There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: English Orthography in the Future
From: Gary Shannon
1b. Re: English Orthography in the Future
From: George Corley
1c. Re: English Orthography in the Future
From: Daniel Myers
1d. Re: English Orthography in the Future
From: George Corley
1e. Re: English Orthography in the Future
From: J. 'Mach' Wust
1f. Re: English Orthography in the Future
From: George Corley
1g. Re: English Orthography in the Future
From: Matthew George
2. UCSD to stream Conlang lecture on Klingon, Dothraki, Na'vi
From: John H. Chalmers
3a. Re: translation exercises: McWhorter's 500 things language classes o
From: Garth Wallace
3b. Re: translation exercises: McWhorter's 500 things language classes o
From: Adam Walker
4.1. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
From: Garth Wallace
4.2. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
From: Allison Swenson
4.3. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
From: Leonardo Castro
4.4. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
From: George Corley
4.5. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
From: Garth Wallace
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: English Orthography in the Future
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 9:00 am ((PDT))
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:55 PM, J. 'Mach' Wust <[email protected]
> wrote:
---
>
> As for English orthography, I think it is extremely unlikely that it is
> going
> to change anytime soon. Two factors: The very high degree of English
> literacy
> and the use of English in numerous countries around the globe. Maybe at
> some
> point in the future English will have the same fate as Latin did: The
> spoken
> language becomes so distant from the written language that people don't
> relate to the written language any more but instead begin to write the
> spoken
> language. In the case of Latin, this process started after about 1000 years
> and was completed after about 1500 years. If these numbers are applied to
> English, it will not happen for at least another 500 years. Mind you that
> the
> comparison is not easy, since in the case of Latin, there was a very high
> degree of illiteracy.
>
> --
> grüess
> mach
>
Barring, of course, _The Decline and Fall of the English-Speaking Empire_
following which the Latin model might prove to be accurate as numerous
"Anglic" languages branch from the original, but largely forgotten English.
--gary
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: English Orthography in the Future
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 9:14 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:55 PM, J. 'Mach' Wust <
> [email protected]
> > wrote:
>
> ---
> >
>
>
> > As for English orthography, I think it is extremely unlikely that it is
> > going
> > to change anytime soon. Two factors: The very high degree of English
> > literacy
> > and the use of English in numerous countries around the globe. Maybe at
> > some
> > point in the future English will have the same fate as Latin did: The
> > spoken
> > language becomes so distant from the written language that people don't
> > relate to the written language any more but instead begin to write the
> > spoken
> > language. In the case of Latin, this process started after about 1000
> years
> > and was completed after about 1500 years. If these numbers are applied to
> > English, it will not happen for at least another 500 years. Mind you that
> > the
> > comparison is not easy, since in the case of Latin, there was a very high
> > degree of illiteracy.
> >
> > --
> > grüess
> > mach
> >
>
> Barring, of course, _The Decline and Fall of the English-Speaking Empire_
> following which the Latin model might prove to be accurate as numerous
> "Anglic" languages branch from the original, but largely forgotten English.
>
Those cultures would have to reject or de-emphasize their historical
connections as well. That might let the US drift further from everyone
else in written form first, perhaps, or it might not.
In any case, the fall of the Anglophone empire is a ways into the future if
we can even estimate it. The US isn't relinquishing it's hegemonic
position anytime soon. I'd say it's safe for 50-100 years (you can't
really predict politics further than that).
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: English Orthography in the Future
Posted by: "Daniel Myers" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 9:48 am ((PDT))
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: George Corley <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, June 03, 2013 12:14 pm
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Those cultures would have to reject or de-emphasize their historical
> connections as well. That might let the US drift further from everyone
> else in written form first, perhaps, or it might not.
>
> In any case, the fall of the Anglophone empire is a ways into the future if
> we can even estimate it. The US isn't relinquishing it's hegemonic
> position anytime soon. I'd say it's safe for 50-100 years (you can't
> really predict politics further than that).
Assuming that English retains its position as the language of
international commerce, I'd expect it to splinter into sublanguages in
different economic regions. Perhaps the Americas would have one
version, Europe a second, Asia a third, and Africa a fourth. In each
region the language might change to suit the kind of errors the local
non-English-speakers would make.
- Doc
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: English Orthography in the Future
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 10:16 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Daniel Myers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > From: George Corley <[email protected]>
> > Date: Mon, June 03, 2013 12:14 pm
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Those cultures would have to reject or de-emphasize their historical
> > connections as well. That might let the US drift further from everyone
> > else in written form first, perhaps, or it might not.
> >
> > In any case, the fall of the Anglophone empire is a ways into the future
> if
> > we can even estimate it. The US isn't relinquishing it's hegemonic
> > position anytime soon. I'd say it's safe for 50-100 years (you can't
> > really predict politics further than that).
>
>
> Assuming that English retains its position as the language of
> international commerce, I'd expect it to splinter into sublanguages in
> different economic regions. Perhaps the Americas would have one
> version, Europe a second, Asia a third, and Africa a fourth. In each
> region the language might change to suit the kind of errors the local
> non-English-speakers would make.
>
> - Doc
>
That I don't think will happen. English may lag in it's loss of status the
way Latin did, remaining a lingua franca far beyond the time when
Anglophone countries are the most powerful, but I think that future Anglic
languages will most likely crop up in those places where English remains a
mother tongue. So the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain,
Ireland, and South Africa are likely candidates, but India and the
Phillipines and other places where English is just a lingua franca will
more likely drop it as it loses prestige.
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: English Orthography in the Future
Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 11:08 am ((PDT))
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 12:16:05 -0500, George Corley wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Daniel Myers wrote:
>
>>
>> > -------- Original Message --------
>> > From: George Corley
>> > Date: Mon, June 03, 2013 12:14 pm
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Gary Shannon wrote:
>> >
>> > Those cultures would have to reject or de-emphasize their historical
>> > connections as well. That might let the US drift further from everyone
>> > else in written form first, perhaps, or it might not.
>> >
>> > In any case, the fall of the Anglophone empire is a ways into the future
>> if
>> > we can even estimate it. The US isn't relinquishing it's hegemonic
>> > position anytime soon. I'd say it's safe for 50-100 years (you can't
>> > really predict politics further than that).
>>
>>
>> Assuming that English retains its position as the language of
>> international commerce, I'd expect it to splinter into sublanguages in
>> different economic regions. Perhaps the Americas would have one
>> version, Europe a second, Asia a third, and Africa a fourth. In each
>> region the language might change to suit the kind of errors the local
>> non-English-speakers would make.
>>
>> - Doc
>>
>
>That I don't think will happen. English may lag in it's loss of status the
>way Latin did, remaining a lingua franca far beyond the time when
>Anglophone countries are the most powerful, but I think that future Anglic
>languages will most likely crop up in those places where English remains a
>mother tongue. So the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain,
>Ireland, and South Africa are likely candidates, but India and the
>Phillipines and other places where English is just a lingua franca will
>more likely drop it as it loses prestige.
An important difference between the evolution of Latin vernaculars into
Romance languages and a future evolution of English varieties into Anglic
languages is the presence of mass media. I think they have a leveling effect,
while widespread literacy has a conserving effect.
Even if there were a sudden drop in mass media and literacy, the written
language might stay the same for many centuries, and literate Anglic speakers
would still consider their own language to be English, even though they'd
know it is quite different from vulgar Anglic. I think.
--
grüess
mach
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: English Orthography in the Future
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 11:35 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:08 PM, J. 'Mach' Wust
<[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 12:16:05 -0500, George Corley wrote:
> >>
> >> Assuming that English retains its position as the language of
> >> international commerce, I'd expect it to splinter into sublanguages in
> >> different economic regions. Perhaps the Americas would have one
> >> version, Europe a second, Asia a third, and Africa a fourth. In each
> >> region the language might change to suit the kind of errors the local
> >> non-English-speakers would make.
> >>
> >> - Doc
> >>
> >
> >That I don't think will happen. English may lag in it's loss of status
> the
> >way Latin did, remaining a lingua franca far beyond the time when
> >Anglophone countries are the most powerful, but I think that future Anglic
> >languages will most likely crop up in those places where English remains a
> >mother tongue. So the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain,
> >Ireland, and South Africa are likely candidates, but India and the
> >Phillipines and other places where English is just a lingua franca will
> >more likely drop it as it loses prestige.
>
> An important difference between the evolution of Latin vernaculars into
> Romance languages and a future evolution of English varieties into Anglic
> languages is the presence of mass media. I think they have a leveling
> effect,
> while widespread literacy has a conserving effect.
>
> Even if there were a sudden drop in mass media and literacy, the written
> language might stay the same for many centuries, and literate Anglic
> speakers
> would still consider their own language to be English, even though they'd
> know it is quite different from vulgar Anglic. I think.
Mass media is relatively know, and I don't know if we can really know at
this point whether it can slow or harmonize language change to such a
degree. It does seem to help with harmonizing the lexicon, but that says
nothing about sound changes or grammar. In any case, nothing about that
argument says anything about my argument that future Anglic languages are
more likely to occur in places where English is a significant mother
tongue.
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: English Orthography in the Future
Posted by: "Matthew George" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 3:00 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
> No, that'd be a horrid thing to require; a page using it would lack
> stylistic consistency and therefore be ugly. The shape of thorn
> should be assembled of the same elements as the rest of the letters.
> Typography 101, really.
>
The letter 'v' is pointed. So is 'w' in many fonts. 'N', 'M', 'W', and
both 'k' and 'K' are pointy.
Besides, there needs to be a certain level of variation, else the
typography becomes uniform. Shifting back and forth between pointy and
rounded shapes is better than perfect consistency with a single type.
I see no reason why an angular thorn is inferior to a rounded one, and I
think it looks much better. You are of course entitled to your opinion,
unless Proposition 304 passes, and we all pray it will.
Matt G.
>
> As I learned from Michael Everson (also by the way a thorn fan:
> http://evertype.com/blog/thorn/), this is the same mistake -- to
> shamelessly take the typographers' side -- made by the European
> Commission in introducing the euro symbol, whose aspect ratio and bar
> widths and everything else were specified to complete unyielding
> precision: meaning that if you wanted to design a typeface of any
> other constitution, your choices were to either have the euro symbol
> stick out like a sore thumb or be Technically Not Actually the Euro
> Symbol.
> http://www.fontshop.com/blog/fontmag/002/02_euro/
>
> MorphemeAddict wrote:
> > I'd much rather have ð edh than þ thorn for th, mostly because þ is so
> > similar to p.
>
> I'm surprised I'm in such an apparent minority in handwriting d
> exactly the same way as the main stroke of ð (both from the inside
> out).
>
> In fact my personal-use handwriting already uses both eth and thorn,
> and admittedly thorn and lowercase p are more confusable than most
> other pairs. (The loop has simplified; they both look like a á
of
> varying proportions).
>
> Alex, with apologies to those whose threading I broke
>
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. UCSD to stream Conlang lecture on Klingon, Dothraki, Na'vi
Posted by: "John H. Chalmers" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 9:07 am ((PDT))
http://www.uctv.tv/shows/Language-Crafters-Klingon-Navi-and-Dothrak-25204
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: translation exercises: McWhorter's 500 things language classes o
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 10:38 am ((PDT))
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Unless, of course, this is a perfectly normal, hardly bat an eyelash when
> it does happen, sort of event. Why, in the Eastlands of the World, your
> average witch's cottage is a veritable "Auntimoany Can Dance" of whirling
> cutlery and contredancing candelabras. Although the company disavows all
> knowledge of such events, chairs merrily chasing various other pieces of
> furniture about the hall is commonplace in those households where one of
> Lord Maytagge's Self Actuating Laundry Board Mechanism with Attached
> Wringer is in use.
My old washer used to walk across the laundry room. Maybe it came from
the same manufacturer?
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: translation exercises: McWhorter's 500 things language classes o
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 11:14 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Garth Wallace <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Unless, of course, this is a perfectly normal, hardly bat an eyelash when
> > it does happen, sort of event. Why, in the Eastlands of the World, your
> > average witch's cottage is a veritable "Auntimoany Can Dance" of whirling
> > cutlery and contredancing candelabras. Although the company disavows all
> > knowledge of such events, chairs merrily chasing various other pieces of
> > furniture about the hall is commonplace in those households where one of
> > Lord Maytagge's Self Actuating Laundry Board Mechanism with Attached
> > Wringer is in use.
>
> My old washer used to walk across the laundry room. Maybe it came from
> the same manufacturer?
>
Ooooohhh! I had that one too. Actually, I've had several of those. Noisy
beasties!
Adam
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4.1. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 12:04 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Njenfalgar <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2013/6/2 George Corley <[email protected]>
>
>> Granted, there's issues in other places: I've known a few people who have
>> taken Japanese classes, and they apparently always start with the
>> grammatical polite forms. I often wonder if their conversations sound too
>> formal to Japanese speakers in some situations, possibly even off-putting.
>>
>
> Having learnt Vietnamese the same way, I have come to the conclusion that
> it kind-of makes sense. If your first ventures into actually speaking the
> language with real-life humans is with friends, and you use the polite
> forms, they might correct you, they might laugh, they might do might do
> many things, but there's no reason they would go hostile. If, on the other
> hand, your first time is in a very formal setting (which is quite common if
> you're in the country for tourism) and you only know intimate forms (many
> of which are identical with denigrating and hostile forms in Vietnamese)
> you might fare less well.
That's pretty true for Japanese too. The "plain forms" are mostly used
predicatively in informal situations within your in-group. As a
foreigner, you don't really have an in-group, at least at first, and
the "polite forms" are always acceptable.
There's also the fact that the polite forms tend to be simpler. Not
necessarily more regular, but more obviously regular. So there's an
advantage in terms of learning curve. On the other hand, while you can
usually figure out the polite forms from the plain forms, you can't
really go the other way without additional information, so to some
extent you have to re-learn the verbs.
Messages in this topic (33)
________________________________________________________________________
4.2. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
Posted by: "Allison Swenson" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 12:15 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Garth Wallace <[email protected]> wrote:
> There's also the fact that the polite forms tend to be simpler. Not
> necessarily more regular, but more obviously regular. So there's an
> advantage in terms of learning curve. On the other hand, while you can
> usually figure out the polite forms from the plain forms, you can't
> really go the other way without additional information, so to some
> extent you have to re-learn the verbs.
>
Why is this? Is it because polite forms are used less, or simply because
people try to speak more "correctly" when using polite forms?
--Allison Swenson
Messages in this topic (33)
________________________________________________________________________
4.3. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 12:32 pm ((PDT))
I have been to Paris three times and I had no problem in communicating
with most people*. Which French textbooks have you folks been using?
In the language school I studied French**, they used this one:
http://www.didierconnexions.com/
There's even the reference to [ÊÉËpa], spelt there as "j'sais pas" in it.
Naturally, sometimes I couldn't understand what they were talking to
each other***, so I guess that they avoided uncommon expressions when
they noted I was a foreigner.
Besides, if you are a tourist, what do you need to say? "Where's the
Tour Eiffel?", "Where's the metro?", "I want water.", "I'm lost!"...
If you want to sound as a native, you'll have to work harder in any
place.
BTW, when I was looking for phone cards, I asked an old black man on a
street and he told me very clearly something like "peut-être au
Chatelet, parce qu'ici il n'y a pas". I expected something more
difficult to understand, I don't know if he spoke that way because I'm
foreigner or because he was a foreigner too (although he apparently
worked in a store there).
* actually, I only had a little problem the first time when I was a
beginner French student, and I had more problem discussing Physics,
what was more expected, so we started speaking English sometimes.
**: I took the Active French online course of Livemocha simultaneously.
***: but this happens even in my own native language sometimes.
Até mais!
Leonardo
2013/6/2 Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[email protected]>:
> On 2 June 2013 10:44, James Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Well I do remember being a bit shocked when one of our French teachers
>> told us that the Parisian pronunciation of 'je ne sais pas' was [Se'pA].
>>
>> James
>
>
> It's not only Parisian! I myself will usually say something like [ÊÉËpa]
> (informally spelt "ch'ais pas"), [ÊsÉËpa] (spelt "ch'sais pas") or
> [ÊÉÌsÉËpa]/[ÊÌ©sÉËpa] (spelt "je sais pas"), depending on the level of
> formality (from the most informal to the most formal) and whatever's next
> or before in the sentence (it's complicated, Spoken French phonetics are a
> mess :) ). I'm from Normandy, and my accent is rather neutral (well, it
> used to be in any case. Since I've moved to the Netherlands I've developed
> a slight Dutch accent in my French :) . At least so people say :P ).
>
> As for the über-correct "je ne sais pas" (usually pronounced [ÊÉnsÉËpa],
> or
> much more rarely [ÊÉnÉsÉËpa]), you'd only hear it of people reading
> something written down, whether reciting from a book or reading a speech.
> Politicians might use it, but only in official circumstances and
> interviews. You'll hear it in films sometimes, but it's very jarring to my
> ears (it's extremely bookish). It will *never* be something someone would
> naturally produce in conversational usage.
>
> OK, now I'm really going on holidays, so it'll be a while before I can
> reply to any other post in that thread. Don't hesitate to reply though, I
> will eventually get to it!
>
> See you all!
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (33)
________________________________________________________________________
4.4. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 1:59 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Garth Wallace <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Njenfalgar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Having learnt Vietnamese the same way, I have come to the conclusion that
> > it kind-of makes sense. If your first ventures into actually speaking the
> > language with real-life humans is with friends, and you use the polite
> > forms, they might correct you, they might laugh, they might do might do
> > many things, but there's no reason they would go hostile. If, on the
> other
> > hand, your first time is in a very formal setting (which is quite common
> if
> > you're in the country for tourism) and you only know intimate forms (many
> > of which are identical with denigrating and hostile forms in Vietnamese)
> > you might fare less well.
>
> That's pretty true for Japanese too. The "plain forms" are mostly used
> predicatively in informal situations within your in-group. As a
> foreigner, you don't really have an in-group, at least at first, and
> the "polite forms" are always acceptable.
>
> There's also the fact that the polite forms tend to be simpler. Not
> necessarily more regular, but more obviously regular. So there's an
> advantage in terms of learning curve. On the other hand, while you can
> usually figure out the polite forms from the plain forms, you can't
> really go the other way without additional information, so to some
> extent you have to re-learn the verbs.
>
As you gain friends it would probably behoove you to learn the plain forms
and use them appropriately. I don't know much directly about Japanese, but
I have heard that polite forms can be used in informal situation to
indicate that the speaker is angry -- probably a way of putting social
distance between you and your interlocutor.
I know that in Chinese, I have had friends complain about using ä½ å¥½ (ni2hao3
"hello"), because it is too formal for use with close friends. I think it
makes them uncomfortable to hear it when they think that the relationship
is too close for it to be used.
Messages in this topic (33)
________________________________________________________________________
4.5. Re: "How do you say X (in LANGUAGE)?"
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" [email protected]
Date: Mon Jun 3, 2013 2:19 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Allison Swenson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Garth Wallace <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> There's also the fact that the polite forms tend to be simpler. Not
>> necessarily more regular, but more obviously regular. So there's an
>> advantage in terms of learning curve. On the other hand, while you can
>> usually figure out the polite forms from the plain forms, you can't
>> really go the other way without additional information, so to some
>> extent you have to re-learn the verbs.
>>
>
> Why is this? Is it because polite forms are used less, or simply because
> people try to speak more "correctly" when using polite forms?
The polite forms are all built by attaching suffixes (-masu, -mashita,
-masen, -masen deshita, etc.) to the same form of the verb, so e.g. if
you know that "tabemasu" is the positive nonpast of "eat", then you
know that "tabemashita" is the positive nonpast. But the polite stem
is formed differently for different verb classes: for ichidan verbs
(where the plain form ends in -eru or -iru), you strip off the -ru;
for godan verbs (most of the rest) you replace the -u with -i, and
suru & kuru just do their own thing. So if you know that "ikimasu" is
the polite nonpast of "to go", you don't necessarily know whether the
plain form is "iku" or "ikiru" without additional information.
As for how it got that way, I have no idea. Neither of those
possibilities seems likely to me though; polite forms are very common,
and just as likely to appear in allegro speech as in carefully
enunciated speech.
As an aside, I really don't like the "plain"/"polite" terminology.
It's actually completely orthogonal to things like honorific and
humble forms, and the relative status and in-group/out-group
membership considerations with verbs of giving and receiving, which
all have direct bearing on whether something is polite or not. And the
plain form is also used attributively regardless of social context.
But it seems to be universal.
Messages in this topic (33)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
