There are 9 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Retroflex consonants - how are they different from consonants fo
From: Patrick Dunn
1b. Re: Retroflex consonants - how are they different from consonants fo
From: Patrick Dunn
2a. Re: Teonaht grammar?
From: Padraic Brown
3a. Re: Noun Phrases in (nat-new) Terzemian
From: Paul Bennett
4a. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
From: Jim Henry
4b. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
From: neo gu
4c. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
From: Padraic Brown
5a. Re: Yet Another Simple Self-Segregating Morphology
From: Jim Henry
6. Interview with DJP on BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme
From: James Campbell
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Retroflex consonants - how are they different from consonants fo
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 8, 2013 7:14 pm ((PDT))
Thanks, And, for the friendly and polite correction.
As always, you're a mensch.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:23 PM, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
> Patrick Dunn, On 09/05/2013 01:09:
>
> I am a great fan of Catford's book on phonology,
>>
>
> Catford never wrote a book on phonology, and even if he had it would not
> be relevant to this thread. He did, however, write a superb book on
> phonetics, _Fundamental problems in phonetics_ and an excellent textbook,
> _A practical introduction to phonetics_.
>
> --And.
>
--
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 (8)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Retroflex consonants - how are they different from consonants fo
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 8, 2013 9:35 pm ((PDT))
Of course, it was A Practical Introduction to Phonetics that I was thinking
of. I had to pull it from my shelf.
Again, I'm terribly sorry that I typed one word while thinking another.
I'm sure that empires would have fallen today, had And not sputtered to
the defense of proper terminology right quick.
Again, yer a hero, man.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Teonaht grammar?
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Wed May 8, 2013 8:15 pm ((PDT))
Godaddy.com says that her (newer) domain, cavedreaming.com/ expired this
month. I'm not sure if she's aware of this . . . will drop her a line and
see.
Padraic
--- On Wed, 5/8/13, David McCann <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: David McCann <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [CONLANG] Teonaht grammar?
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013, 11:27 AM
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 12:41:07 -0700
> "H. S. Teoh" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know what happened to Sally Caves' online
> pages about
> > Teonaht? None of the links that show up in Google work
>
> But Duckduckgo reveals
> http://web.archive.org/web/20060717052450/http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/contents.html
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Noun Phrases in (nat-new) Terzemian
Posted by: "Paul Bennett" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 2:54 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 4/22/13, Paul Bennett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Actually, "noun" is too strong a word. Terzemian has a split between
>> "nominals" (which can be inflected as either verbs or nouns (or
>> adjectives for that matter)) vs "verbs" (which can only be inflected as
>> verbs, as the name suggests).
>
> What are some examples of Terzemian verbs -- words that can only be
> inflected as verbs? I ask because Talarian works in similar fashion:
> many roots can take either nominal or verbal morphology depending on
> context of the moment. Rather like English nounverbs such as "dish" or
> "love". I haven't yet done much thinking on where the dividing line
> between the groups is.
Nominals in Terzemian come from PIE nouns, adjectives, and
intransitive verbs -- and indeed may serve as any of these. Most
nouns, adjectives, and intransitive verbs borrowed from other
languages (certainly nouns, and just about anything else, if borrowed
early) also fit in the nominal part of speech.
Verbs, on the other hand, come from PIE (or borrowed) transitive verbs
and adverbs (and many words borrowed more recently).
Basically, if it's a thing, or a modifier with one head, or a
predicate with one argument, it's a nominal. Unless it's recently
borrowed, or just plain weird.
One example is 'riž', which means "king / kingdom / to rule / to be
ruled" depending on how it's inflected. For example, 'rižem' is "the
king (who is me)" ~ "I rule" ~ "I am the king". Meanwhile, 'rižendem"
is "the subject / ruled (one) (who is me)" ~ "I am ruled" ~ "I am the
subject / I am the ruled (one)". Then, 'rižet' is "the king (who is
him)" ~ "he rules" ~ "he is the king", and you can probably fill in
the blanks for 'rižendet".
Other related words are 'riž' "kingdom", 'eriž' "without (a) kingdom"
~ "no kingdom", and 'rižni' "without a king" ~ "no king".
The process for making transitive verbs out of nominals is basically
the same as the process for making relative clauses, but I haven't
quite worked out the details yet. The basic idea is a combination of
Suffixaufnahme and the genitive or commitative case. The result would
usually best be translated literally into English as an NP, but
poetically or literarily as a VP.
--
Paul
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 2:56 am ((PDT))
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Tue, 5/7/13, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Over on the relay list, relay 20 is still sloooooowly grinding its way
>> to an end. I think someone proposed going ahead and starting relay
>> 21, but there was resistance to the idea of starting it before relay
>> 20 finishes. If relay 20 doesn't finish in another month or two,
>> though, I think we should reconsider it.
>
> A *month* or *two*!?
Well, I think that should be enough time, given that at least one of
the rings seems to be at an end. The most recent post on the relay
list says that Mechtild Czapp sent her text to Chrysaor Jordan some
time ago, and he's the relay master. I'm not sure about the other
ring; there doesn't seem to have been any activity on that one since
March.
> Wow. Isn't this the relay that started last fall or something?
In early November. If I'd known it was going to last so long, I
wouldn't have been in such a hurry to get my text finished within 48
hours despite being really busy with other things. On the bright
side, my hurry probably introduced some major divergence right out of
the starting gate.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
Posted by: "neo gu" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 5:57 am ((PDT))
On Thu, 9 May 2013 05:56:38 -0400, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>> --- On Tue, 5/7/13, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Over on the relay list, relay 20 is still sloooooowly grinding its way
>>> to an end. I think someone proposed going ahead and starting relay
>>> 21, but there was resistance to the idea of starting it before relay
>>> 20 finishes. If relay 20 doesn't finish in another month or two,
>>> though, I think we should reconsider it.
>>
>> A *month* or *two*!?
>
>Well, I think that should be enough time, given that at least one of
>the rings seems to be at an end. The most recent post on the relay
>list says that Mechtild Czapp sent her text to Chrysaor Jordan some
>time ago, and he's the relay master. I'm not sure about the other
>ring; there doesn't seem to have been any activity on that one since
>March.
I believe Tony has long since sent the Tariatta text to Chrysaor. So it's
probably as good as finished. I expect to publish my own text soon. I think we
can start thinking about who's going to run the next relay.
>
>--
>Jim Henry
>http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
>http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 7:19 am ((PDT))
--- On Thu, 5/9/13, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Over on the relay list, relay 20 is still sloooooowly grinding its way
>
> > A *month* or *two*!?
>
> Well, I think that should be enough time, given that at least one of
> the rings seems to be at an end.
Me, I think three months ought to be enough time for a whóle relay to run
its course. There seems to be either too many people, too much time being
taken, too much diddling, not enough passing on of torches if one can't
work out a reasonable solution within the time frame or perhaps too many
goblins in the works.
> The most recent post on the relay list says that Mechtild Czapp sent her
> text to Chrysaor Jordan some time ago, and he's the relay master. I'm
> not sure about the other ring; there doesn't seem to have been any
> activity on that one since March.
Wow again.
> > Wow. Isn't this the relay that started last fall or something?
>
> In early November.
They're coming up on their seventh monthniversary -- that's not really a
good thing! I don't recall the early relays taking anything like as long
as this! I know it always took a long while for the Master to put the web
page together with all the texts, but the relays themselves seemed to move
along pretty well. Possibly it was the liberal use of motivational
prodding.
> If I'd known it was going to last so long, I wouldn't have been in such
> a hurry to get my text finished within 48 hours despite being really
> busy with other things.
Well, be that as it may, I would still commend you for upholding your end
of the bargain! If everyone starts up with the attitude of "well, we always
take four or six months to do these things, so I'll just take an extra
week to do my torch -- if I get around to it!", then these relays will
never finish.
> On the bright side, my hurry probably introduced some major divergence
> right out of the starting gate.
There is always a silver lining, and no mistake! More badgers!
Padraic
> Jim Henry
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Yet Another Simple Self-Segregating Morphology
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 3:55 am ((PDT))
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> I guess maybe word boundaries don't matter so much in this language, ;-)
You could reserve one consonant for marking word boundaries. Or you
could distinguish diphthongs from vowel sequences, so for instance
"laj mada" is two words and "laimada" is a compound word.
Actually, I think I'd rather do it the other way around, with a
reserved consonant or semivowel for compounding roots with the same
vowel, and an epenthetic vowel for marking word boundaries between
words ending/beginning with the same vowel. But if you care only
about one level of boundary, your scheme is a good one, less intrusive
than many (though it could get monotonous if you wind up needing a lot
of 3+ syllable morphemes).
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6. Interview with DJP on BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme
Posted by: "James Campbell" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 6:16 am ((PDT))
It's at 2 hours 24.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01s8qx7/Today_09_05_2013/
___________________
James Campbell
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
<http://www.zolid.com/> www.zolid.com . "Boring, but a cool boring."
<http://www.insertcrisps.com/> www.insertcrisps.com . Insert crisps to
continue
Messages in this topic (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
