There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. NATLANG: Nominatives in Southern Sierra Miwok
From: Anthony Miles
1b. Re: NATLANG: Nominatives in Southern Sierra Miwok
From: Tim Smith
2a. Phonological alternation
From: Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones
2b. Re: Phonological alternation
From: Matthew Boutilier
2c. Re: Phonological alternation
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
2d. Re: Phonological alternation
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
2e. Re: Phonological alternation
From: Alex Fink
2f. Re: Phonological alternation
From: R A Brown
2g. Re: Phonological alternation
From: Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones
2h. Re: Phonological alternation
From: Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones
2i. Re: Phonological alternation
From: Matthew Boutilier
3a. Re: [THEORY] Good references on sound symbolism / phonosemantics.
From: Jim Henry
4a. Re: storing a graphical lexicon
From: Sai
4b. Re: storing a graphical lexicon
From: Alex Fink
4c. Re: storing a graphical lexicon
From: Daniel Myers
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. NATLANG: Nominatives in Southern Sierra Miwok
Posted by: "Anthony Miles" [email protected]
Date: Tue May 14, 2013 7:31 am ((PDT))
I was browsing Wikipedia for interesting case structures, and I come across
Southern Sierra Miwok, a language spoken by Native Americans in California.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Sierra_Miwok_language
Southern Sierra Miwok has nine cases, divided into three groups: autonomous,
subordinate, and possessive. Autonomous case suffixes are the last suffix on a
word. Subordinate case suffixes must be followed by an autonomous case suffix.
The possessive has two allomorphs, one autonomous, one subordinate.
The autonomous case suffixes are Nominative, Accusative, Temporal, and
Vocative.
Nominative is used for the subject of the sentence, forms modifying the subject
of a sentence (I guess 'adjective' is not a formal category in SSM), citation
forms, predicative and coordinative constructions, and as the autonomous case
when a subordinate case suffix is used.
Accusative is used for the direct object, the indirect object in a ditransitive
sentence (the example under Instrumental suggests a benefactive flavor), and an
accusative of duration.
Temporal is used with time words, location in time or space, although more
broadly than an English speaker would expect, venturing into adverbial
territory.
The Vocative is used with terms of address.
The subordinate case suffixes are Ablative, Allative, Locative, and
Instrumental.
Ablative is used for motion away from. The Ablative is followed by the
Nominative, possibily the Accusative, and occassionally a specific prefinal
suffix.
Allative is used for motion towards, nearness, and locative functions. The
Allative is followed by the Nominative, possibly the Accusative.
Locative is used for locative functions (duplicating some functions of the
Allative). The Locative is followed by the Nominative, sometimes a nominal
suffix, and rarely a diminutive.
Instrumental is used for instrumental (and comitative? "with" in the sentence
is ambigious) functions and for the direct object in a ditransitive
construction. (If someone remembers the name of this construction, please tell
me!)
Genitive can be autonomous or subordinate. If it is subordinate, it can be
followed by Nominative or Accusative.
IIUC This scheme allows all "nouns" outside of the Vocative and Temporal to be
marked as Nominative or Accusative, which actually simplifies the syntax of the
clause.I do, however, have some questions: firstly, has anyone seen this system
of subordinate and autonomous case marking outside North America? Or even
elsewhere in North America? Secondly, one of the allomorphs of the Nominative
Case is 0. This in itself is not surprising. Due to the autonomous/subordinate
system, in certain circumstances the Nominative allomorph following a
subordinate case suffix is 0. How does one determine that the Nominative
allomorph is there at all under such circumstances?
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: NATLANG: Nominatives in Southern Sierra Miwok
Posted by: "Tim Smith" [email protected]
Date: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 am ((PDT))
On 5/14/2013 10:31 AM, Anthony Miles wrote:
> I was browsing Wikipedia for interesting case structures, and I come across
> Southern Sierra Miwok, a language spoken by Native Americans in California.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Sierra_Miwok_language
>
> Southern Sierra Miwok has nine cases, divided into three groups: autonomous,
> subordinate, and possessive. Autonomous case suffixes are the last suffix on
> a word. Subordinate case suffixes must be followed by an autonomous case
> suffix. The possessive has two allomorphs, one autonomous, one subordinate.
>
> The autonomous case suffixes are Nominative, Accusative, Temporal, and
> Vocative.
>
> Nominative is used for the subject of the sentence, forms modifying the
> subject of a sentence (I guess 'adjective' is not a formal category in SSM),
> citation forms, predicative and coordinative constructions, and as the
> autonomous case when a subordinate case suffix is used.
>
> Accusative is used for the direct object, the indirect object in a
> ditransitive sentence (the example under Instrumental suggests a benefactive
> flavor), and an accusative of duration.
>
> Temporal is used with time words, location in time or space, although more
> broadly than an English speaker would expect, venturing into adverbial
> territory.
>
> The Vocative is used with terms of address.
>
> The subordinate case suffixes are Ablative, Allative, Locative, and
> Instrumental.
>
> Ablative is used for motion away from. The Ablative is followed by the
> Nominative, possibily the Accusative, and occassionally a specific prefinal
> suffix.
>
> Allative is used for motion towards, nearness, and locative functions. The
> Allative is followed by the Nominative, possibly the Accusative.
>
> Locative is used for locative functions (duplicating some functions of the
> Allative). The Locative is followed by the Nominative, sometimes a nominal
> suffix, and rarely a diminutive.
>
> Instrumental is used for instrumental (and comitative? "with" in the sentence
> is ambigious) functions and for the direct object in a ditransitive
> construction. (If someone remembers the name of this construction, please
> tell me!)
In languages with this type of ditransitive alignment, the direct object
of a monotransitive verb or the indirect object of a ditransitive verb
is called the primary object, and the direct object of a ditransitive
verb is called the secondary object. This ditransitive alignment is
often called "dechticetiative" (as opposed to "dative"); this
distinction is analogous to the distinction in monotransitive alignment
between accusative and ergative.
>
> Genitive can be autonomous or subordinate. If it is subordinate, it can be
> followed by Nominative or Accusative.
>
> IIUC This scheme allows all "nouns" outside of the Vocative and Temporal to
> be marked as Nominative or Accusative, which actually simplifies the syntax
> of the clause.I do, however, have some questions: firstly, has anyone seen
> this system of subordinate and autonomous case marking outside North America?
> Or even elsewhere in North America? Secondly, one of the allomorphs of the
> Nominative Case is 0. This in itself is not surprising. Due to the
> autonomous/subordinate system, in certain circumstances the Nominative
> allomorph following a subordinate case suffix is 0. How does one determine
> that the Nominative allomorph is there at all under such circumstances?
>
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Phonological alternation
Posted by: "Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones" [email protected]
Date: Tue May 14, 2013 7:32 am ((PDT))
Hi all,
Supposing you have a language in which there is a definite article, "a", which
is preposed to a noun beginning with a consonant:
"a tië" - "the path"
Suppose further that when the noun begins with a vowel, an "s-" is prefixed to
the noun, unless the following syllable begins with an "s" or "t", in which
case the prefix is "n-"
"a s-ave" - "the bird"; "a n-auto" - "the car";
Is there any better or "more scientific" way of describing this?
Thanks,
Jeff
Sent from my iPhone
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Phonological alternation
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" [email protected]
Date: Tue May 14, 2013 8:14 am ((PDT))
"phonological alternation" sounds great to me. it sounds similar to how the
english plural can show up as /-s/ or /-z/ depending on the voicedness of
the preceding phoneme. (some would argue that [s] and [z] are allophones in
this case, but i don't readily agree with that analysis.)
or you might say that /a/, /a-s/, and /a-n/ are *allomorphs* of the
definite article.
you could explain it historically by having a dissimilation rule where the
first of two coronal obstruents in consecutive syllables becomes unlike the
second, by turning into /n/? (or the other way, with /n/ assimilating to
the voiceless obstruentness of the following voiceless obstruent.)
sounds weird, but Georgian does a similar thing, where the -*uri* suffix
(which denotes nationality of inanimate things) becomes -*uli* IF the stem
to which it's suffixed contains an /r/!
*kartuli* 'Georgian'
*amerik'uli* 'American'
*pranguli *'French'
BUT
*it'aliuri* 'Italian'
that was more information than you requested, but i thought it was cool and
i'm procrastinating a lot this morning.
matt
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Supposing you have a language in which there is a definite article, "a",
> which is preposed to a noun beginning with a consonant:
>
> "a tië" - "the path"
>
> Suppose further that when the noun begins with a vowel, an "s-" is
> prefixed to the noun, unless the following syllable begins with an "s" or
> "t", in which case the prefix is "n-"
>
> "a s-ave" - "the bird"; "a n-auto" - "the car";
>
> Is there any better or "more scientific" way of describing this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Phonological alternation
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Tue May 14, 2013 8:32 am ((PDT))
Hallo conlangers!
On Tuesday 14 May 2013 17:13:58 Matthew Boutilier wrote:
> "phonological alternation" sounds great to me.
And it *is* the "official" term used by linguists.
> it sounds similar to how the
> english plural can show up as /-s/ or /-z/ depending on the voicedness of
> the preceding phoneme.
Yes, with a third allomorph, namely /-ɨz/ after sibilants.
> (some would argue that [s] and [z] are allophones in
> this case, but i don't readily agree with that analysis.)
>
> or you might say that /a/, /a-s/, and /a-n/ are *allomorphs* of the
> definite article.
Exactly. They are allomorphs of the definite article.
> you could explain it historically by having a dissimilation rule where the
> first of two coronal obstruents in consecutive syllables becomes unlike the
> second, by turning into /n/? (or the other way, with /n/ assimilating to
> the voiceless obstruentness of the following voiceless obstruent.)
Just that.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Phonological alternation
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Tue May 14, 2013 8:45 am ((PDT))
Hallo conlangers!
On Tuesday 14 May 2013 17:32:46 I wrote:
> Hallo conlangers!
>
> On Tuesday 14 May 2013 17:13:58 Matthew Boutilier wrote:
> > "phonological alternation" sounds great to me.
>
> And it *is* the "official" term used by linguists.
At least close. The precise term is _morphophonemic alternation_.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: Phonological alternation
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Tue May 14, 2013 9:04 am ((PDT))
On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:13:58 -0500, Matthew Boutilier <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"phonological alternation" sounds great to me.
[...]
>or you might say that /a/, /a-s/, and /a-n/ are *allomorphs* of the
>definite article.
The middle ground I'd probably take is to call it a morphophonemic alternation,
supposing it's not general enough that it happens to every /s/ in suitable
position.
>you could explain it historically by having a dissimilation rule where the
>first of two coronal obstruents in consecutive syllables becomes unlike the
>second, by turning into /n/? (or the other way, with /n/ assimilating to
>the voiceless obstruentness of the following voiceless obstruent.)
Those are both quite unexpected changes to have happen as regular sound
changes, though (if an [s] did get dissimilated, why wold it become [n] and not
something nearer like [t]?). The first hypothesis to jump to my mind was that
the article was originally */ans/, with first the [s] being dissimilatorily
lost before [s, t], and then in some order the whole coda being reduced to zero
before an onset and the (frequent enough) change [ns] > [s].
>sounds weird, but Georgian does a similar thing, where the -*uri* suffix
>(which denotes nationality of inanimate things) becomes -*uli* IF the stem
>to which it's suffixed contains an /r/!
No, that's less weird; coronal liquid dissimilation is much more of a thing
than /s/-dissimilation is. The Latin adjectiviser _-ālis_, for instance,
displays precisely the flip of this behaviour, becoming _-āris_ on stems with
an /l/ nearby: thus (Eng.) _velar, solar, polar, columnar, ..._ as against
_dental, natural, dual, regal, ..._. It's not consistent where the /l/ is
further back than stem-final, though; note e.g. the doublets _familiar ~
familial_, _linear ~ lineal_.
Alex
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: Phonological alternation
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Tue May 14, 2013 9:22 am ((PDT))
On 14/05/2013 16:45, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo conlangers!
>
> On Tuesday 14 May 2013 17:32:46 I wrote:
>
>> Hallo conlangers!
>>
>> On Tuesday 14 May 2013 17:13:58 Matthew Boutilier
>> wrote:
>>> "phonological alternation" sounds great to me.
>>
>> And it *is* the "official" term used by linguists.
>
> At least close. The precise term is _morphophonemic
> alternation_.
Yep - and is not uncommon for things like the definite and
indefinite articles. In Breton, e.g., "the" is:
_an_ before a word beginning with _n, t, d, h_ or a vowel;
_al_ before a word beginning with l-;
_ar_ before all other consonants.
The indefinite article, "un, ul, ur" behaves in a similar way.
--
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 (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2g. Re: Phonological alternation
Posted by: "Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones" [email protected]
Date: Tue May 14, 2013 9:59 am ((PDT))
Hi Matthew,
It was more the technical description I was looking for than the linguistic
terminology, but you supplied one and confirmation of the other.
The Georgian example is very interesting; does it mean that Georgian roots can
only have one /r/ in them, or is the alternation purely a phenomenon in
suffixes? I had been thinking that my construct was unusual or borderline
implausible, but from your Georgian (and English!) examples I see that in fact
they are not. Perhaps I will modify the rule to block /s-/ if /s/ appears
*anywhere* in a word. But, would that mean that I could no longer construct a
word with an ergative suffix /-s/, e.g. /autos/ ?
Sent from my iPhone
On 14 May 2013, at 16:13, Matthew Boutilier <[email protected]> wrote:
> "phonological alternation" sounds great to me. it sounds similar to how the
> english plural can show up as /-s/ or /-z/ depending on the voicedness of
> the preceding phoneme. (some would argue that [s] and [z] are allophones in
> this case, but i don't readily agree with that analysis.)
>
> or you might say that /a/, /a-s/, and /a-n/ are *allomorphs* of the
> definite article.
>
> you could explain it historically by having a dissimilation rule where the
> first of two coronal obstruents in consecutive syllables becomes unlike the
> second, by turning into /n/? (or the other way, with /n/ assimilating to
> the voiceless obstruentness of the following voiceless obstruent.)
>
> sounds weird, but Georgian does a similar thing, where the -*uri* suffix
> (which denotes nationality of inanimate things) becomes -*uli* IF the stem
> to which it's suffixed contains an /r/!
>
> *kartuli* 'Georgian'
> *amerik'uli* 'American'
> *pranguli *'French'
> BUT
> *it'aliuri* 'Italian'
>
> that was more information than you requested, but i thought it was cool and
> i'm procrastinating a lot this morning.
>
> matt
>
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Supposing you have a language in which there is a definite article, "a",
>> which is preposed to a noun beginning with a consonant:
>>
>> "a tië" - "the path"
>>
>> Suppose further that when the noun begins with a vowel, an "s-" is
>> prefixed to the noun, unless the following syllable begins with an "s" or
>> "t", in which case the prefix is "n-"
>>
>> "a s-ave" - "the bird"; "a n-auto" - "the car";
>>
>> Is there any better or "more scientific" way of describing this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2h. Re: Phonological alternation
Posted by: "Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones" [email protected]
Date: Tue May 14, 2013 10:07 am ((PDT))
Alex,
Your ex post facto explanation sounds reasonable, but I'm not clear on what's
unreasonable about mine? After all, in Finnish, (by which, some of you may
notice by my choice of vocabulary - which I intend to replace later - my
current conlang is inspired, the phoneme spelt "d" in the standard written
language surfaces as /D/, /l/ or /r/ in spoken dialects - all of which are very
far from the /t/ which appears before the consonant gradation giving rise to
(written) "d".
Sent from my iPhone
On 14 May 2013, at 17:04, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:13:58 -0500, Matthew Boutilier
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "phonological alternation" sounds great to me.
> [...]
>> or you might say that /a/, /a-s/, and /a-n/ are *allomorphs* of the
>> definite article.
>
> The middle ground I'd probably take is to call it a morphophonemic
> alternation, supposing it's not general enough that it happens to every /s/
> in suitable position.
>
>> you could explain it historically by having a dissimilation rule where the
>> first of two coronal obstruents in consecutive syllables becomes unlike the
>> second, by turning into /n/? (or the other way, with /n/ assimilating to
>> the voiceless obstruentness of the following voiceless obstruent.)
>
> Those are both quite unexpected changes to have happen as regular sound
> changes, though (if an [s] did get dissimilated, why wold it become [n] and
> not something nearer like [t]?). The first hypothesis to jump to my mind was
> that the article was originally */ans/, with first the [s] being
> dissimilatorily lost before [s, t], and then in some order the whole coda
> being reduced to zero before an onset and the (frequent enough) change [ns] >
> [s].
>
>> sounds weird, but Georgian does a similar thing, where the -*uri* suffix
>> (which denotes nationality of inanimate things) becomes -*uli* IF the stem
>> to which it's suffixed contains an /r/!
>
> No, that's less weird; coronal liquid dissimilation is much more of a thing
> than /s/-dissimilation is. The Latin adjectiviser _-ālis_, for instance,
> displays precisely the flip of this behaviour, becoming _-āris_ on stems with
> an /l/ nearby: thus (Eng.) _velar, solar, polar, columnar, ..._ as against
> _dental, natural, dual, regal, ..._. It's not consistent where the /l/ is
> further back than stem-final, though; note e.g. the doublets _familiar ~
> familial_, _linear ~ lineal_.
>
> Alex
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2i. Re: Phonological alternation
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" [email protected]
Date: Tue May 14, 2013 10:29 am ((PDT))
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The Georgian example is very interesting; does it mean that Georgian roots
> can only have one /r/ in them, or is the alternation purely a phenomenon in
> suffixes? I had been thinking that my construct was unusual or borderline
> implausible, but from your Georgian (and English!) examples I see that in
> fact they are not.
purely in *that* suffix.
for what it's worth, as an overall explanation i like Alex's: that is, if
you had some /n/-containing form */ans/, which would lose the *s
dissimilatorily.
> Perhaps I will modify the rule to block /s-/ if /s/ appears *anywhere* in
> a word. But, would that mean that I could no longer construct a word with
> an ergative suffix /-s/, e.g. /autos/ ?
>
not necessarily! real-life examples of *morphophonemic alternation* are
often old enough that they are no longer *phonetically* active (hence
"morpho*phonemic*"). in the Georgian example, there is no phonotactic
reason that e.g. ***amerik'uri* *couldn't* be a word. there is no rule in
modern Georgian that is violated by having multiple /r/s in one word. but
there is a general *pattern* that dictates how this particular morpheme
operates (which, to be sure, owes its existence to some historical
dissimilation).
so in your case: well, for one thing, you could simply say that the
phonological alternation in the definite article was phonologized a while
ago, and is no longer phonetically active. thus, *now* it would be *possible
* for your speakers to utter **"a s-auto," even though this is not the
correct form. (in much the same way as you could *pronounce* the plural of
'bee' as /bi:s/ - there's no restriction against it - but that's just not
correct.) and then, perhaps, the ergative /-s/ only came about later. but
that's making a lot of assumptions about how your case system evolved!
in addition, though, even if the /s/-dissimilation happens with *any /s/
throughout the word*, and happened *while* the ergative /-s/ already
existed, you still have a perfectly good escape route: analogy. so, you
might have an initial situation of
/a s-ave/ "the bird"
/a n-aves/ "the bird (ERG)"
but your speakers could very plausibly repair this to
/a s-ave/ "the bird"
/a s-aves/ "the bird (ERG)"
once the /s/-/s/ dissimilation was no longer phonetically productive. this
is the route i would take.
a case like this that i have dealt with recently is umlaut in Old High
German, specifically in n-stem nouns. you start with the following forms,
pre-umlaut:
*namo* "name (NOM)"
*namin* "name (DAT)"
and then you have primary umlaut occurring, which basically causes /a/ to
move to /e/ before an /i/ or a /j/.
*namo* "name (NOM)"
*nemin* "name (DAT)"
which really screws with the paradigm of these nouns!! luckily, after
umlaut was phonologized, the speakers caught on and straightened the
paradigm out, so in later texts you see, once again,
*namo* "name (NOM)" (modern *der Name*)
*namin* "name (DAT)" (modern *dem Namen*)
i hope that made some sense.
matt
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 14 May 2013, at 16:13, Matthew Boutilier <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > "phonological alternation" sounds great to me. it sounds similar to how
> the
> > english plural can show up as /-s/ or /-z/ depending on the voicedness of
> > the preceding phoneme. (some would argue that [s] and [z] are allophones
> in
> > this case, but i don't readily agree with that analysis.)
> >
> > or you might say that /a/, /a-s/, and /a-n/ are *allomorphs* of the
> > definite article.
> >
> > you could explain it historically by having a dissimilation rule where
> the
> > first of two coronal obstruents in consecutive syllables becomes unlike
> the
> > second, by turning into /n/? (or the other way, with /n/ assimilating to
> > the voiceless obstruentness of the following voiceless obstruent.)
> >
> > sounds weird, but Georgian does a similar thing, where the -*uri* suffix
> > (which denotes nationality of inanimate things) becomes -*uli* IF the
> stem
> > to which it's suffixed contains an /r/!
> >
> > *kartuli* 'Georgian'
> > *amerik'uli* 'American'
> > *pranguli *'French'
> > BUT
> > *it'aliuri* 'Italian'
> >
> > that was more information than you requested, but i thought it was cool
> and
> > i'm procrastinating a lot this morning.
> >
> > matt
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Supposing you have a language in which there is a definite article, "a",
> >> which is preposed to a noun beginning with a consonant:
> >>
> >> "a tië" - "the path"
> >>
> >> Suppose further that when the noun begins with a vowel, an "s-" is
> >> prefixed to the noun, unless the following syllable begins with an "s"
> or
> >> "t", in which case the prefix is "n-"
> >>
> >> "a s-ave" - "the bird"; "a n-auto" - "the car";
> >>
> >> Is there any better or "more scientific" way of describing this?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: [THEORY] Good references on sound symbolism / phonosemantics.
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [email protected]
Date: Tue May 14, 2013 8:07 am ((PDT))
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]> wrote:
> Does anyone want to suggest some references on sound symbolism /
> phonosemantics?
There's the video of John Quijada's talk at LCC2. I'm not sure where
it is, on YouTube or the LCS Podcast site or where... if the latter,
it's probably not available at the moment with the Dreamhost problems
LCS sites have been having.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: storing a graphical lexicon
Posted by: "Sai" [email protected]
Date: Tue May 14, 2013 9:27 am ((PDT))
IMHO a wiki wouldn't work well for us, because it solves the wrong
problem entirely.
Google Docs is good for the kind of collaboration we do (only a couple
people editing), and it's okayish in that it does inline images
reasonably well. MediaWiki is much more difficult to add new images,
which is something we do all the time, and doesn't provide for inline
editing of images or the like.
It has native support for image inclusion in the sense of *uploading*
a new image file, but that would be a lot more burdensome than our
current usage.
Basically, I think it does a lot to solve problems we don't have,
while making the problem we have (that google docs bogs down with a
lot of images) worse (because it makes adding new images more of a
pain).
- Sai
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:22 PM, H. S. Teoh <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:05:00PM -0400, Alex Fink wrote:
>> [inspired by the "Auxiliaries - want" thread.]
>>
>> Right now Sai and I keep the UNLWS lexicon as a table with embedded
>> image files in the Google document that is our grammar (to the extent
>> we keep it together at all! Lots is only on paper.) But this is not
>> very scalable. The document's kinda sluggish to load in the Google
>> docs editor, now, though there be only some seventy images in it. We
>> also tried using a Google drawing document, but that's rčally not
>> meant for it; it's horrible for keeping textual notes on the entries
>> in, and requires manual layout jiggling to add things, and is also
>> capped in reasonable size.
>>
>> Can anyone recommend a good way to store a lexicon wherein an image is
>> a vital part of each entry? For our case, ideally it'd be a non-local
>> one permitting online collaboration. (Font-based solutions, of
>> course, are a non-starter for UNLWS.)
> [...]
>
> What about a wiki system, like MediaWiki (that wikipedia is based on)?
> Image support is native, and if you structure the pages correctly, it
> should be relatively easy to maintain. You wouldn't put the entire
> lexicon in one page, obviously, but MediaWiki does have some automatic
> indexing functions that could prove useful (cf. wikipedia's category /
> alphabetical indices, for example).
>
> It doesn't have to be a *public* wiki, of course. I believe there are
> settings to restrict access, so you could just set it up to only allow
> two users (or however many collaborators you want).
>
>
> T
>
> --
> PNP = Plug 'N' Pray
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: storing a graphical lexicon
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Tue May 14, 2013 9:55 am ((PDT))
On Tue, 14 May 2013 13:26:39 -0300, Sai <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:22 PM, H. S. Teoh <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:05:00PM -0400, Alex Fink wrote:
>>> Can anyone recommend a good way to store a lexicon wherein an image is
>>> a vital part of each entry?
>>
>> What about a wiki system, like MediaWiki (that wikipedia is based on)?
>
>IMHO a wiki wouldn't work well for us, because it solves the wrong
>problem entirely.
>
>Google Docs is good for the kind of collaboration we do (only a couple
>people editing), and it's okayish in that it does inline images
>reasonably well. MediaWiki is much more difficult to add new images,
>which is something we do all the time, and doesn't provide for inline
>editing of images or the like.
Well, I'd say that insisting on _inline_ editing of images is artificially
lumping in a problem which should be treated separately. I don't think it's
criterial; GDocs is a kinda compromise solution on the two fronts of editing
and storing, and I was hoping that there'd be better out there on each front if
we forego it.
>It has native support for image inclusion in the sense of *uploading*
>a new image file, but that would be a lot more burdensome than our
>current usage.
In MediaWiki we could at least make the primary lexicon pages the image pages
themselves (the ones like File:foo.jpg on Wikipedia), which would cut out one
step of the burden.
Alex
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: storing a graphical lexicon
Posted by: "Daniel Myers" [email protected]
Date: Tue May 14, 2013 10:03 am ((PDT))
I can't view the UNLWS page (it's blocked by the firewall at work), but
I could probably cobble together a
custom website in PHP that would use web forms save the relevant
information as a flat-file database and allow
you to upload any necessary images. Then for display, the pages would
be dynamically generated.
It wouldn't be as general-purpose as a wiki or other CMS package, but it
would be tailor-made to suit.
Of course that would require a web site with hosting that supports PHP.
- Doc
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: Sai <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, May 14, 2013 12:26 pm
>
> IMHO a wiki wouldn't work well for us, because it solves the wrong
> problem entirely.
>
> Google Docs is good for the kind of collaboration we do (only a couple
> people editing), and it's okayish in that it does inline images
> reasonably well. MediaWiki is much more difficult to add new images,
> which is something we do all the time, and doesn't provide for inline
> editing of images or the like.
>
> It has native support for image inclusion in the sense of *uploading*
> a new image file, but that would be a lot more burdensome than our
> current usage.
>
> Basically, I think it does a lot to solve problems we don't have,
> while making the problem we have (that google docs bogs down with a
> lot of images) worse (because it makes adding new images more of a
> pain).
>
> - Sai
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:22 PM, H. S. Teoh <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:05:00PM -0400, Alex Fink wrote:
> >> [inspired by the "Auxiliaries - want" thread.]
> >>
> >> Right now Sai and I keep the UNLWS lexicon as a table with embedded
> >> image files in the Google document that is our grammar (to the extent
> >> we keep it together at all! Lots is only on paper.) But this is not
> >> very scalable. The document's kinda sluggish to load in the Google
> >> docs editor, now, though there be only some seventy images in it. We
> >> also tried using a Google drawing document, but that's rčally not
> >> meant for it; it's horrible for keeping textual notes on the entries
> >> in, and requires manual layout jiggling to add things, and is also
> >> capped in reasonable size.
> >>
> >> Can anyone recommend a good way to store a lexicon wherein an image is
> >> a vital part of each entry? For our case, ideally it'd be a non-local
> >> one permitting online collaboration. (Font-based solutions, of
> >> course, are a non-starter for UNLWS.)
> > [...]
> >
> > What about a wiki system, like MediaWiki (that wikipedia is based on)?
> > Image support is native, and if you structure the pages correctly, it
> > should be relatively easy to maintain. You wouldn't put the entire
> > lexicon in one page, obviously, but MediaWiki does have some automatic
> > indexing functions that could prove useful (cf. wikipedia's category /
> > alphabetical indices, for example).
> >
> > It doesn't have to be a *public* wiki, of course. I believe there are
> > settings to restrict access, so you could just set it up to only allow
> > two users (or however many collaborators you want).
> >
> >
> > T
> >
> > --
> > PNP = Plug 'N' Pray
Messages in this topic (5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
