George Corley
4a. Re: Is there an inverse relationship between lexical richness and gr
From: John Q
4b. Re: Is there an inverse relationship between lexical richness and gr
From: Gary Shannon
4c. Re: Is there an inverse relationship between lexical richness and gr
From: George Corley
4d. Re: Is there an inverse relationship between lexical richness and gr
From: MorphemeAddict
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: CHAT: Does etymology awareness affect your speech?
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 20, 2013 6:20 am ((PDT))
--- On Mon, 3/18/13, Matthew George <[email protected]> wrote:
> > What's your opinion on the expression "could you borrow
> > me a pencil"?
>
> I'm not even sure what it means. Does it involve a
> request for another to
> borrow a pencil for the speaker's use, or a request to
> borrow a pencil from
> the addressee (that is, a request for them to loan a
> pencil)?
The speaker is asking to borrow a pencil. It's a simple word-
replacement: in stead of asking "could you lend..." (in which case the
speaker would be "borrowing"), the speaker replaces the expected
action of the other person with his own.
Borrow never means lend, even in this case. It is said in such a way,
and with such an intonation, and with such obvious context that the
meaning becomes clear.
> The first is fine. The second is execrable. I
> would give anyone uttering
> it a chance to recant, and then execute them for a second
> offense.
Just part of the wonder of English.
Padraic
> Matt G.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: CHAT: Does etymology awareness affect your speech?
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:31 am ((PDT))
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 3/18/13, Matthew George <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > What's your opinion on the expression "could you borrow
>> > me a pencil"?
>>
>> I'm not even sure what it means. Does it involve a
>> request for another to
>> borrow a pencil for the speaker's use, or a request to
>> borrow a pencil from
>> the addressee (that is, a request for them to loan a
>> pencil)?
>
> The speaker is asking to borrow a pencil. It's a simple word-
> replacement: in stead of asking "could you lend..." (in which case the
> speaker would be "borrowing"), the speaker replaces the expected
> action of the other person with his own.
Really? I would interpret it as the speaker asking the listener to
borrow a pencil on the speaker's behalf.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: CHAT: Does etymology awareness affect your speech?
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:59 am ((PDT))
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Garth Wallace <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > --- On Mon, 3/18/13, Matthew George <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> > What's your opinion on the expression "could you borrow
> >> > me a pencil"?
> >>
> >> I'm not even sure what it means. Does it involve a
> >> request for another to
> >> borrow a pencil for the speaker's use, or a request to
> >> borrow a pencil from
> >> the addressee (that is, a request for them to loan a
> >> pencil)?
> >
> > The speaker is asking to borrow a pencil. It's a simple word-
> > replacement: in stead of asking "could you lend..." (in which case the
> > speaker would be "borrowing"), the speaker replaces the expected
> > action of the other person with his own.
>
> Really? I would interpret it as the speaker asking the listener to
> borrow a pencil on the speaker's behalf.
>
No, Padraic is correct. When I taught junior high and high school, I heard
this from students all the time.
"Mr. Walker, could you borrow me a pencil, I left mine in my locker."
"Lend."
"What?"
"Could you lend me a pencil."
"That's what I said. I forgot mine in my locker."
Sigh.
I don't teach any more. Now I unload and load freight.
Adam
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: CHAT: Does etymology awareness affect your speech?
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:12 am ((PDT))
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Garth Wallace <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > --- On Mon, 3/18/13, Matthew George <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> > What's your opinion on the expression "could you borrow
> > >> > me a pencil"?
> > >>
> > >> I'm not even sure what it means. Does it involve a
> > >> request for another to
> > >> borrow a pencil for the speaker's use, or a request to
> > >> borrow a pencil from
> > >> the addressee (that is, a request for them to loan a
> > >> pencil)?
> > >
> > > The speaker is asking to borrow a pencil. It's a simple word-
> > > replacement: in stead of asking "could you lend..." (in which case the
> > > speaker would be "borrowing"), the speaker replaces the expected
> > > action of the other person with his own.
> >
> > Really? I would interpret it as the speaker asking the listener to
> > borrow a pencil on the speaker's behalf.
> >
>
>
> No, Padraic is correct. When I taught junior high and high school, I heard
> this from students all the time.
>
> "Mr. Walker, could you borrow me a pencil, I left mine in my locker."
>
> "Lend."
>
> "What?"
>
> "Could you lend me a pencil."
>
> "That's what I said. I forgot mine in my locker."
>
> Sigh.
>
> I don't teach any more. Now I unload and load freight.
This is really not an unusual shift. Chinese has the same word for both,
and many English dialects have "learn" taking on the meaning of "teach" as
well as "learn". There just seems to be something about these kinds of
terms that lets this sort of consolidation occur. Maybe it's just that
it's so clear from context who is the "giver" and "reciever" that you
really only need one term.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: CHAT: Does etymology awareness affect your speech?
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:27 am ((PDT))
My late grandmother who was born in the 1880's in Northern Michigan
used "borrow" for "lend" in exactly that manner. "Could you borrow me
a cup of sugar?" --gary
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
---
>
> No, Padraic is correct. When I taught junior high and high school, I heard
> this from students all the time.
>
> "Mr. Walker, could you borrow me a pencil, I left mine in my locker."
>
> "Lend."
>
> "What?"
>
> "Could you lend me a pencil."
>
> "That's what I said. I forgot mine in my locker."
>
> Sigh.
>
> I don't teach any more. Now I unload and load freight.
>
> Adam
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. OT: Help with Spanish translation
Posted by: [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:22 am ((PDT))
An acquaintance of mine needs to apologize to a man in Argentina. He asked me
to translate his text into Spanish. Although I've studied Spanish, I'm not very
fluent. I'm willing to give it a go, but I thought a native speaker could do it
much better and quicker. If someone would like to help me out, I'd greatly
appreciate it.
The text is:
"Dear Patricio,
You are correct in saying that my comments say everything about me and nothing
about your film. As strange as it may sound, coming from me, I enjoyed your
homage to a beautiful old press coming to a new home. The music, the camera
work, the editing made for an enjoyable entertainment. You know your craft
well.
I cannot apologize to you for my sense of humor. Taken out of context from a
conversation I was having with a friend, it can only seem strange and hurtful.
I can apologize to you for that, however. I certainly did not mean for my
comments to go out onto the LetPress list. I am sincerely sorry for any hurt I
have caused you.
With many regrets,"
Thanks for your help,
Ph. D.
[email protected]
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: OT: Help with Spanish translation
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:01 am ((PDT))
I could translate this into an understandable Spanish, althought I
could not guarantee that it would be grammatically and idiomatically
correct.
Até mais!
Leonardo
2013/3/20 <[email protected]>:
> An acquaintance of mine needs to apologize to a man in Argentina. He asked me
> to translate his text into Spanish. Although I've studied Spanish, I'm not
> very fluent. I'm willing to give it a go, but I thought a native speaker
> could do it much better and quicker. If someone would like to help me out,
> I'd greatly appreciate it.
>
> The text is:
>
> "Dear Patricio,
> You are correct in saying that my comments say everything about me and
> nothing about your film. As strange as it may sound, coming from me, I
> enjoyed your homage to a beautiful old press coming to a new home. The music,
> the camera work, the editing made for an enjoyable entertainment. You know
> your craft well.
>
> I cannot apologize to you for my sense of humor. Taken out of context from a
> conversation I was having with a friend, it can only seem strange and
> hurtful. I can apologize to you for that, however. I certainly did not mean
> for my comments to go out onto the LetPress list. I am sincerely sorry for
> any hurt I have caused you.
>
> With many regrets,"
>
>
> Thanks for your help,
> Ph. D.
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: OT: Help with Spanish translation
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:08 am ((PDT))
BTW, most of my experience with Spanish comes from watching the
original Chespirito, Chapulín and El Chavo del Ocho shows on YouTube.
Many of their jokes involve puns in Spanish and are impossible to
translate even to Portuguese (for instance, those that involve the
fact that "v" and "b" sound the same).
Até mais!
Leonardo
2013/3/20 Leonardo Castro <[email protected]>:
> I could translate this into an understandable Spanish, althought I
> could not guarantee that it would be grammatically and idiomatically
> correct.
>
> Até mais!
>
> Leonardo
>
>
> 2013/3/20 <[email protected]>:
>> An acquaintance of mine needs to apologize to a man in Argentina. He asked
>> me to translate his text into Spanish. Although I've studied Spanish, I'm
>> not very fluent. I'm willing to give it a go, but I thought a native speaker
>> could do it much better and quicker. If someone would like to help me out,
>> I'd greatly appreciate it.
>>
>> The text is:
>>
>> "Dear Patricio,
>> You are correct in saying that my comments say everything about me and
>> nothing about your film. As strange as it may sound, coming from me, I
>> enjoyed your homage to a beautiful old press coming to a new home. The
>> music, the camera work, the editing made for an enjoyable entertainment. You
>> know your craft well.
>>
>> I cannot apologize to you for my sense of humor. Taken out of context from
>> a conversation I was having with a friend, it can only seem strange and
>> hurtful. I can apologize to you for that, however. I certainly did not mean
>> for my comments to go out onto the LetPress list. I am sincerely sorry for
>> any hurt I have caused you.
>>
>> With many regrets,"
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your help,
>> Ph. D.
>> [email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: "English has the most words of any language"
Posted by: "Mechthild Czapp" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:08 am ((PDT))
Am 19.03.2013 um 02:30 schrieb George Corley <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Daniel Bowman
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I was talking to someone today, and he stated that English has the most
>> words of any language. I'm pretty suspicious when I hear such claims, and
>> he did not have direct evidence to back up his assertion. However, he is
>> one of the smartest and most knowledgeable people I know, and his father
>> happened to be chair of the department of linguistics at one point. It's
>> hard to chalk his claim up to ignorance or misinformation, so I started
>> wondering: is this in fact true?
>>
>
> Number one: being intelligent does not prevent you from believing false
> things. In fact, in some cases intelligent people will hold on to false
> beliefs longer simply because they devote their mental resources to
> rationalizing them.
>
> On to the actual question -- there's no real way to put a solid number on
> the number of "words" in a language. First of all, you need to define
> "word", and that is not an easy task. Assuming that you mean a lexemes --
> there is a lot of debate over what words are actually stored in the
> lexicon, given that people productively coin words all the time, but not
> all of those are necessarily stored. Then you have to somehow catalog all
> the words in the mental lexica of all native speakers.
>
> I really don't think that there are any good solutions to "How many words
> does English have?". At the very least, an absolute number is not
> possible. Going further and claiming that English has "the most words" is
> even more problematic, considering the number of languages that aren't even
> documented or are under documented.
Through the Language Glass opines that undocumented languages have fewer words
than those with a literary tradition since said tradition prevents deprecated
words from falling out of use. If you consider that, the size of the language
is not a benefit, but a curse: a load of obsolete, deprecated and vintage
words, which take up space in the human mind and to a point become elevated to
metrics of not just education but intelligence.
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: "English has the most words of any language"
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:06 am ((PDT))
--- On Wed, 3/20/13, Mechthild Czapp <[email protected]> wrote:
> Through the Language Glass opines that undocumented
> languages have fewer words than those with a literary
> tradition since said tradition prevents deprecated words
> from falling out of use. If you consider that, the size of
> the language is not a benefit, but a curse: a load of
> obsolete, deprecated and vintage words, which take up space
> in the human mind and to a point become elevated to metrics
> of not just education but intelligence.
Heaven forbid our minds should become cluttered with obsolete words, rather
than truly useful information like World Series stats for the last hundred
years or Brittany Spears lyrics or how to navigate through World of Warcraft!
Padraic
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: "English has the most words of any language"
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:32 am ((PDT))
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Wed, 3/20/13, Mechthild Czapp <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Through the Language Glass opines that undocumented
> > languages have fewer words than those with a literary
> > tradition since said tradition prevents deprecated words
> > from falling out of use. If you consider that, the size of
> > the language is not a benefit, but a curse: a load of
> > obsolete, deprecated and vintage words, which take up space
> > in the human mind and to a point become elevated to metrics
> > of not just education but intelligence.
>
> Heaven forbid our minds should become cluttered with obsolete words, rather
> than truly useful information like World Series stats for the last hundred
> years or Brittany Spears lyrics or how to navigate through World of
> Warcraft!
Oh, yes, it's such a wonderful argument to assume that the the things
someone would rather spend resources on are actually banal and worthless.
Unless your point is that we spend resources on plenty of things "just for
fun" -- in which case, the point is taken.
Granted, I'm not sure that older vocabulary really takes up mental
resources that could be used for anything other than lexicon. The brain is
a curious thing, and I don't know how much we know about how it actually
stores things. There's certainly an opportunity cost to increasing one's
vocabulary in order to impress employers/readers/potential mates. I'd say
at best, a language having more words (if we could determine that it had
more words) is a neutral proposition. Some people will enjoy it, and there
are benefits to having technical terminology, but preserving archaic terms
is of limited value.
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Is there an inverse relationship between lexical richness and gr
Posted by: "John Q" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:32 am ((PDT))
Daniel Bowman wrote:
Conversely, is it possible, or do we have examples of, languages with a very
minimal lexicon with a correspondingly rich grammar? Perhaps Ithkuil is an
example of this?
----------------------------------------------
Yes, Ithkuil was specifically designed to try to maximize morphology and
minimize the lexicon.
John Q.
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Is there an inverse relationship between lexical richness and gr
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:19 am ((PDT))
Isn't it possible that "rich grammar" could be interpreted to mean "rich
inventory of affixes or forms", in which case the lexicon is not
technically rich because once a lexical item is physically attached to, or
embedded within another word it ceases to be called a lexical item and is
called a grammatical inflection? Perhaps if the count was of "units of
meaning" where such a unit could be _either_ a grammatical form _or_ a
separate word, it might turn out that the count of units of meaning would
be similar from one language to another.
In other words, if all the affixes were detached and treated as separate
"words" the "word" count might be very similar from one language to
another. So there might be "conservation of units of meaning" where you
could trade an affix for a word, but the count of words plus affixes would
remain somewhat constant.
In point of fact, if two sentences in two different languages carry nearly
identical meaning then each element of that shared meaning _must_ be
carried by some element of the sentence, regardless of whether the carrier
is a word or an affix. It follows that the number of units of meaning
_must_ be the same from one language to another, and the only difference is
how those units are divided up between lexical words and grammatical
"words" (affixes).
--gary
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:32 AM, John Q <[email protected]> wrote:
> Daniel Bowman wrote:
>
> Conversely, is it possible, or do we have examples of, languages with a
> very minimal lexicon with a correspondingly rich grammar? Perhaps Ithkuil
> is an example of this?
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Yes, Ithkuil was specifically designed to try to maximize morphology and
> minimize the lexicon.
>
> John Q.
>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: Is there an inverse relationship between lexical richness and gr
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:29 am ((PDT))
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Isn't it possible that "rich grammar" could be interpreted to mean "rich
> inventory of affixes or forms", in which case the lexicon is not
> technically rich because once a lexical item is physically attached to, or
> embedded within another word it ceases to be called a lexical item and is
> called a grammatical inflection? Perhaps if the count was of "units of
> meaning" where such a unit could be _either_ a grammatical form _or_ a
> separate word, it might turn out that the count of units of meaning would
> be similar from one language to another.
>
Uh, do you mean morphemes?
> In other words, if all the affixes were detached and treated as separate
> "words" the "word" count might be very similar from one language to
> another. So there might be "conservation of units of meaning" where you
> could trade an affix for a word, but the count of words plus affixes would
> remain somewhat constant.
>
Affixes and words are certainly different things, though, and I don't know
if you could really map them 1-for-1. Maybe derivational affixes could be
treated as lexical items in some ways, but inflectional affixes are more
problematic.
> In point of fact, if two sentences in two different languages carry nearly
> identical meaning then each element of that shared meaning _must_ be
> carried by some element of the sentence, regardless of whether the carrier
> is a word or an affix. It follows that the number of units of meaning
> _must_ be the same from one language to another, and the only difference is
> how those units are divided up between lexical words and grammatical
> "words" (affixes).
>
I don't think this is a given. Lexical meaning is a very fuzzy thing --
you can translate between languages, yes, but very often most of the words
actually cover different semantic spaces when considering their use in
other contexts. It's entirely possible to have two words in the same
language that mean almost precisely the same thing as well, meaning that
you could end up with alternate translations in language A for a single
word in language B.
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: Is there an inverse relationship between lexical richness and gr
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:30 am ((PDT))
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Isn't it possible that "rich grammar" could be interpreted to mean "rich
> inventory of affixes or forms", in which case the lexicon is not
> technically rich because once a lexical item is physically attached to, or
> embedded within another word it ceases to be called a lexical item and is
> called a grammatical inflection? Perhaps if the count was of "units of
> meaning" where such a unit could be _either_ a grammatical form _or_ a
> separate word, it might turn out that the count of units of meaning would
> be similar from one language to another.
>
> In other words, if all the affixes were detached and treated as separate
> "words" the "word" count might be very similar from one language to
> another. So there might be "conservation of units of meaning" where you
> could trade an affix for a word, but the count of words plus affixes would
> remain somewhat constant.
>
> In point of fact, if two sentences in two different languages carry nearly
> identical meaning then each element of that shared meaning _must_ be
> carried by some element of the sentence, regardless of whether the carrier
> is a word or an affix. It follows that the number of units of meaning
> _must_ be the same from one language to another, and the only difference is
> how those units are divided up between lexical words and grammatical
> "words" (affixes).
>
> That would make it a morpheme count, right?
stevo
> --gary
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:32 AM, John Q <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Daniel Bowman wrote:
> >
> > Conversely, is it possible, or do we have examples of, languages with a
> > very minimal lexicon with a correspondingly rich grammar? Perhaps
> Ithkuil
> > is an example of this?
> > ----------------------------------------------
> >
> > Yes, Ithkuil was specifically designed to try to maximize morphology and
> > minimize the lexicon.
> >
> > John Q.
> >
>
Messages in this topic (7)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
