There are 3 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Teacher-Professor distinction in nat and conlangs
From: Roger Mills
2a. Re: ���Ṫirdonic, ���my ������first ���serious ��
From: Padraic Brown
2b. Re: ���Ṫirdonic, ���my ���first ���serious ���co
From: Cosman246
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Teacher-Professor distinction in nat and conlangs
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:41 am ((PDT))
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <tsela...@gmail.com>
What I can say is that in Moten the verb _ivajagi_ means both "to learn
(sthg)" and "to teach (sthg)"
==================================
RM That reminds me-- Indonesian uses the same root for both-- /ajar/ which
seems to have meant originally 'to train' ("horse" in some languages is a
derivative, *ajar+an 'the trained one'). With the ber- prefix (customary
action) it means 'to study; to learn'-- ia belajar bahasa inggeris 'he is
studying English (language)'; with the active meng- pfx. it means 'to teach'--
ia mengajar bahasa inggeris 'he teaches English'.���� The dictionary lists
pelajar 'student' and pengajar 'teacher', but in my experience they use other
words (borrowed) -- murid 'student', guru 'teacher' (these usually in the el-hi
system); and (maha)siswa 'univ. student'; I guess guru can be used for a univ.
teacher, but there's also profesor ~ prof, dokter, and various titles e.g. pak
dekan '(mr.) dean'. Indonesia (perhaps modeled on the Dutch system?) had a
lovely title - doktorandus-- for those who had only their sarjana (Master's
equiv)...and lots of them were teaching at the univ.
level. (Over here we called that A.B.D.-- see further below).
(snips)
=============================
(leonardo):
> Many French people I have met usually find strange that university
> "teachers" are called���� "professor" in Brazil, even young Master
> students working as substitutes ("professor substituto").
>
>
That's because in France, as well as in the Netherlands and I believe in
most (all?) Western European universities (and I believe the US have
similar rules, although I'm not sure about that), "professor" is a title
you must earn through your work (like "doctor" is a title you can only use
if you have a Ph.D.),
============================
RM or an M.D or other medical field!! Most Ph.Ds, at least here in the US,
eschew use of the title outside the univ. environment, because the general
public tends to associate "doctor" exclusively with an M.D. .
The rankings in the US are as follows: "adjunct professor" is common now, and
is usually a part-time job, with no tenure possibilities, and probably will not
lead anywhere...."teaching assistant" can involve teaching actual courses, but
implies you don't yet have your doctorate.���� In the system itself, you start
at "assistant prof." (tenure-track or not); after 6yrs, if a promotion/tenure
isn't in the offing, you'd better look for another job....The next rung up is
(tenured) associate prof., where you can stay for years before promotion (if at
all) to full professor. Endowed professorships usually go to the top tenured
guys, and include the name of the chair-- "Mills Professor of Indonesian
Linguistics" (ha, dream on)....etc. When you retire you become "Prof. emeritus
(-a)". If you quit or abandon academe, you might still be called "professor",
but probably only by close friends, or if you had somehow became
famous/controversial in your field.
(For those unfamiliar with the US, "tenure" means basically that you can't be
fired, except for egregious misbehavior. Public el-hi teachers can also be
tenured.)
When I was at U.Michigan, the linguistics department had what was claimed to be
the world's only tenured "Asst. Prof." Apparently, somehow, he had managed to
keep his position for 7+ years, at which time he became automatically tenured.
That said, he was quite competent (and the only person in the dept. who
knew/understood Chomsky in those early days), and was eventually appointed to
assoc. prof.
=============================
Leonardo:
> I have to explain that I'm kind of their "ma����tre de conf����rence",
> otherwise they can't believe that a 32 years old guy can be a
> professor���� ���� .
>
Yeah, getting a title of professor before the age of 40 is actually
considered quite a feat. Most people who get it only get it after 20 to 30
years of experience in their field of study (which starts only *after* they
got their Ph.D.).
==============================
RM Well, that can depend :-))���� Assuming you get the B.A when you're 22, then
spend 6-7 years on your Master and/or Doctorate, then by age 30 you should be
fully credentialed, and eligible for an asst. professorship, which does entitle
you to be called "professor"....It used to be possible for someone who was
A.B.D (all but doctorate) to get an asst. prof. job, but the implication was
that you only had 6mos to a year before finishing your doctorate. In today's
job market, that may no longer be possible.
For someone very bright, who finishes undergrad work by age 20 or so, that all
moves up a few years.
===========================================
Now I finally understand why a good friend of mine (a Brazilian guy working
at the University of S����o Paolo, only 3 years older than me) could brag of
having received a title of professor years ago! And me thinking he was such
a genius! ;)
================================
RM It's possible that non-US systems are a little more
rigid.....(status-ridden?)...
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: ���Ṫirdonic, ���my ������first ���serious ��
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:34 pm ((PDT))
(Sorry Joerg! Yahoo screwed up the reply to again... And by the way, thank
you for clarifying / amplifying some aspects of my reply!)
Hallo conlangers!
On Friday 13 September 2013 01:06:04 Padraic Brown wrote:
> > OTOH, Yash has indicated that this is a proto-language. Proto-languages
> > often do look artificially regular thanks to the disappearance of
> > certain irregularities from all attested branches.
>
> Indeed, though I think part of this must come from the fact that when WE
> look at proto-languages, we are looking at them / constructing them
> BACKWARDS. We don't see them as one point along a continuum so much as a
> spring whence flows all the descendent languages. Neither PIE nor
> Nostratic is anywhere close to being such a starting point. They are
> simply wayposts along the way.
Very much so.��� It is a common misunderstanding that these
"proto-languages" were original languages without ancestors.
This is often found in the popular press, and partly fuelled
by the misfortunate use of the word "protolanguage" in
language origins studies for a hypothetical stage in the
evolution of Language (this is mainly Derek Bickerton's fault
- yes, the same Derek Bickerton who gave us the nonsensical
"bioprogram hypothesis").��� Of course, there are creationists
who opine that languages such as Proto-Indo-European and
Proto-Uralic were among those languages that came into being
with the Confusion of Tongues at Babel.��� I think it need not
be said what kind of bullshit that is.
>��� ��� ��� Another part is our tendency to rely on
> reconstructions as if they were the real thing. PIE is *not* a real
> language. It's what scholars think is pretty close to what some real
> language might have been like.
Also correct.��� They are only models of languages that are lost
in time, not the lost languages themselves.
> I had simply assumed that Yash's proto-language was not, like Charlie's
> Senjecas, The Original Language, so much as a language from some point in
> the midst of the history of those wandering nomadic barbarians he
> mentions.
At least, this is what I understand it to be like, too.��� The
language of a prehistoric culture (quite similar to the
mainstream view of the Proto-Indo-Europeans) in a particular
conworld which has a number of descendants to be worked out,
not The Original Language of that conworld.
���
> If we look at a proto-language from the perspective of its own speakers, we
> see that it has antecedents and could very well evolve into descendants.
> If it survives the rigors of civilisation!
Very certainly so.��� PIE was about 5,000 to 6,000 years before
our time (OK, there are people who'd like to add a few thousand
years to this figure, but even that doesn't matter much as it
doesn't change the argument), while it is pretty certain that
human beings have been using full-fledged languages (and not
"protolanguages" in the Bickertonian sense) for about 20 times
as long if not longer.
> > If the original immigrants were small in number, but
> > derived from an alliance of even smaller groups, one could get a highly
> > regular language.
>
> I suppose like a creole. Only Yash can answer these kinds of questions.
Yep.
> > Or, if the case endings were recently derived from clitics/particles,
> > there could be a high degree of regularity. I am interested to see how
> > irregularities develop in the daughter languages
>
> As am I.
And I.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"B���êsel asa ���Ò�am, a ���Ò�am atha cvanthal a cvanth atha ���Ò�amal." - SiM
1:1
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: ���Ṫirdonic, ���my ���first ���serious ���co
Posted by: "Cosman246" yashtuls...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:28 pm ((PDT))
>> > Or, if the case endings were recently derived from clitics/particles,
>> > there could be a high degree of regularity. I am interested to see how
>> > irregularities develop in the daughter languages
>>
>> As am I.
>And I.
Speaking of which, when the time comes I must ask advice on this.
-Yash Tulsyan
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (Sorry Joerg! Yahoo screwed up the reply to again... And by the way, thank
> you for clarifying / amplifying some aspects of my reply!)
>
> Hallo conlangers!
>
> On Friday 13 September 2013 01:06:04 Padraic Brown wrote:
>
> > > OTOH, Yash has indicated that this is a proto-language. Proto-languages
> > > often do look artificially regular thanks to the disappearance of
> > > certain irregularities from all attested branches.
> >
> > Indeed, though I think part of this must come from the fact that when WE
> > look at proto-languages, we are looking at them / constructing them
> > BACKWARDS. We don't see them as one point along a continuum so much as a
> > spring whence flows all the descendent languages. Neither PIE nor
> > Nostratic is anywhere close to being such a starting point. They are
> > simply wayposts along the way.
>
> Very much so. It is a common misunderstanding that these
> "proto-languages" were original languages without ancestors.
> This is often found in the popular press, and partly fuelled
> by the misfortunate use of the word "protolanguage" in
> language origins studies for a hypothetical stage in the
> evolution of Language (this is mainly Derek Bickerton's fault
> - yes, the same Derek Bickerton who gave us the nonsensical
> "bioprogram hypothesis"). Of course, there are creationists
> who opine that languages such as Proto-Indo-European and
> Proto-Uralic were among those languages that came into being
> with the Confusion of Tongues at Babel. I think it need not
> be said what kind of bullshit that is.
>
> > Another part is our tendency to rely on
> > reconstructions as if they were the real thing. PIE is *not* a real
> > language. It's what scholars think is pretty close to what some real
> > language might have been like.
>
> Also correct. They are only models of languages that are lost
> in time, not the lost languages themselves.
>
> > I had simply assumed that Yash's proto-language was not, like Charlie's
> > Senjecas, The Original Language, so much as a language from some point in
> > the midst of the history of those wandering nomadic barbarians he
> > mentions.
>
> At least, this is what I understand it to be like, too. The
> language of a prehistoric culture (quite similar to the
> mainstream view of the Proto-Indo-Europeans) in a particular
> conworld which has a number of descendants to be worked out,
> not The Original Language of that conworld.
>
> > If we look at a proto-language from the perspective of its own speakers,
> we
> > see that it has antecedents and could very well evolve into descendants.
> > If it survives the rigors of civilisation!
>
> Very certainly so. PIE was about 5,000 to 6,000 years before
> our time (OK, there are people who'd like to add a few thousand
> years to this figure, but even that doesn't matter much as it
> doesn't change the argument), while it is pretty certain that
> human beings have been using full-fledged languages (and not
> "protolanguages" in the Bickertonian sense) for about 20 times
> as long if not longer.
>
> > > If the original immigrants were small in number, but
> > > derived from an alliance of even smaller groups, one could get a highly
> > > regular language.
> >
> > I suppose like a creole. Only Yash can answer these kinds of questions.
>
> Yep.
>
> > > Or, if the case endings were recently derived from clitics/particles,
> > > there could be a high degree of regularity. I am interested to see how
> > > irregularities develop in the daughter languages
> >
> > As am I.
>
> And I.
>
> --
> ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
> http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
> "B���êsel asa ���Ò�am, a ���Ò�am atha cvanthal a cvanth atha ���Ò�amal." -
> SiM 1:1
>
Messages in this topic (6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
