There are 11 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: A question about relative clause placement
From: David McCann
1b. Re: A question about relative clause placement
From: selpa'i
1c. Re: A question about relative clause placement
From: Roger Mills
2a. Naming Things
From: Patrick VanDusen
2b. Re: Naming Things
From: Matthew Boutilier
2c. Re: Naming Things
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
2d. Re: Naming Things
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
2e. Re: Naming Things
From: Elena ``of Valhalla''
2f. Re: Naming Things
From: Adam Walker
2g. Re: Naming Things
From: Daniel Bowman
3. This topic made me think of a topic I'd pondered about on another li
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: A question about relative clause placement
Posted by: "David McCann" [email protected]
Date: Thu Aug 8, 2013 8:25 am ((PDT))
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 23:23:56 +0200
M Forster <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello conlangers,
>
> I'm currently working on relative clauses and considering different
> placements. My language is mostly VSO and head-first and my current
> model for relative clauses works like this (simplified):
>
> head-noun verb subject object REL
> "the man go he the bar who"
> "The man who went to the bar"
>
> Now my question is: Do you know of any natlang that does this? I'd be
> very interested to know.
It's not really likely. A relative pronoun (uncommon anyway) is a
combination pronoun and conjunction, and a conjunction must start the
clause; how else would we know that it was a new clause? In English we
have to stick with that even when the result is ambiguous:
That is the model whom the artist helped to paint.
A more common pattern is to have a conjunction and pronoun:
*That is the model that the artist helped to paint her
*That is the model that the artist helped her to paint
So
man who go bar
man that go [he] bar
The shared subject is generally dropped in the subordinate clause
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: A question about relative clause placement
Posted by: "selpa'i" [email protected]
Date: Thu Aug 8, 2013 11:01 am ((PDT))
On 08.08.2013 17:25, David McCann wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 23:23:56 +0200
> M Forster <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hello conlangers,
>>
>> I'm currently working on relative clauses and considering different
>> placements. My language is mostly VSO and head-first and my current
>> model for relative clauses works like this (simplified):
>>
>> head-noun verb subject object REL
>> "the man go he the bar who"
>> "The man who went to the bar"
>>
>> Now my question is: Do you know of any natlang that does this? I'd
>> be
>> very interested to know.
>
> It's not really likely. A relative pronoun (uncommon anyway) is a
> combination pronoun and conjunction, and a conjunction must start the
> clause; how else would we know that it was a new clause?
In this language it's clear that a new clause starts because a verb
always starts a new clause, and the arguments follow the verb. The
relative "pronoun" here would *end* the clause, and be a way to specify
the type of relative clause at hand; e.g. there could be different ones
for incidental and restrictive clauses.
Of course it's very possible that this kind of construction isn't found
in any natural language.
> In English we
> have to stick with that even when the result is ambiguous:
> That is the model whom the artist helped to paint.
>
> A more common pattern is to have a conjunction and pronoun:
> *That is the model that the artist helped to paint her
> *That is the model that the artist helped her to paint
>
> So
> man who go bar
> man that go [he] bar
> The shared subject is generally dropped in the subordinate clause
Yes, but some languages don't drop it. In any case, this point is not
so important to the question at hand.
--M
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: A question about relative clause placement
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Thu Aug 8, 2013 7:17 pm ((PDT))
From: selpa'i <[email protected]>
> M Forster <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hello conlangers,
>>
>> I'm currently working on relative clauses and considering different
>> placements. My language is mostly VSO and head-first and my current
>> model for relative clauses works like this (simplified):
>>
>> head-noun verb subject object REL
>> "the man go he the bar who"
>> "The man who went to the bar"
>>
>> Now my question is: Do you know of any natlang that does this? I'd be
>> very interested to know.
>
> It's not really likely. A relative pronoun (uncommon anyway) is a
> combination pronoun and conjunction, and a conjunction must start the
> clause; how else would we know that it was a new clause?
RM I agree with this, but your justification makes some sense....
In this language it's clear that a new clause starts because a verb always
starts a new clause, and the arguments follow the verb. The relative "pronoun"
here would *end* the clause, and be a way to specify the type of relative
clause at hand; e.g. there could be different ones for incidental and
restrictive clauses.
RM: Unless your language has obligatitory subject marking on the verb, do you
really need the extra "he" in there-- and in that case, actually, since it's
VSO couldn't it be "the man go who the bar" ???
Of course it's very possible that this kind of construction isn't found in any
natural language.
RM I suspect not..... :-)
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Naming Things
Posted by: "Patrick VanDusen" [email protected]
Date: Thu Aug 8, 2013 9:12 pm ((PDT))
How do you name things in your languages? Are all of your languages called
"The speech"? Are all of your concultures who speak the language called
"The people"? Do all of your towns have names like "Red Hill" or "Green
Groves"?
I ask because this is a weird mental sticking point for me--I never go much
beyond naming languages, but the act of naming things always seems so
*forced* to me. I end up gravitating toward names like the examples I gave
above, but I can never get over the feeling that this is NOT how things are
named.
Patrick
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Naming Things
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" [email protected]
Date: Thu Aug 8, 2013 9:29 pm ((PDT))
that's a perfectly good way of doing it. my conlangs have a pretty strong
historical dimension, so even though something was transparently named e.g.
"Red Hill" somewhere back in history it might've gotten fossilized as
"Reddul" or "Ro-dille" or something (you know, but a conlang equivalent).
i also take many placenames and personal names from *other* of my
concultures (some of which i haven't even fleshed out beyond such words).
geographical names - of mountains, rivers, forests, etc. - are especially
apt to be retained when a people speaking one language overtakes another.
but i've extended this even personal names.
i always think of the situation i encountered in Egypt, where probably the
majority of people have muslim names in Arabic that mean things like "most
praiseworthy" or "happy" or whatever with perfect transparency; but then
you've got people with these ancient Coptic names - *Shenouda* comes to
mind - that don't mean a damn thing anymore, they're just nice names.
which amounts to, often, i'll just make up a cool-sounding word and pretend
that at some point in history it meant something significant in some other
neighboring conculture. i make verisimilitude a top priority in my
conlanging, and even i have zero problem with just pulling a name out of
nowhere, assuming it fits into the appropriate contemporary phonology and
phonotactics and whatever.
for what it's worth, the name of my principal conlang *does* mean
"people-ish" basically. actually, "of the tribe" (but there are a bunch of
tribes, so it's sort of ambiguous; sort of like Deutsch vs Dutch vs
*duits*i suppose). but i have a lot of concultures (all kind of
existing in the
same con-world) that just have random meaningless words as their names.
matt
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Patrick VanDusen <[email protected]> wrote:
> How do you name things in your languages? Are all of your languages called
> "The speech"? Are all of your concultures who speak the language called
> "The people"? Do all of your towns have names like "Red Hill" or "Green
> Groves"?
>
> I ask because this is a weird mental sticking point for me--I never go much
> beyond naming languages, but the act of naming things always seems so
> *forced* to me. I end up gravitating toward names like the examples I gave
> above, but I can never get over the feeling that this is NOT how things are
> named.
>
> Patrick
>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Naming Things
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" [email protected]
Date: Thu Aug 8, 2013 9:42 pm ((PDT))
I admit I used a generator for naming the cities and villages. That sparked
some ideas, and I came up with a few like the ones you've listed. I don't
have a Red Hill, but I do have the following:
Red Falls
Red Springs
Red Summer
Red Winters
Steamy Falls
Steamy Springs
Steamy Summer
Steamy Winters
I have others, one is actually a character in a book, I have more I can
mention in the serial, but not publish, due to the fact it's a list of
character names I bought.
The terms for things I just come up with them.
I also have a Blue Park Lane.
A member on another list came up with the name Yardish for the language.
Mellissa Green
@GreenNovelist
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Matthew Boutilier
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 12:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Naming Things
that's a perfectly good way of doing it. my conlangs have a pretty strong
historical dimension, so even though something was transparently named e.g.
"Red Hill" somewhere back in history it might've gotten fossilized as
"Reddul" or "Ro-dille" or something (you know, but a conlang equivalent).
i also take many placenames and personal names from *other* of my
concultures (some of which i haven't even fleshed out beyond such words).
geographical names - of mountains, rivers, forests, etc. - are especially
apt to be retained when a people speaking one language overtakes another.
but i've extended this even personal names.
i always think of the situation i encountered in Egypt, where probably the
majority of people have muslim names in Arabic that mean things like "most
praiseworthy" or "happy" or whatever with perfect transparency; but then
you've got people with these ancient Coptic names - *Shenouda* comes to
mind - that don't mean a damn thing anymore, they're just nice names.
which amounts to, often, i'll just make up a cool-sounding word and pretend
that at some point in history it meant something significant in some other
neighboring conculture. i make verisimilitude a top priority in my
conlanging, and even i have zero problem with just pulling a name out of
nowhere, assuming it fits into the appropriate contemporary phonology and
phonotactics and whatever.
for what it's worth, the name of my principal conlang *does* mean
"people-ish" basically. actually, "of the tribe" (but there are a bunch of
tribes, so it's sort of ambiguous; sort of like Deutsch vs Dutch vs
*duits*i suppose). but i have a lot of concultures (all kind of
existing in the
same con-world) that just have random meaningless words as their names.
matt
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Patrick VanDusen <[email protected]> wrote:
> How do you name things in your languages? Are all of your languages called
> "The speech"? Are all of your concultures who speak the language called
> "The people"? Do all of your towns have names like "Red Hill" or "Green
> Groves"?
>
> I ask because this is a weird mental sticking point for me--I never go
much
> beyond naming languages, but the act of naming things always seems so
> *forced* to me. I end up gravitating toward names like the examples I gave
> above, but I can never get over the feeling that this is NOT how things
are
> named.
>
> Patrick
>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Naming Things
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" [email protected]
Date: Fri Aug 9, 2013 12:00 am ((PDT))
Some of the names I used for cities came from a Biblical names list.
I have a fantasy name generator on my computer that came with a course I
bought, and I'd mix and match first and last names.
Mellissa Green
@GreenNovelist
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: Naming Things
Posted by: "Elena ``of Valhalla''" [email protected]
Date: Fri Aug 9, 2013 1:02 am ((PDT))
On 2013-08-09 at 00:11:58 -0400, Patrick VanDusen wrote:
> How do you name things in your languages? Are all of your languages called
> "The speech"? Are all of your concultures who speak the language called
> "The people"? Do all of your towns have names like "Red Hill" or "Green
> Groves"?
Basically yes, I am using transparent names, even if some may become
frozen in time and lose meaning as the history of my conworld advances.
I try to be slightly more inventive with the meanings: in one area/time
all villages are named after a flower because people record their
lives on embroidered clothing where stilized flowers stand for villages.
Another placename, Kabarjoth, means escape and it is a city founded by a man
who believed he was fleeing from an oppressive way of life.
(he was wrong, and under the influence of a demon, and I suspect
that later oppressed inhabitants would have liked escaping from it).
This was actually born in a reverse way, by selecting an appropriate
sounding name and giving it a meaning.
--
Elena ``of Valhalla''
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: Naming Things
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Fri Aug 9, 2013 5:29 am ((PDT))
Well, for Carraxa/Carrajina, my only human culture/language, I
inherited a fully named geography with historical layers. Carraxa was
first named New City by the Phoenician and then the name was Latinized
by the Romans. There are several place names like that. There are many
more that are transparent in Latin. The Arabs changed a fair number of
names and established many more, like Mahdia, that are transparent in
Arabic. There are Greek place names in the east and Berber ones in the
west and Touareg in the south. But everywhere you also find places
like Sampu Dunadu which is clearly Saint Donatus.
My alien cultures tend not to have a lot of place names.
Adam
On 8/8/13, Patrick VanDusen <[email protected]> wrote:
> How do you name things in your languages? Are all of your languages called
> "The speech"? Are all of your concultures who speak the language called
> "The people"? Do all of your towns have names like "Red Hill" or "Green
> Groves"?
>
> I ask because this is a weird mental sticking point for me--I never go much
> beyond naming languages, but the act of naming things always seems so
> *forced* to me. I end up gravitating toward names like the examples I gave
> above, but I can never get over the feeling that this is NOT how things are
> named.
>
> Patrick
>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
2g. Re: Naming Things
Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" [email protected]
Date: Fri Aug 9, 2013 5:29 am ((PDT))
I come up with the language first, and then reverse engineer it to get a
meaning. For example, I call my primary conlang "Angosey" - I determined
this was originally "Tha angos seyeo" (the language of all) or maybe even
"tha angos seyeo ngayn" (the language for the benefit of all people).
Place names tend to be less descriptive of physical appearance and more
related to their effect on the speaker:
In klaya kahley "The mountain range that impedes travel"
In sereo kayrye "The island of refuge"
2013/8/9 Patrick VanDusen <[email protected]>
> How do you name things in your languages? Are all of your languages called
> "The speech"? Are all of your concultures who speak the language called
> "The people"? Do all of your towns have names like "Red Hill" or "Green
> Groves"?
>
> I ask because this is a weird mental sticking point for me--I never go much
> beyond naming languages, but the act of naming things always seems so
> *forced* to me. I end up gravitating toward names like the examples I gave
> above, but I can never get over the feeling that this is NOT how things are
> named.
>
> Patrick
>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. This topic made me think of a topic I'd pondered about on another li
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" [email protected]
Date: Fri Aug 9, 2013 12:04 am ((PDT))
Ho do your conlangs and concultures address homes?
I'm thinking tactile symbols, like a wooden dragon on the door.
At first I thought scent-marking would work, but scents mix in the nose.
Mellissa Green
@GreenNovelist
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
