There are 8 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: writing (almost) entirely in lower-case letters
From: Roger Mills
1b. Re: writing (almost) entirely in lower-case letters
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
1c. Re: writing (almost) entirely in lower-case letters
From: Adam Walker
1d. Re: writing (almost) entirely in lower-case letters
From: Douglas Koller
2a. Re: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates
From: Adam Walker
2b. Re: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates
From: Douglas Koller
3. Jun11 noun cases
From: neo gu
4. Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
From: Arnt Richard Johansen
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: writing (almost) entirely in lower-case letters
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:12 am ((PDT))
--- On Mon, 6/17/13, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
I haven't made anything which uses Roman script natively.
Alex
=======================================
Neither have I.
My 2 native scripts (Kash and Gwr) don't use capitals either. Kash sometimes
uses "italics" for proper names, esp. place names, or foreign words.
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: writing (almost) entirely in lower-case letters
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:59 am ((PDT))
Hallo conlangers!
On Tuesday 18 June 2013 17:12:08 Roger Mills wrote:
> --- On Mon, 6/17/13, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
> I haven't made anything which uses Roman script natively.
>
> Alex
> =======================================
> Neither have I.
> My 2 native scripts (Kash and Gwr) don't use capitals either. Kash
> sometimes uses "italics" for proper names, esp. place names, or foreign
> words.
AFMCLs, Roman Germanech uses the Latin alphabet natively, and
capitalizes normally (I should perhaps consider capitalizing
all nouns, as in German, but I can't wrap my head around that).
Old Albic has a native script without case distinction, and in
the romanization, I use the same capitalization rules as in
English, except that _ma_ 'I' is not capitalized. The same
with the other naturalistic conlangs I am working on. Quetch
will use IPA as "native" script, and not capitalize at all.
--
... 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 (19)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: writing (almost) entirely in lower-case letters
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:14 am ((PDT))
The Gravgaln script doesn't have capital letters (actually none of my alien
scripts do), but I use normal English conventions in the Romanization,
since not doing so would look like some kind of e.e. cummings poem. Far
too cutsie for my taste.
Carrajina uses the Latin alphabet natively and capitalizes the first words
of sentences and proper names, but not proper adjectives since that seems
to be common practice among the Romance languages. I have briefly
considered capitalizing DJ and CH together rather than Dj and Ch, but
haven't ever actually done it as it looks weird to me.
Adam
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hallo conlangers!
>
> On Tuesday 18 June 2013 17:12:08 Roger Mills wrote:
>
> > --- On Mon, 6/17/13, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I haven't made anything which uses Roman script natively.
> >
> > Alex
> > =======================================
> > Neither have I.
> > My 2 native scripts (Kash and Gwr) don't use capitals either. Kash
> > sometimes uses "italics" for proper names, esp. place names, or foreign
> > words.
>
> AFMCLs, Roman Germanech uses the Latin alphabet natively, and
> capitalizes normally (I should perhaps consider capitalizing
> all nouns, as in German, but I can't wrap my head around that).
> Old Albic has a native script without case distinction, and in
> the romanization, I use the same capitalization rules as in
> English, except that _ma_ 'I' is not capitalized. The same
> with the other naturalistic conlangs I am working on. Quetch
> will use IPA as "native" script, and not capitalize at all.
>
> --
> ... 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 (19)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: writing (almost) entirely in lower-case letters
Posted by: "Douglas Koller" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:41 pm ((PDT))
> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:14:53 -0500
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: writing (almost) entirely in lower-case letters
> To: [email protected]
> The Gravgaln script doesn't have capital letters (actually none of my alien
> scripts do), but I use normal English conventions in the Romanization,
> since not doing so would look like some kind of e.e. cummings poem. Far
> too cutsie for my taste.
Exactly. Plus I find it's just nice in the romanization to have some of the
familiar landmarks to assist in reading. I have a kind of English/non-English
blend going on when it comes to capitalization (eg. kiss the months, days, and
nationalities good-bye), but like, I find uncapitalized person and place names
and starts of sentences simply too jarring.
> Carrajina uses the Latin alphabet natively and capitalizes the first words
> of sentences and proper names, but not proper adjectives since that seems
> to be common practice among the Romance languages. I have briefly
> considered capitalizing DJ and CH together rather than Dj and Ch, but
> haven't ever actually done it as it looks weird to me.
Yeah, I don't go there either. IJsland? Thank you, no. :)
Kou
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:28 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:46 PM, James Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
> I haven't started thinking about a lot of the more complex
> constructions like comparative predicates - John is bigger than Andy.
> I'll have to test drive all the new constructions to see how I can get
> all this to work.
>
>
>
I had a dream a couple of weeks ago -- something that almost never happens
to me anymore. And this dream was about the grammar of Gravgaln --
something which has never ever happened before. In that dream, I
discovered how this very form works in Gravgaln. Remember, this all
happened in a dream, so I wrote it down as soon as I woke, but I'm not sure
I can fully analyze the examples.
I have left out all case marking which hadn't been invented when this came
to me and gron, meaning strong/to be strong has been left completely
uninflected.
1. Ngedh Tom źuhr John bvozh gron.
Tom is stronger than John.
2. Ngedh Tom źuhr John flekh gron.
Tom is weaker than John.
3. Ngedh Tom źuhr John trregh gron.
Tom is as strong as John.
4. Ngedh Tom źuhr John ezheshmek gron.
It is unclear whether Tom or John is stronger.
5. Ngedh Tom źuhr John cho bvozh gron.
Tom is vastly stronger than John.
6. Ngedh Tom źuhr John smi bvozh gron.
Tom is just barely stronger than John.
I believe ngedh and źuhr must be some kind of paired conjunction joining
and defining the relationship of comparison between Tom and John.
Adam
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates
Posted by: "Douglas Koller" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:51 pm ((PDT))
> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:28:00 -0500
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates
> To: [email protected]
> 1. Ngedh Tom ¼uhr John bvozh gron.
> 2. Ngedh Tom ¼uhr John flekh gron.
> 3. Ngedh Tom ¼uhr John trregh gron.
> 4. Ngedh Tom ¼uhr John ezheshmek gron.
> 5. Ngedh Tom ¼uhr John cho bvozh gron.
> 6. Ngedh Tom ¼uhr John smi bvozh gron.
Take "¼uhr" and "trregh", and obviously "Tom" and "John" out of the mix, and
you have a lovely palette of potential Géarthnuns words. :)
Kou
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. Jun11 noun cases
Posted by: "neo gu" [email protected]
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:18 pm ((PDT))
Here's the Jun11 noun case system. It seems to work but I'm concerned about how
naturalistic it is. Also, I wonder if the nominative should be called that
given the lack of an accusative.
NOUN CASES
* Each noun is implicitly animate or inanimate.
* Nouns are inflected for number and case.
* The numbers are singular (unmarked) and plural (-P).
* Mass nouns lack plural forms.
* Count nouns lack the partitive singular (although the partitive plural is
made from the singular stem).
* Inanimate nouns lack the vocative, obviative, comitative, and dative.
Vocative
* identifies addressee(s)
Nominative (?)
* intransitive subject
* transitive agent or donor, except when instrumental is required
* transitive patient or theme, except when obviative is required
* object of preposition
* complement of identity or definition clause
Obviative
* animate transitive patient or theme when agent or donor is phrase or omitted
Dative
* recipient or beneficiary
Comitative
* companion
Instrumental
* instrument
* inanimate agent or donor
* original transitive agent or donor of causative verb (causee)
Partitive
* the whole from which a part is selected
Genitive
* possessor or other adnominal relationship
The person and number of the subject or transitive agent are marked by enclitic
pronouns rather than suffixes, so that the verb is 0-marked when that argument
is a noun phrase. It's also 0-marked when the argument is omitted.
gu z^idaffe baxta. "The giraffes ran."
baxtaya. "They ran."
baxta. "Running occurred."
gu elefanta vaanaya. "They saw the elephant."
gu z^idaffe gu elefantane vaana.
gu z^idaff-e gu elefant-ane vaan-a
Def giraffe-PNom the elephant-SObv see-A
"The giraffes saw the elephant."
gu z^idaffaisa baxtatta gu elefanta.
gu z^idaff-aisa baxt-att-a gu elefant-a
Def giraffe-PIns run-Cau-A Def elephant-SNom
"The elephant made the giraffes run."
--
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
Posted by: "Arnt Richard Johansen" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:36 am ((PDT))
Throughout my undergraduate linguistics studies, I have been exposed to the
Neogrammarian hypothesis, that is, the idea that historical sound change can be
described as an ordered sequence of phonological rules that operate on a
protolanguage to create a daughter language.
When conlangers describe fictional diachronic languages, this set of rules is
called a Grand Master Plan, and is sometimes specified to such a precision that
it exists as a machine-readable file that can be used by a sound change applier.
In my textbooks I sometimes saw examples of one or two sound change rules, but
I have never seen a set of sound change rules between a proto-language and a
daughter language, say Latin and French, that was claimed to be reasonably
complete.
So, my question is this: are there any examples of scholars in historical
linguistics having collected a complete set of sound change rules from some
pair of language and proto-language? Do they use computerized tools to test
those rule sets?
If so, what do they call their equivalent of the sound change applier, and what
do they call their Grand Master Plans? I would like to play with one of those.
For example, to see what would happen if language X had retained the word Y
from its protolanguage, instead of losing it and extending the sense of a
different word. Or to see what would happen if language X went through the same
sequence of changes that happened between proto-language Y and language Z.
If on the other hand academic linguists do not build such complete sets of
sound changes, how can they make strong claims of exceptionlessness?
--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
I know, I know. I could write a whole book about procrastination, but
who has the time? -- Mark Shoulson
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
