There are 16 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
From: Padraic Brown
1b. Re: Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
From: Roger Mills
1c. Re: Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
From: David McCann
1d. Re: Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
From: Dirk Elzinga
1e. Re: Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
From: Robert Marshall Murphy
2a. Re: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates
From: Adam Walker
3. New language in OZ
From: Paul Schleitwiler, FCM
4a. Re: writing (almost) entirely in lower-case letters
From: G. van der Vegt
5a. What do you call the damn thing!
From: Jim T
5b. Re: What do you call the damn thing!
From: Mechthild Czapp
5c. Re: What do you call the damn thing!
From: R A Brown
5d. Re: What do you call the damn thing!
From: George Corley
5e. Re: What do you call the damn thing!
From: Jim Henry
5f. Re: What do you call the damn thing!
From: C. Brickner
5g. Re: What do you call the damn thing!
From: Roger Mills
5h. Re: What do you call the damn thing!
From: MorphemeAddict
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:56 am ((PDT))
>From: Arnt Richard Johansen <a...@nvg.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, 19 June 2013, 4:36
>
> 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?
Sure. One well known hereabouts is "From Latin to Romance in Sound Charts" by
Peter Boyd-Bowman. I think it is
more or less this particular work that is ultimately the prototype of all the
GMPs used by various GMP using conlangers.
Most of the older grammars (Wright, especially) contain this sort of
information (for example, sound changes that occur
between Primitive Germanic and Gothic), but it's often densely packed and a bit
tedious to sort out. B-B takes away all
the grammar and all the historical information and leaves you with a number of
"rules" and examples of their application
across the Romance speaking world (though I don't think he makes use of
Romanian). Frankly, I'd like to see just this
kind of book for Germanic.
I freely admit to having used B-B in working on Kerno, though by no means to
the point where the resulting sound chart
becomes a "machine readable" file! Generally speaking, I don't like such
microscopically planned conlanging. It's a little
unnatural, all that exactly-and-precisely-one-to-one correspondence.
> 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.
That I think you could certainly do with a work like B-B's and any VL word you
like that didn't make it into French or
Spanish or Italian. Just apply the rules and presto changeo! There's your newly
minted, never before existed, honest to
goodness real Spanish word! After all, if I can use an altered set of rules to
devise a conlang's word for VL vetulu, why
not apply the real rules to devise a word that is wanting in a modern Romance
language?
The test then would be to pepper one's conversation among native speakers with
these devised words and see what their
reactions are...
> If on the other hand academic linguists do not build such complete sets of
> sound changes, how can they make strong claims
> of exceptionlessness?
I couldn't really comment, not being a linguistician, but I think it's fairly
clear that in order for them to make claims of
exceptionlessness, they would have to have made some kind of similar tool to
that proposed in the book, and would also
have had to test it.
Padraic
>Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:56 am ((PDT))
--- On Wed, 6/19/13, Arnt Richard Johansen <a...@nvg.org> wrote:
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.
RM: Hist/Comp. Linguistics (Austronesian langs.) is my area, though I'm rather
inactive these days (long retired)..
I'm not sure the neogrammarians thought of it that way, but with the
development of generative phonology, it has become feasible. I think there's an
early paper by Paul Kiparsky on the subject. I don't know if anyone has
actually created a GMP for any language family, but I've certainly seen similar
work for developments within subgroups. Clearly, as one works one's way from
Proto-state X to modern lang. Y, one encounters questions of rule ordering.
------------------------------
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.
RM I wrote up a series of generative rules for Proto-Bau Da Gwr > Modern B.D.
Gwr, that, to the best of my ability and knowlege, is ordered, and AFAICT,
works :-))) If you're interested, it's here:
http://cinduworld.tripod.com/gwr_rules.pdf. I'm not competent with the computer
to know whether it would work in that way.,.....
I've got lots of notes for the development of Proto-Kash > modern langs., but
nothing concrete yet.
I've done a lot of work (in the old-fashioned way) on a small lang. family in
Eastern Indonesia (now called Proto-Luangic-Kisaric); it could probably be
reduced to a set of (for the most part) ordered rules.
------------------------------
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.
RM I'm not sure I've seen such things either, but then, I don't keep up with
the literature much anymore. But it should be possible. (IIRC a man named
Sanford Schane, back in the 70s, did some work of this sort on French.) The
problem in the Romance field is that the actual proto-lang. (Vulgar Latin) is
not well-attested, and Classical Latin isn't it. And so many other factors
enter into it-- analogical levelling, borrowing, "substrate" (a bad word
amongst linguists!), etc.
I'm not familiar with anything specific in the Austronesian field, but a lot of
things are implicit in various papers/books dealing with individual languages
or subgroups.
----------------------------------------------------
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?
RM Maybe some younger scholars are able to computerize their work, but us old
fogeys are at a disadvantage there :-((((
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
RM These days, I think, almost everyone accepts the idea that there indeed
_are_ exceptions, or at least " unexplained" phenomena.... In my 1975 diss. on
the langs. of South Sulawesi, I encountered lots of double (or more) reflexes
of ceertain proto-sounds, e.g. in Buginese, I found both /b/ and /w/ > *b, /d/
and /r/ < *d, /k/ or 0 < *k, among others, for which there were hints of an
explanation, but nothing certain. Not to mention a fair number of obvious loan
words from other Sulawesi langs. chiefly distinguished by either 1.complete
loss of final C or 2. /o/ < *schwa, which were NOT typical changes in the S.Sul
group. It can be, as someone once said, a puzzlement :-))))
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
Posted by: "David McCann" da...@polymathy.plus.com
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:18 am ((PDT))
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:36:10 +0200
Arnt Richard Johansen <a...@nvg.org> wrote:
> 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.
A very good example is Ringe's "From Proto-Indo-European to
Proto-Germanic". The sound changes are listed with many examples, and
he also works out the order in which they occurred, with a nice
flowchart. It's also a good source for the latest thinking on PIE
phonology and grammar.
On a rather different tack, I'm currently studying "Evolutionary
phonology", by Blevins. She avoids all the theoretical posturing of
recent linguistics and goes back to the reality of speakers and
listeners, to explain sound changes and patterns in terms of the
listener's (especially children's) analysis of what they hear.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
Posted by: "Dirk Elzinga" dirk.elzi...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:39 am ((PDT))
Lyle Campbell and Ronald Langacker present an 11 rule cascade from
Proto-Uto-Aztecan to Nahuatl in part II of their paper "Proto-Aztecan
Vowels" (International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 44, No.l 3
(July, 1978), pp. 197-210). It was very helpful for me in a project I'm
currently working on.
Dirk
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Arnt Richard Johansen <a...@nvg.org> wrote:
> 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 (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Equivalent to Grand Master Plans in Proper Linguistics?
Posted by: "Robert Marshall Murphy" mrandmrsmur...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:25 am ((PDT))
Sabatino Moscati's INTRODUCTION TO THE COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR OF THE SEMITIC
LANGUAGES has had several reprints and is essential for Semitic conlanging. I
would recommend this for anyone interested. It has been my constant companion
in the planning of Proto-Oceanic Hebrew.
-Robert Murphy-
On Jun 19, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lyle Campbell and Ronald Langacker present an 11 rule cascade from
> Proto-Uto-Aztecan to Nahuatl in part II of their paper "Proto-Aztecan
> Vowels" (International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 44, No.l 3
> (July, 1978), pp. 197-210). It was very helpful for me in a project I'm
> currently working on.
>
> Dirk
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Arnt Richard Johansen <a...@nvg.org> wrote:
>
>> 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 (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:19 am ((PDT))
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Douglas Koller
<douglaskol...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:28:00 -0500
> > From: carra...@gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: Nominal and Adjectival Predicates
> > To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
>
> > 1. Ngedh Tom źuhr John bvozh gron.
>
> > 2. Ngedh Tom źuhr John flekh gron.
>
> > 3. Ngedh Tom źuhr John trregh gron.
>
> > 4. Ngedh Tom źuhr John ezheshmek gron.
>
> > 5. Ngedh Tom źuhr John cho bvozh gron.
>
> > 6. Ngedh Tom źuhr John smi bvozh gron.
>
> Take "źuhr" and "trregh", and obviously "Tom" and "John" out of the mix,
> and you have a lovely palette of potential Géarthnuns words. :)
>
> Kou
>
I'm still not 100% settled on the spelling źuhr with źux being the
alternate waffle. The sound represented by rh/x is variously a uvular
trill or a uvular fricative, the two (or perhaps three) (IPA capital R,
turned capital R and capital chi) sounds having collapsed in the modern
language. Hr looks as if it should be a voiceless trill or aproximant. X
looks as if it should be a velar fricative. Meh. I'll keep pondering.
But feel free to use any of the word forms above for whatever purposes you
like.
Adam
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. New language in OZ
Posted by: "Paul Schleitwiler, FCM" pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:24 am ((PDT))
New 'Mixed' Language Discovered in Northern Australia
http://www.livescience.com/37501-australia-language-discovery.html
Provides idea re how your conlangs might "meet and greet" each other.
God bless you always, all ways,
Paul
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: writing (almost) entirely in lower-case letters
Posted by: "G. van der Vegt" gijsstri...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:50 am ((PDT))
On 19 June 2013 04:41, Douglas Koller <douglaskol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:14:53 -0500
>> From: carra...@gmail.com
>
>> 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
>
>
Well, the IJ digraph is not really written as two letters in
handwritten and early typewritter/movable type Dutch, and probably
would never have become two letters in digital if the standard of the
day wasn't ascii.
In handwritten Dutch, it looks more like ÿ or its capitalized
equivalent, and there are plenty examples of the digraph in
non-handwritten Dutch where it's clearly represented as a single
letter. (Example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Signboard-slijterij.jpg
)
That said, I can imagine it's weird for people not used to it.
Different expectations and all that.
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. What do you call the damn thing!
Posted by: "Jim T" clanrubyl...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:17 pm ((PDT))
Hi all,
I found this interesting because at work, the TV remote was stolen. I was last
to see it, so I had to cross the river (Fraser) to get the replacement.
A facebook acquaintance recently posted this in her status and I though the
list might enjoy the debate as our own uses of English vary widely.
Clicker, remote, switcher, chanel changer, chanel hopper, channel flipper....
WHAT DO YOU CALL THE DAMN THING?
ObConlang, do any of your conlangs have a word for this?
Mine don't because their world doesn't have the TV, or the remote.
Jim
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: What do you call the damn thing!
Posted by: "Mechthild Czapp" rejista...@me.com
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:24 pm ((PDT))
In German, Fernbedienung (literally: usage from a distance) is pretty common.
Do Rejistanis need remotes for their few analogue terrestrial channels? If yes,
anteni'het jenti (literally: distant switch) seems like it should be the best
term. If only because anteni (switch) is such a nice false friend here :)
Am 19.06.2013 um 20:16 schrieb Jim T <clanrubyl...@yahoo.com>:
> Hi all,
> I found this interesting because at work, the TV remote was stolen. I was
> last to see it, so I had to cross the river (Fraser) to get the replacement.
>
> A facebook acquaintance recently posted this in her status and I though the
> list might enjoy the debate as our own uses of English vary widely.
>
> Clicker, remote, switcher, chanel changer, chanel hopper, channel flipper....
> WHAT DO YOU CALL THE DAMN THING?
>
> ObConlang, do any of your conlangs have a word for this?
>
> Mine don't because their world doesn't have the TV, or the remote.
>
> Jim
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. Re: What do you call the damn thing!
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:44 pm ((PDT))
On 19/06/2013 20:16, Jim T wrote:
[snip]
>
> Clicker, remote, switcher, chanel changer, chanel hopper,
> channel flipper.... WHAT DO YOU CALL THE DAMN THING?
Controller :)
If context needs more clarification: "remote controller."
On the few occasions when an even more specific
clarification is need: "remote controller for the telly."
> ObConlang, do any of your conlangs have a word for this?
>
Haven't thought of one for TAKE. The ancient Greeks, of
course, didn't have them. What do they call them in modern
Greek?
Outidic, of course, won't have a word because they weren't
around in the 17th century.
My Britannic Romlang will certainly need a word, but I
haven't a clue what it will be.
--
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 (8)
________________________________________________________________________
5d. Re: What do you call the damn thing!
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:47 pm ((PDT))
I call it a "remote". A Chinese friend informs me that the Chinese is é¥æ§,
which appears to be a direct calque of the English "remote control" (é¥ yao2
"far, remote, distant"; æ§ kong4 "to control"). She said é¥æ§å¨
yao2kong4qi4
"remote control device" is also acceptable.
None of my conlangs have a word for remote control, since they are set in
environments where they wouldn't really need it -- and of course, I have
precious tiny lexica anyway.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mechthild Czapp <rejista...@me.com> wrote:
> In German, Fernbedienung (literally: usage from a distance) is pretty
> common. Do Rejistanis need remotes for their few analogue terrestrial
> channels? If yes, anteni'het jenti (literally: distant switch) seems like
> it should be the best term. If only because anteni (switch) is such a nice
> false friend here :)
>
> Am 19.06.2013 um 20:16 schrieb Jim T <clanrubyl...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I found this interesting because at work, the TV remote was stolen. I
> was last to see it, so I had to cross the river (Fraser) to get the
> replacement.
> >
> > A facebook acquaintance recently posted this in her status and I though
> the list might enjoy the debate as our own uses of English vary widely.
> >
> > Clicker, remote, switcher, chanel changer, chanel hopper, channel
> flipper.... WHAT DO YOU CALL THE DAMN THING?
> >
> > ObConlang, do any of your conlangs have a word for this?
> >
> > Mine don't because their world doesn't have the TV, or the remote.
> >
> > Jim
>
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
5e. Re: What do you call the damn thing!
Posted by: "Jim Henry" jimhenry1...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:55 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Jim T <clanrubyl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Clicker, remote, switcher, chanel changer, chanel hopper, channel flipper....
> WHAT DO YOU CALL THE DAMN THING?
In my English 'lect (southeastern U.S., Georgia and Lousiana), I
generally say "remote" or "remote control" or "TV remote".
> ObConlang, do any of your conlangs have a word for this?
In gjâ-zym-byn, it's {jÄlm-Åy-Äa} - {jÄlm} "to open, turn on,
activate", {Åy} "distant", {Äa} tool suffix.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
5f. Re: What do you call the damn thing!
Posted by: "C. Brickner" tepeyach...@embarqmail.com
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:45 pm ((PDT))
I call it âthe remoteâ. I live in VA.
Sefdaanian culture is pre-technology, so they wouldnât know about remote
controls.
But I have coined a word. In the Senjecan dictionaries I put in italics words
that are contemporary.
firmeiþlos
fir- < firis, adj., far, remote < fira, to distance, to recede
-meiþ- < meiþa, 1) t.v. change, vary, alter, alternate, change places with;
mutate. 2) i.v. change, vary, alter, alternate; mutate.
-los, tool suffix.
Charlie
----- Original Message -----
Hi all,
I found this interesting because at work, the TV remote was stolen. I was last
to see it, so I had to cross the river (Fraser) to get the replacement.
A facebook acquaintance recently posted this in her status and I though the
list might enjoy the debate as our own uses of English vary widely.
Clicker, remote, switcher, chanel changer, chanel hopper, channel flipper....
WHAT DO YOU CALL THE DAMN THING?
ObConlang, do any of your conlangs have a word for this?
Mine don't because their world doesn't have the TV, or the remote.
Jim
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
5g. Re: What do you call the damn thing!
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:15 pm ((PDT))
I'm not sure whether Kash has such a tool/concept; but 2 possibilities exist:
çunu 'different' (rucunu 'to change') + nava 'far' could take the agentive
prefix kaN- > kacunu+nava, which would go to kacundava, most likely shortened
to cundava, even further (favoring 2-syll. structure) _cundap_. Riyena cundap
raç? Where's the damn remote? (The Kash would more likely just get up and
change the channel physically. But of course there can be remote controls for
things besides TVs....
OR nirit 'to control' + nava could > nirindava, again probably shortened to
something like _rindap_. (_niri_ means 'to steer', so maybe we could form
something off that;....)
Gwr is more likely to have such a gadget, but I don't have enough vocab.
yet.....
--- On Wed, 6/19/13, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What do you call the damn thing!
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2013, 3:47 PM
I call it a "remote". A Chinese friend informs me that the Chinese is é¥æ§,
which appears to be a direct calque of the English "remote control" (é¥ yao2
"far, remote, distant"; æ§ kong4 "to control"). She said é¥æ§å¨
yao2kong4qi4
"remote control device" is also acceptable.
None of my conlangs have a word for remote control, since they are set in
environments where they wouldn't really need it -- and of course, I have
precious tiny lexica anyway.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mechthild Czapp <rejista...@me.com> wrote:
> In German, Fernbedienung (literally: usage from a distance) is pretty
> common. Do Rejistanis need remotes for their few analogue terrestrial
> channels? If yes, anteni'het jenti (literally: distant switch) seems like
> it should be the best term. If only because anteni (switch) is such a nice
> false friend here :)
>
> Am 19.06.2013 um 20:16 schrieb Jim T <clanrubyl...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I found this interesting because at work, the TV remote was stolen. I
> was last to see it, so I had to cross the river (Fraser) to get the
> replacement.
> >
> > A facebook acquaintance recently posted this in her status and I though
> the list might enjoy the debate as our own uses of English vary widely.
> >
> > Clicker, remote, switcher, chanel changer, chanel hopper, channel
> flipper.... WHAT DO YOU CALL THE DAMN THING?
> >
> > ObConlang, do any of your conlangs have a word for this?
> >
> > Mine don't because their world doesn't have the TV, or the remote.
> >
> > Jim
>
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
5h. Re: What do you call the damn thing!
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" lytl...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:35 pm ((PDT))
I call it a remote, but my father-in-law calls it a clicker, which I didn't
understand for a while.
stevo
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Jim T <clanrubyl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I found this interesting because at work, the TV remote was stolen. I was
> last to see it, so I had to cross the river (Fraser) to get the replacement.
>
> A facebook acquaintance recently posted this in her status and I though
> the list might enjoy the debate as our own uses of English vary widely.
>
> Clicker, remote, switcher, chanel changer, chanel hopper, channel
> flipper.... WHAT DO YOU CALL THE DAMN THING?
>
> ObConlang, do any of your conlangs have a word for this?
>
> Mine don't because their world doesn't have the TV, or the remote.
>
> Jim
>
Messages in this topic (8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com
conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
