There are 9 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest:
1a. Stairs (was: Re: Time for Another Party! Oskana|not Tedve|l Dabolnea From: C. Brickner 1b. Re: Stairs (was: Re: Time for Another Party! Oskana|not Tedve|l Dabo From: Padraic Brown 2a. the Deep Structures of Language From: Paul Schleitwiler, FCM 2b. Re: the Deep Structures of Language From: Logan Kearsley 2c. Re: the Deep Structures of Language From: Allison Swenson 2d. Re: the Deep Structures of Language From: And Rosta 2e. Re: the Deep Structures of Language From: Adam Walker 3a. Re: Time for Another Party! Oskana|not Tedve|l Dabolnea! From: Padraic Brown 3b. Re: Time for Another Party! Oskana|not Tedve|l Dabolnea! From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets Messages ________________________________________________________________________ 1a. Stairs (was: Re: Time for Another Party! Oskana|not Tedve|l Dabolnea Posted by: "C. Brickner" tepeyach...@embarqmail.com Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:13 am ((PDT)) When I use "stair" to mean the staircase or the flight of stairs, I use it in the plural, as in upstairs, downstairs. He climbed the stairs to his bedroom. Charlie ----- Original Message ----- On 17 September 2013 18:07, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Chapeau! Congratulations on reaching the big 5-0-0! > > Thanks! I didn't think I'd get there so quickly! > But, what is this Lexember you mention? > > Read this: http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.nl/2013/01/lexember-month-of-moten-words.htmland this: http://fantasticaldevices.blogspot.nl/2012/11/lexember.html for more information. Basically it was an idea of Mia Soderquist and Pete Bleackley: for a month, create one word per day for your conlang(s), and post it on Twitter with the hashtag #Lexember, and on Google+ (and maybe on Facebook, but as I'm not there I can't tell if there's also a #Lexember thread there). The first Lexember event was last year in December, and since the 1st of September we've been running the second Lexember month :). It's a fun and playful way to increase one's conlang's vocabulary and close semantic gaps. As everyone post their words as they create them, we can inspire each other with new words we wouldn't have thought about otherwise :). > Funny: " basically all the senses of English "step", > except that _uge_ cannot refer to the steps of a ladder " > because, at least in my English, ladders don't have steps > at all. They have rungs. Funny, Wiktionary gives as first definition for "rung": "A crosspiece forming a _step of a ladder_; a round" (emphasis mine). So at least some people have ladders with steps :). I know that's the word I learned (I don't think I've ever heard the word "rung" before, at least not in this context). Maybe a British vs. American English thing, or something more complicated again... Then again, things tend to get complicated with those things. I mean, "stair" seems to be able to mean either a single step in a staircase or an entire staircase depending on the speaker! > Stepladders do have steps, though, > but only three or four. Much more than that and the thing > morphs into a propper ladder with rungs. :)) > > Well, some people like their ladders simple and just populate them with steps :P. I'll try to remember the word "rung". Since in Moten _uge_ doesn't refer to the steps of a ladder (or a stepladder), once I've defined the word for that in Moten, I'll have to remember to gloss it as "rung" as well ;). > " "walk" is a complete collection of "steps" " That I like. > > It does kinda make sense, doesn't it? :P -- Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets. http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/ http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/ Messages in this topic (8) ________________________________________________________________________ 1b. Re: Stairs (was: Re: Time for Another Party! Oskana|not Tedve|l Dabo Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:42 pm ((PDT)) > From: C. Brickner <tepeyach...@embarqmail.com> > > When I use "stair" to mean the staircase or the flight of stairs, I use it in > the plural, I have certainly done that. Although the singular "stair" can also apply to the whole staircase. "Go up the stairs and turn right" kind of thing. > as in upstairs, downstairs. Now here, these I take as adverbs (the old adverbial genitive), indicative of motion along (i.e. moving along the stair in an upward direction) or else place at which (i.e. being in an upper level of the building). Which depends on the verb used. > He climbed the stairs to his bedroom. Yes. Sorry Christophe! Didn't realise stairs and ladders would be so complicated an issue! Padraic > Charlie > > ----- Original Message ----- > On 17 September 2013 18:07, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Chapeau! Congratulations on reaching the big 5-0-0! >> >> > Thanks! I didn't think I'd get there so quickly! > > >> But, what is this Lexember you mention? >> >> > Read this: > http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.nl/2013/01/lexember-month-of-moten-words.htmland > this: > http://fantasticaldevices.blogspot.nl/2012/11/lexember.html for more > information. Basically it was an idea of Mia Soderquist and Pete Bleackley: > for a month, create one word per day for your conlang(s), and post it on > Twitter with the hashtag #Lexember, and on Google+ (and maybe on Facebook, > but as I'm not there I can't tell if there's also a #Lexember thread > there). The first Lexember event was last year in December, and since the > 1st of September we've been running the second Lexember month :). It's a > fun and playful way to increase one's conlang's vocabulary and close > semantic gaps. As everyone post their words as they create them, we can > inspire each other with new words we wouldn't have thought about otherwise > :). > > >> Funny: " basically all the senses of English "step", >> except that _uge_ cannot refer to the steps of a ladder " >> because, at least in my English, ladders don't have steps >> at all. They have rungs. > > > Funny, Wiktionary gives as first definition for "rung": "A > crosspiece > forming a _step of a ladder_; a round" (emphasis mine). So at least some > people have ladders with steps :). I know that's the word I learned (I > don't think I've ever heard the word "rung" before, at least > not in this > context). Maybe a British vs. American English thing, or something more > complicated again... > > Then again, things tend to get complicated with those things. I mean, > "stair" seems to be able to mean either a single step in a staircase > or an > entire staircase depending on the speaker! > > >> Stepladders do have steps, though, >> but only three or four. Much more than that and the thing >> morphs into a propper ladder with rungs. :)) >> >> > Well, some people like their ladders simple and just populate them with > steps :P. I'll try to remember the word "rung". Since in Moten > _uge_ > doesn't refer to the steps of a ladder (or a stepladder), once I've > defined > the word for that in Moten, I'll have to remember to gloss it as > "rung" as > well ;). > > >> " "walk" is a complete collection of "steps" > " That I like. >> >> > It does kinda make sense, doesn't it? :P > -- > Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets. > > http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/ > http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/ > Messages in this topic (8) ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 2a. the Deep Structures of Language Posted by: "Paul Schleitwiler, FCM" pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:54 am ((PDT)) Interesting article. How to Understand the Deep Structures of Language Scientific American Joshua K. Hartshorne September 17, 2013 7:00 AM http://news.yahoo.com/understand-deep-structures-language-110000347.html God bless you always, all ways, Paul Messages in this topic (5) ________________________________________________________________________ 2b. Re: the Deep Structures of Language Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" chronosur...@gmail.com Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:08 am ((PDT)) On 18 September 2013 11:54, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM <pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com> wrote: > Interesting article. > How to Understand the Deep Structures of Language > Scientific American > Joshua K. Hartshorne September 17, 2013 7:00 AM > http://news.yahoo.com/understand-deep-structures-language-110000347.html Quote: "The researchers also asked people to describe in gestures an event in which a girl kicked a boy. Since both boys and girls are capable of kicking, it's very possible to be confused about who kicked who. And now participants were much more likely to describe (in gesture) the girl, then the kicking event, and then the boy -- that is, they switched to an SVO order. This was true (with a few complications which you can read about in the paper) whether the participant was a native speaker of English (an SVO language) or a native speaker of Korean or Japanese (SOV languages)." This raises the question: is there a language that switches between SOV and SVO based on an animacy distinction? And if not, who's going to make one? -l. Messages in this topic (5) ________________________________________________________________________ 2c. Re: the Deep Structures of Language Posted by: "Allison Swenson" jlon...@gmail.com Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:38 am ((PDT)) Hmm, that's suprising to me. I think, personally, that I would use SOV--show the girl, then show the boy in a different position (facing the other way, say), then return to the "girl" position and make the kicking action. It simply feels more logical to my mind to explain who's there first and then describe what happened to them. Which is surprising to me in a whole different way, considering I made Tirina VSO because at the time, *that* seemed more logical! --Allison On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Logan Kearsley <chronosur...@gmail.com>wrote: > On 18 September 2013 11:54, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM > <pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Interesting article. > > How to Understand the Deep Structures of Language > > Scientific American > > Joshua K. Hartshorne September 17, 2013 7:00 AM > > http://news.yahoo.com/understand-deep-structures-language-110000347.html > > Quote: "The researchers also asked people to describe in gestures an > event in which a girl kicked a boy. Since both boys and girls are > capable of kicking, it's very possible to be confused about who kicked > who. And now participants were much more likely to describe (in > gesture) the girl, then the kicking event, and then the boy -- that > is, they switched to an SVO order. This was true (with a few > complications which you can read about in the paper) whether the > participant was a native speaker of English (an SVO language) or a > native speaker of Korean or Japanese (SOV languages)." > > This raises the question: is there a language that switches between > SOV and SVO based on an animacy distinction? And if not, who's going > to make one? > > -l. > Messages in this topic (5) ________________________________________________________________________ 2d. Re: the Deep Structures of Language Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:40 pm ((PDT)) BSL would normally use OSV, tho all orders are possible. --And On Sep 18, 2013 7:38 PM, "Allison Swenson" <jlon...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hmm, that's suprising to me. I think, personally, that I would use > SOV--show the girl, then show the boy in a different position (facing the > other way, say), then return to the "girl" position and make the kicking > action. It simply feels more logical to my mind to explain who's there > first and then describe what happened to them. > > Which is surprising to me in a whole different way, considering I made > Tirina VSO because at the time, *that* seemed more logical! > > --Allison > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Logan Kearsley <chronosur...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > On 18 September 2013 11:54, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM > > <pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Interesting article. > > > How to Understand the Deep Structures of Language > > > Scientific American > > > Joshua K. Hartshorne September 17, 2013 7:00 AM > > > > http://news.yahoo.com/understand-deep-structures-language-110000347.html > > > > Quote: "The researchers also asked people to describe in gestures an > > event in which a girl kicked a boy. Since both boys and girls are > > capable of kicking, it's very possible to be confused about who kicked > > who. And now participants were much more likely to describe (in > > gesture) the girl, then the kicking event, and then the boy -- that > > is, they switched to an SVO order. This was true (with a few > > complications which you can read about in the paper) whether the > > participant was a native speaker of English (an SVO language) or a > > native speaker of Korean or Japanese (SOV languages)." > > > > This raises the question: is there a language that switches between > > SOV and SVO based on an animacy distinction? And if not, who's going > > to make one? > > > > -l. > > > Messages in this topic (5) ________________________________________________________________________ 2e. Re: the Deep Structures of Language Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:40 pm ((PDT)) That's often true for ASL too. With noun subjects. But with the degree of pronoun incorporation in ASL verbs, it's often difficult to tell with pronominal subjects. Adam On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:39 PM, And Rosta <and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote: > BSL would normally use OSV, tho all orders are possible. > > --And > On Sep 18, 2013 7:38 PM, "Allison Swenson" <jlon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hmm, that's suprising to me. I think, personally, that I would use > > SOV--show the girl, then show the boy in a different position (facing the > > other way, say), then return to the "girl" position and make the kicking > > action. It simply feels more logical to my mind to explain who's there > > first and then describe what happened to them. > > > > Which is surprising to me in a whole different way, considering I made > > Tirina VSO because at the time, *that* seemed more logical! > > > > --Allison > > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Logan Kearsley <chronosur...@gmail.com > > >wrote: > > > > > On 18 September 2013 11:54, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM > > > <pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Interesting article. > > > > How to Understand the Deep Structures of Language > > > > Scientific American > > > > Joshua K. Hartshorne September 17, 2013 7:00 AM > > > > > > http://news.yahoo.com/understand-deep-structures-language-110000347.html > > > > > > Quote: "The researchers also asked people to describe in gestures an > > > event in which a girl kicked a boy. Since both boys and girls are > > > capable of kicking, it's very possible to be confused about who kicked > > > who. And now participants were much more likely to describe (in > > > gesture) the girl, then the kicking event, and then the boy -- that > > > is, they switched to an SVO order. This was true (with a few > > > complications which you can read about in the paper) whether the > > > participant was a native speaker of English (an SVO language) or a > > > native speaker of Korean or Japanese (SOV languages)." > > > > > > This raises the question: is there a language that switches between > > > SOV and SVO based on an animacy distinction? And if not, who's going > > > to make one? > > > > > > -l. > > > > > > Messages in this topic (5) ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 3a. Re: Time for Another Party! Oskana|not Tedve|l Dabolnea! Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:12 pm ((PDT)) >> But, what is this Lexember you mention? > > Basically it was an idea of Mia Soderquist and Pete Bleackley: > for a month, create one word per day for your conlang(s), and post it on > Twitter with the hashtag #Lexember, and on Google+ (and maybe on Facebook, > but as I'm not there I can't tell if there's also a #Lexember thread > there). Ah, thank you for the explanation! >> Funny: " basically all the senses of English "step", >> except that _uge_ cannot refer to the steps of a ladder " >> because, at least in my English, ladders don't have steps >> at all. They have rungs. > > > Funny, Wiktionary gives as first definition for "rung": "A > crosspiece > forming a _step of a ladder_; a round" (emphasis mine). So at least some > people have ladders with steps :). Huh. Sòme people will say any old thing! ;) Seriously, I'd understand what they mean, but it sounds funny all the same. > I know that's the word I learned (I > don't think I've ever heard the word "rung" before, at least > not in this > context). Maybe a British vs. American English thing, or something more > complicated again... > > Then again, things tend to get complicated with those things. I mean, > "stair" seems to be able to mean either a single step in a staircase > or an entire staircase depending on the speaker! Indeed! Then again, not all things with steps are stairs or staircases as such. We've also got stoops, stepstones, doorsteps, back steps (and front steps), all of which may have an indeterminate number of steps (perhaps one to four or five). I wouldn't call any of those things "stairs". But any more than that and I'd say they become stairs proper. >> " "walk" is a complete collection of "steps" > " That I like. > > It does kinda make sense, doesn't it? :P Indeed! After all, a "walk" is the entire set or collection of individual steps taken during the official duration of the walk, as opposed to all the steps (and missteps) one may take in a day and perhaps also excluding any steps one may take on a side adventure into for example a book shop or diner that are not, strictly speaking, part of the "walk" itself! Padraic > Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets. Messages in this topic (8) ________________________________________________________________________ 3b. Re: Time for Another Party! Oskana|not Tedve|l Dabolnea! Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" tsela...@gmail.com Date: Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:48 pm ((PDT)) On 17 September 2013 21:05, C. Brickner <tepeyach...@embarqmail.com> wrote: > > The Senjecan word that I had for âstrollââ was a compound of two verbs > which I found very cumbersome. So, being inspired by Christopheâs message, > I decided to form it in another way. Senjecas has two prefixes for > diminutives, â-k-â and â-l-â. All Senjecan verb roots are > monosyllabic, of > the form (C)(V)VC-. If I add a diminutive suffix to the verb root, I can > convey the idea of gently, easily, leisurely, partially, etc. Thus, > ânéðaâ, walk, can be changed to ânéðlaâ, stroll. The speakers of > Senjecas > prefer â-l-â to â-k-â, but â-k-â would be used to avoid a geminate > consonant: âdilaâ, disclose, reveal, manifest > âdilkaâ, hint, imply, > insinuate. Lenition may be necessary: âtéédaâ, burn [of the sun] > > âtééðlaâ, tan. > BTW, âhikeâ is translated by a compound verb that I donât find so > cumbersome: âÈútaâ, wander, and néðaâ, walk, > Èuþnéðaâ. > Charlie > Actually, I like this idea a lot, especially since, like Senjecas, Moten allows diminutive suffixes on verbs too (the diminutive suffix _-sin_ can be used on both nouns and verbs, unlike _-mas_ and _-zes_ which can only be used on nouns âor rather can only *result* in nounsâ), as in for instance _jeksi|n_: "to brush past" from _jeksaj_: "to touch, to hit". So I decided to shamelessly copy you and created the verb _jugzi|n_: "to stroll, to talk a walk", diminutive of _jugejugej_: "to walk". They are also used nominally: while _ugejuge_ can mean "stroll", it's usually more generic and means "walk", while _ugzin_ is more specifically "stroll, leisurely walk". You get inspired by me, and I get inspired back by you, the circle is complete! :) I love this list :P. -- Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets. http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/ http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/ 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://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------