There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Pesky morphemes
From: And Rosta
1.2. Re: Pesky morphemes
From: R A Brown
2a. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
From: Matthew Turnbull
2b. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
From: Adam Walker
2c. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
From: George Marques de Jesus
2d. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
2e. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
2f. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
2g. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
From: Matthew Turnbull
2h. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
From: Alex Fink
2i. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
2j. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
From: Daniel Burgener
2k. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
From: Patrick Dunn
2l. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
From: C. Brickner
3a. Re: Swedish /x/
From: BPJ
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Pesky morphemes
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:30 am ((PDT))
R A Brown, On 27/03/2013 15:32:
> On 27/03/2013 02:58, And Rosta wrote:
>> R A Brown, On 26/03/2013 19:07:
>>> He goes to to say that "a noun plural in English
>>> usually consists of two morphemes, a noun stem and the
>>> morpheme {Plural}." But tho {Plural} is generally
>>> realized (in my lect) as [ɪz], [z] or [s], there are
>>> others, e.g. sheep, men, children, mice, radii,
>>> formulae, criteria, cherubim, passers-by. Trask
>>> represents _feet_ as: {_foot_} plus {Plural}
>>
>> That's almost how I do inflection, except that Plural
>> (or Preterite, and so forth) is a syntactic category. So
>> on the one hand on the phonology side of the sentence
>> you've got your variant phonological shapes, //f . OO,EE
>> . t//, "stem+z", etc., and on the other hand on the
>> syntactic side of the sentence you've got the things,
>> such as Plural, that trigger the phonological variants.
>
> Yes, but I am maintaining that a _morpheme_ is an _abstract_
> unit, being the smallest grammatical unit in a language.
> The phonological form is the actual instantiation of the
> morpheme in a particular context.
I don't see phonological forms as instantiations of syntactic units. Better,
they're representations, or merely 'correspondents' of syntactic units. Since
Plural is syntactic rather than phonological, I use [ ] rather than { } for it.
> We need to know, for example that in _{car} plus {Plural}_
> {Plural} is instantiated as /z/, whereas in {child} +
> {Plural} the morpheme {Plural} is instantiated ax /rn=/ and
> also triggers a vowel change in {child} /tʃajld/ --> /tʃɪld/.
I agree with the basic idea, but "plus" needs to be tightened up, in ways too
complicated to fit in an off-topic email discussion, but in simple terms "{CAR}
+ [plural]" means "{CAR} when it is the phonological shape corresponding to a
plural noun node in syntax.
In {CHILD} + [plural], the shape of {CHILD} is the stem //tS.I.l.d// + //rn//
(roughly), but I don't see any grounds for saying that [Plural] is instantiated
as //rn//.
---And.
Messages in this topic (56)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: Pesky morphemes
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:45 am ((PDT))
On 28/03/2013 13:30, And Rosta wrote:
> R A Brown, On 27/03/2013 15:32:
[snip - all points noted]
> I agree with the basic idea, but "plus" needs to be
> tightened up, in ways too complicated to fit in an
> off-topic email discussion, but in simple terms "{CAR} +
> [plural]" means "{CAR} when it is the phonological shape
> corresponding to a plural noun node in syntax.
'plus' was simply taken from Trask, and being used for
convenience (i.e. not having to think of something else -
the same applies to shape of brackets). Trask, of course,
was merely giving a fairly simple dictionary entry, rather
than elaborating any particular theoretic viewpoint.
> In {CHILD} + [plural], the shape of {CHILD} is the stem
> //tS.I.l.d// + //rn// (roughly), but I don't see any
> grounds for saying that [Plural] is instantiated as
> //rn//.
I don't think we're many miles apart - probably coming at
things from different angles.
But I'm not intending at the moment to work out any
hard-and-fast system - I haven't got time for one thing.
It seems that it is only you and I now exchanging emails on
this off-topic discussion, and it has certainly helped clear
some of my thinking - not enough, perhaps, but it can wait.
We are, I think, both agreed that morphemes, whatever they
are, are not identical to "units of meaning", which is what
sparked off this thread. As I say, I don't think we're
miles apart.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (56)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
Posted by: "Matthew Turnbull" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:58 am ((PDT))
In my experience pronouns will tend to make culturally relevant
distinctions, make as many or as few as you like, but keep in mind that
pronouns that don't get used wouldn't last.
The only ''unconventional'' pronoun system I've ever made includes a
systemic sexuality distinction, which determines certain marriage and
cultural customs, basically the same way sex specific pronouns work in
English (he vs she). There is a sexuality indeterminate pronoun also.
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:58 am ((PDT))
Gravgaln pronouns don't distinguish sex (no he/she type distinctions) since
the sexes live apart most of their lives. Instead, Gravgaln pronouns
distinguish caste, which is very important in their culture. That means
there is one word for I used by first-castes, a different word for I used
by second-castes, another word for I used by third-castes and yet another
word for I used by out-castes. The same is true for You and He/She and for
the plurals, but the plurals add some forms for mixed groups
(first-and-second, second-and-third, if an out-caste is included in a group
you default to we and you-out-caste or you and it, etc.).
Adam
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Is his a limit on pronominal system creation? I know there's duals, and
> four-person systems, so what else is possible? I'm not there yet, but
> thought I'd ask the question now, while I'm working on the other sections
> of
> the language and Yemoran vocal anatomy. Strangely, the pronoun section is
> in
> with the verbs. I need at least six pronominal forms.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
Posted by: "George Marques de Jesus" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:02 am ((PDT))
I don't know if it happens anywhere else, but in my conlang, Mihousapeja, I
have a "presential we", in addition to the inclusive and exclusive
variations.
If you're in a party talking to your friend, the "inclusive we" means you
both, and the "presential we" means everyone in the party. If you're in a
business meeting, the "inclusive we" means all the companies involved, the
"exclusive we" means the company you represent, and the "presential we"
means the people in the room as persons, no companies involved.
::. George Marques .::
::. http://georgemarques.com.br .::
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:25 am ((PDT))
That's interesting. It sounds like there's room to work with.
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Adam Walker
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Creating A Prononominal System
Gravgaln pronouns don't distinguish sex (no he/she type distinctions) since
the sexes live apart most of their lives. Instead, Gravgaln pronouns
distinguish caste, which is very important in their culture. That means
there is one word for I used by first-castes, a different word for I used
by second-castes, another word for I used by third-castes and yet another
word for I used by out-castes. The same is true for You and He/She and for
the plurals, but the plurals add some forms for mixed groups
(first-and-second, second-and-third, if an out-caste is included in a group
you default to we and you-out-caste or you and it, etc.).
Adam
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Is his a limit on pronominal system creation? I know there's duals, and
> four-person systems, so what else is possible? I'm not there yet, but
> thought I'd ask the question now, while I'm working on the other sections
> of
> the language and Yemoran vocal anatomy. Strangely, the pronoun section is
> in
> with the verbs. I need at least six pronominal forms.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:27 am ((PDT))
A sexuality pronoun? How does that work?
I there one for merital status?
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Matthew Turnbull
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 6:59 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Creating A Prononominal System
In my experience pronouns will tend to make culturally relevant
distinctions, make as many or as few as you like, but keep in mind that
pronouns that don't get used wouldn't last.
The only ''unconventional'' pronoun system I've ever made includes a
systemic sexuality distinction, which determines certain marriage and
cultural customs, basically the same way sex specific pronouns work in
English (he vs she). There is a sexuality indeterminate pronoun also.
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:36 am ((PDT))
Go ahead ands end them off-list. I found a plain text link, but only your
message came through.
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Daniel Burgener
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:54 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Creating A Prononominal System
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Is his a limit on pronominal system creation? I know there's duals, and
> four-person systems, so what else is possible? I'm not there yet, but
> thought I'd ask the question now, while I'm working on the other sections
> of
> the language and Yemoran vocal anatomy. Strangely, the pronoun section is
> in
> with the verbs. I need at least six pronominal forms.
>
I asked a similar question on the list about pronouns a few months back and
got some very helpful answers which you might be interested in, regarding
some other options for pronouns. The first message is here:
http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=CONLANG;d1f9d3bd.1209A
I don't know how well your screenreader will handle the archives. Let me
know if you have problems and I'll copy the messages into a text file and
send it to you off-list so you can read it.
-Daniel
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2g. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
Posted by: "Matthew Turnbull" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:09 am ((PDT))
There are three sets of pronouns, each having a singular, plural, and
formal form. One set is used by and for Heterosexual people, another set is
used by and for Homosexual people, and the third set can be used by anyone,
but mostly for children. When you become an adult there is a ceremony where
you chose which of the three series you will use as an adult, picking
either the homo or hetero-sexual pronouns allows you less flexibility in
marriage, whereas the sexuality non-specific pronoun lets you marry anyone,
but is looked down on a little as being childish and undignified. The
language is pro-drop, so the pronouns come up less often than in English,
but their cultural relevance keeps them intact. It's basically the same as
He vs She in English, except imagine that you picked which one you would be
when you grow up, and that not picking is considered kind of silly, but not
seriously so.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Go ahead ands end them off-list. I found a plain text link, but only your
> message came through.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Daniel Burgener
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 4:54 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Creating A Prononominal System
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Is his a limit on pronominal system creation? I know there's duals, and
> > four-person systems, so what else is possible? I'm not there yet, but
> > thought I'd ask the question now, while I'm working on the other sections
> > of
> > the language and Yemoran vocal anatomy. Strangely, the pronoun section is
> > in
> > with the verbs. I need at least six pronominal forms.
> >
>
> I asked a similar question on the list about pronouns a few months back and
> got some very helpful answers which you might be interested in, regarding
> some other options for pronouns. The first message is here:
>
> http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=CONLANG;d1f9d3bd.1209A
>
> I don't know how well your screenreader will handle the archives. Let me
> know if you have problems and I'll copy the messages into a text file and
> send it to you off-list so you can read it.
>
> -Daniel
>
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2h. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:25 am ((PDT))
Double- (no, triple-)header.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:02:33 -0300, George Marques de Jesus
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I don't know if it happens anywhere else, but in my conlang, Mihousapeja, I
>have a "presential we", in addition to the inclusive and exclusive
>variations.
>
>If you're in a party talking to your friend, the "inclusive we" means you
>both, and the "presential we" means everyone in the party. If you're in a
>business meeting, the "inclusive we" means all the companies involved, the
>"exclusive we" means the company you represent, and the "presential we"
>means the people in the room as persons, no companies involved.
I like this. What are the forms? Does the morphology suggest some of these
categories are closerly related than others, e.g.?
Cued by your latter example alone, a breakdown ran through my mind where you
could segment the semantics as follows, which would then be a nice
decomposition to reflect in morphology. Your first example belies it for
Mihousapeja, though.
(1) is the speaker in the group?
(2) is/are the listener(s) in the group?
(3) is the group extended to other people which the people present represent,
in the associative plural style?
1 2 3
Y Y Y inclusive we
Y Y N presential we
Y N Y exclusive we
Y N N 1st singular
N Y Y much like 2nd plural, in practice?
N Y N much like 2nd singular?
N N Y if this has any meaning, then I suppose 3rd person
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:21:21 +1300, yuri <[email protected]> wrote:
>There is no distinction between gender. The third person pronoun can
>be translated as "he" or "she". Any noun or pronoun can have the
>suffix -wīn or -tān to specify fem and masc respectively if such
>distinction is required. (a virtual choc fish to anyone who can guess
>the etymologies of -wīn and -tān).
I don't remember if Klaχa (can I spell it that way?) is a posteriori, so I'm at
a loss for how to guess...
Anyway, I've been meaning to reply to Benct's post of some weeks ago on
non-obligatory morphology, but this, optional sex marking, is one of these
examples of it that seems to be particularly exampled in conlangs but not in
natlangs. And it feels a bit to me like conlangers not really being fully
ready to renounce the 3rd person sex distinction in pronouns they're used to
from SAE (or wherever), though they like the notion of doing so.
If a natlang which actually had only one third person pronoun suddenly fell
upon a situation where it wants to distinguish a male and a female referent,
there's one natural solution that the resources of the language probably
provide already: don't use pronouns, but say "the man" and "the woman"! Or,
indeed, "the doctor.MASC" and "the doctor.FEM", or whatever the case may be, if
you already have those nominal derivational operations. Having the operation
spread to pronouns instead is odd; AFAIK, pronouns really don't like to allow
derivational operations.
Beyond that, if this business of marking both genders nonzero (as opposed to
the 'morphology is not optional' approach letting zero-marking serve for one of
them) is in the name of like social progressiveness... well, good, but having
gender marking at all isn't very socially progressive anyway, at least if there
are a finite number of categories (see for instance http://vimeo.com/61172068).
In any case, it'll be interesting to see what happens with e.g. English "he" /
"she" / singular "they". At present, even though singular "they" is
ungendered, it's basically forbidden from _specific_ reference, or at least
from uses where the sex of the referent is clear to the listener. But Language
Log for instance loves reporting on usages suggesting that the boundary may be
slipping.
And then this arrived as I was writing:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:09:22 -0500, Matthew Turnbull <[email protected]> wrote:
>There are three sets of pronouns, each having a singular, plural, and
>formal form. One set is used by and for Heterosexual people, another set is
>used by and for Homosexual people, and the third set can be used by anyone,
>but mostly for children. When you become an adult there is a ceremony where
>you chose which of the three series you will use as an adult, picking
>either the homo or hetero-sexual pronouns allows you less flexibility in
>marriage, whereas the sexuality non-specific pronoun lets you marry anyone,
>but is looked down on a little as being childish and undignified. The
>language is pro-drop, so the pronouns come up less often than in English,
>but their cultural relevance keeps them intact. It's basically the same as
>He vs She in English, except imagine that you picked which one you would be
>when you grow up, and that not picking is considered kind of silly, but not
>seriously so.
This is a nice take on the idea that avoids the non-obligatory morphology
worry: it's not gay vs. straight vs. unspecified, it's gay vs. straight vs. a
societal third category which is laden with its own meaning, in this case
childish noncommittiveness or whatever it was. I like.
Alex
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2i. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:03 am ((PDT))
I was tinking of a telephic pronoun. I also like pronouns that distinguish
merital status. I'm not sure how those would work.
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Alex Fink
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:25 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Creating A Prononominal System
Double- (no, triple-)header.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:02:33 -0300, George Marques de Jesus
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I don't know if it happens anywhere else, but in my conlang, Mihousapeja, I
>have a "presential we", in addition to the inclusive and exclusive
>variations.
>
>If you're in a party talking to your friend, the "inclusive we" means you
>both, and the "presential we" means everyone in the party. If you're in a
>business meeting, the "inclusive we" means all the companies involved, the
>"exclusive we" means the company you represent, and the "presential we"
>means the people in the room as persons, no companies involved.
I like this. What are the forms? Does the morphology suggest some of these
categories are closerly related than others, e.g.?
Cued by your latter example alone, a breakdown ran through my mind where you
could segment the semantics as follows, which would then be a nice
decomposition to reflect in morphology. Your first example belies it for
Mihousapeja, though.
(1) is the speaker in the group?
(2) is/are the listener(s) in the group?
(3) is the group extended to other people which the people present represent,
in the associative plural style?
1 2 3
Y Y Y inclusive we
Y Y N presential we
Y N Y exclusive we
Y N N 1st singular
N Y Y much like 2nd plural, in practice?
N Y N much like 2nd singular?
N N Y if this has any meaning, then I suppose 3rd person
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:21:21 +1300, yuri <[email protected]> wrote:
>There is no distinction between gender. The third person pronoun can
>be translated as "he" or "she". Any noun or pronoun can have the
>suffix -wīn or -tān to specify fem and masc respectively if such
>distinction is required. (a virtual choc fish to anyone who can guess
>the etymologies of -wīn and -tān).
I don't remember if Klaχa (can I spell it that way?) is a posteriori, so I'm at
a loss for how to guess...
Anyway, I've been meaning to reply to Benct's post of some weeks ago on
non-obligatory morphology, but this, optional sex marking, is one of these
examples of it that seems to be particularly exampled in conlangs but not in
natlangs. And it feels a bit to me like conlangers not really being fully
ready to renounce the 3rd person sex distinction in pronouns they're used to
from SAE (or wherever), though they like the notion of doing so.
If a natlang which actually had only one third person pronoun suddenly fell
upon a situation where it wants to distinguish a male and a female referent,
there's one natural solution that the resources of the language probably
provide already: don't use pronouns, but say "the man" and "the woman"! Or,
indeed, "the doctor.MASC" and "the doctor.FEM", or whatever the case may be, if
you already have those nominal derivational operations. Having the operation
spread to pronouns instead is odd; AFAIK, pronouns really don't like to allow
derivational operations.
Beyond that, if this business of marking both genders nonzero (as opposed to
the 'morphology is not optional' approach letting zero-marking serve for one of
them) is in the name of like social progressiveness... well, good, but having
gender marking at all isn't very socially progressive anyway, at least if there
are a finite number of categories (see for instance http://vimeo.com/61172068).
In any case, it'll be interesting to see what happens with e.g. English "he" /
"she" / singular "they". At present, even though singular "they" is
ungendered, it's basically forbidden from _specific_ reference, or at least
from uses where the sex of the referent is clear to the listener. But Language
Log for instance loves reporting on usages suggesting that the boundary may be
slipping.
And then this arrived as I was writing:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:09:22 -0500, Matthew Turnbull <[email protected]> wrote:
>There are three sets of pronouns, each having a singular, plural, and
>formal form. One set is used by and for Heterosexual people, another set is
>used by and for Homosexual people, and the third set can be used by anyone,
>but mostly for children. When you become an adult there is a ceremony where
>you chose which of the three series you will use as an adult, picking
>either the homo or hetero-sexual pronouns allows you less flexibility in
>marriage, whereas the sexuality non-specific pronoun lets you marry anyone,
>but is looked down on a little as being childish and undignified. The
>language is pro-drop, so the pronouns come up less often than in English,
>but their cultural relevance keeps them intact. It's basically the same as
>He vs She in English, except imagine that you picked which one you would be
>when you grow up, and that not picking is considered kind of silly, but not
>seriously so.
This is a nice take on the idea that avoids the non-obligatory morphology
worry: it's not gay vs. straight vs. unspecified, it's gay vs. straight vs. a
societal third category which is laden with its own meaning, in this case
childish noncommittiveness or whatever it was. I like.
Alex
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2j. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
Posted by: "Daniel Burgener" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:16 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
[email protected]> wrote:
> I was tinking of a telephic pronoun. I also like pronouns that distinguish
> merital status. I'm not sure how those would work.
>
In a language I'm working on with a friend which is primarily for gossiping
about relationships, we mark marital status as well as gender on all nouns,
including pronouns. There are four marital statuses: "single", "dating",
"married" and "other". Nouns that aren't people are assigned both a gender
and a marital status somewhat arbitrarily. (The word for chair might be
married and female for example).
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Go ahead ands end them off-list. I found a plain text link, but only your
> message came through.
Okay, I'll get that for you now.
-Daniel
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2k. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:19 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Daniel Burgener
<[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I was tinking of a telephic pronoun. I also like pronouns that
> distinguish
> > merital status. I'm not sure how those would work.
> >
>
> In a language I'm working on with a friend which is primarily for gossiping
> about relationships, we mark marital status as well as gender on all nouns,
> including pronouns. There are four marital statuses: "single", "dating",
> "married" and "other". Nouns that aren't people are assigned both a gender
> and a marital status somewhat arbitrarily. (The word for chair might be
> married and female for example).
>
Oooh. The opportunity for metaphor there is wonderful. "I just found a
chair.MAR at the thriftstore."
--
Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
order from Finishing Line
Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
and
Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2l. Re: Creating A Prononominal System
Posted by: "C. Brickner" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2013 2:12 pm ((PDT))
----- Original Message -----
On 28 March 2013 19:39, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews wrote:
> Is his a limit on pronominal system creation? I know there's duals, and
> four-person systems, so what else is possible?
Senjecas has the 4th person pronoun. The 3rd person pronoun uses the
demonstrative adjective ‘nus’, that. Gender is not marked on the pronoun. The
‘–us’ ending indicates that the referent can speak. Senjecas is also pro-drop
with respect to the subject. There are also prefixes to indicate sex for
pronouns and epicene nouns: ‘nor-‘ for masculine and ‘ii-‘ for feminine.
A sentence such as “she likes her” might be translated as “nus num pííra”. Not
too clear. Adding the sexual prefixes doesn’t help, “iinus iinum pííra”. So,
a 4th person pronoun is used, the demonstrative adjective ‘òlnus’, yon. Thus
“(ii)nus (ii)òlnum pííra’’.
BTW, Senjecas also uses ‘dus’, this, as a 3rd person pronoun. It is used in a
formal context by inferiors to superiors, rather like ‘His Majesty', e.g., “Do
you want to eat now/Does His/Your Majesty want to eat now?” “Dus ìmu édu
ṁécar.”
Charlie
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Swedish /x/
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:02 am ((PDT))
On 2013-03-27 04:38, Douglas Koller wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:42:49 +0100
>> From: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: Creating a Conlang with homophones
>> To: [email protected]
>
>> On 2013-03-26 11:17, BPJ wrote:
>
>>> OK here goes the official list, in alphabetical order.
>
> Thank you. I did *not* see these coming:
>
>>> 4) ge -- bagage.
>>> 5) gi -- religiös.
>>> 6) ige -- beige.
>>> 7) j -- jour -- 'emergency duty'.
>>> 8) je -- damejeanne -- obsolete, unlike the name Jeanette.
>>> 9) sc -- crescendo -- I have /ʂ/ rather than /x/ in this word,
>>> 18) ssj -- ryssja -- 'fyke (hoop) net'.
>>> 19) stg -- västgöte -- inhabitant of Västergötland/Västgötland
>>> province, and only in these two words.
>
> And lo, he did pronounce and make the native speakers cringe.
Heh! I later remembered that there are a couple more _stg_
words: _Östgötland_ + adjective & inhabitant and _gästgivare_
/ˈjɛxːivare/(!) 'innkeeper'.
On 2013-03-27 14:52, Roger Mills wrote:
> I've snipped the interesting list, but have an observation:
> It looks to me like these (mostly) could originally
> have been [Z] or [S}, then merging > [S], then > [x]--
> which is also what happened in Spanish !!!! And a lot
> of them are loan words.
Most of those spellings only occur in loan words. The only
'native' ones are _sj, ssj, sk, skj, stj_ and the oddball _stg_.
I doubt any words borrowed from French ever had [ʒ]
*in Swedish* except for some 18th-century showoffs. We
read some of Gustavus III's letters at Uni and there
were some inverted spellings like _Jer Ami_, and if
*he* did it it's a safe bet that everybody had [ʃ] for
French /ʒ/ at the period when most French loans came
into Swedish.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what happens in Dutch, but I do know that "baggage "
> comes out as "bagasi" in Indonesian, so it looks like something similar has
> happened to loans there too. And of course in Dutch *sk- > [sx- ~ sX-] and
> Engl. [S] so maybe we could be on our way to [x[ too, though I doubt
> it........
And Proto-Slavic!
The probable reason some Swedish accents shifted
[S] > [x] is that [tɕ] got deaffricized and /rs/
shifted to [ʂ] so that the sibilant space got
somewhat crowded. Finland Swedish accents which
still have [tɕ] for palatalized */k/ even have [ɕ]
where other accents have [ʃ] or [x]. Accents which
didn't shift [ʃ] to [x] (mostly in Central and
Northern Sweden) usually merged it with [ʂ] instead.
Nowadays there seems to be a tendency among younger
people who have [x] to shift /ɕ/ to [ʃ], so it's going
to be interesting to see whether *their* children
will merge /ɕ/ and [ʂ] -- anw whether I'll get to
experience it!
BTW /x/ has a lot of regional/individual/contextual
allophones, including the famous but actually rare [ɧ],
[x͡ɸ] (which used to be common on the West coast -- my
father had it) and even [ɸ]. Most people at least
around here who have [x] actually have [χ] before back
vowels, and there is a similar variation in /k g ŋ/. I
used to wonder why I couldn't make an [ħ] when what I
thought was [χɑ] actually was [ħɑ]! :-)
/bpj
BTW, Roger, I saw a car with GWR on the licence plate
today!
Messages in this topic (15)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
