------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Lateral Plosive
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: i-Mutation
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: Hobbits spoke Indonesian!
From: "B. Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Fwd: Lateral Plosive
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: POA ? Re: Lateral Plosive
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. langmaker site link not found
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. C-14 update (verbs, stratas, suffixes, and more)
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: POA ? Re: Lateral Plosive
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: Fwd: Lateral Plosive
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: Lateral Plosive
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Fwd: Lateral Plosive
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: Hobbits spoke Indonesian!
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. The Conversive
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Lateral Plosive
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: The Conversive
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: samhain?
From: Thomas Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: The Conversive
From: Danny Wier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: The Conversive
From: Danny Wier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: Advanced English + Babel text
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: qT (and not qs) in Q'en|gai
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: Advanced English + Babel text
From: "Pascal A. Kramm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: The Conversive
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: Tatari Faran: volition, verb complements, phonology update, and more
From: "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: Tatari Faran: volition, verb complements, phonology update, and more
From: "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: Advanced English + Babel text
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 06:27:22 -0500
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lateral Plosive
Nahuatl |tl| is described to be a "laterally released voiceless alveolar
affricate" on http://www.yale.edu/nahuatl/lessons/mainle02.html . This means
that the |l| in the word |Nahuatl| is not a syllabic consonant, but belongs
with the former syllable. I suppose this is the closest possible to a
'lateral stop'.
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 22:36:08 -0500, Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Prelateralised is more or less the same deal as prenasalised, but with an
>L instead of an N.
>
>Put the rest of your talking equipment into the right position for
>consonant X, but leave the sides of the tongue in the approximant
>position, start making the approximant, and then close it off to make the
>plosive, and release as you normally would.
>
>Basically, pronounce an L at the right POA (or as close as possible), and
>follow it by the plosive. Do this quickly and smoothly enough that it
>sounds like one consonant. I don't have a CXS notation for it, but I've
>seen /nd)/ for prenasalised /d/, so I'd be willing to use /ld)/ for
>prelateralised /d/.
IPA doesn't have any signs for prenasalized or prelateralized sounds, so
they're written as [nd, ld]. I think I remember that I saw a small high |n|
for prenasalization, the same sign as used for nasal release. However, I
think that the notation of [nd, ld] is sufficient, since it seem highly
unnatural to me to pronounce a release inbetween the two sounds (maybe a
bias by the languages I know).
>Same thing backwards for the lateral release. Pronounce the plosive
>followed immediately by an L, and do it quickly and smoothly enough that
>it sounds like one consonant. There *is* CXS for this one, but I'll be
>damned if I can remember it. Maybe /d_l/, which looks vaguely like it
>ought to be right.
Exactly. Though I think that many transcibers wouldn't use this sign but
just write [dl], at least among speakers of languages that have originated
in western Europe. I wonder whether there are any languages at all that
contrast laterally (or nasally) released stops with sequences of stop +
lateral (or nasal)?
=================================
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:11:41 +0300, Dan Sulani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>How does all this differ from a lateral click?
In the same way a bilabial click differs from a [p], if this is any help...
When producing a [p], you build up a difference of air pressure inside your
lips and outside your lips: Inside, there's more pressure than outside. Like
this, when you open your lips, the air burst out in a (ex)plosion: A [p] is
produced. In the bilabial click, it's the other way round: Inside, there's
less pressure than outside, so the air bursts in when the lips are opened. A
kiss is basically the same as a (very exaggerated) bilabial click.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 06:43:00 -0500
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: i-Mutation
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:24:20 +0100, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting "Pascal A. Kramm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 09:55:09 -0400, Yann Kiraly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Does anybody have an Idea into what sound an i could mutate
>> >(a->ä,o->ö,u->ü,e([e]very->ë(German [E]nde))? I am constructing a
>> >language that uses these mutations for grammatical infelction.
>>
>> It could easily become rounded and then be pronounced ü /y/.
>> This has already happened in German with foreign words from English, e.g.
>> "mystery". German doesn't have an y by itself, it exclusively occurs in
>> words imported from foreign languages, and somehow, the y in foreign
>> words (if it's not at the end of the word) which is normally /i/ became
>> rounded and thus /y/ so mystery would be /mysteri/ rather than /misteri/.
>
>This wouldn't relate to the fact those foreign 'y's very often, as in this
>case, derives from a Greek ypsilon, by any chance?
Exactly. I've been told that this is a comparingly recent development of the
German pronunciation, and that until the 19th century, the |y| used to be
pronounced exactly the same way as |i| (as in English or French). So its
pronunciation as /y/ is a cultured pronunciation that has become generalized.
If this is true, then the Swiss standard German habit of pronouncing it as
an /i/ would be an archaism, not only a regional peculiarity (along with
other archaisms like many French words that have dropped out of use in
Germany). In Switzerland, the letter |y| is often called _Y-grecque_
/'i-krek:/ (the French expression for _Greek Y_), not _Ypsilon_ /'Ypsi"lOn/
as in Germany.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 04:33:21 -0800
From: "B. Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hobbits spoke Indonesian!
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:30:43 +0100, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not see how a Taiwanese origin is relevant - no-one, I hope, would use the
> fact that the IE languages appear to've originated in the Black Sea area as an
> argument against the supposition that Latin might have been influenced by
> Etruscan.
You're talking about one specific language with regard to Latin being
influenced by Etruscan. What was mentioned was "the Austronesian
_languages_ implying them as a group. Of course, the AN languages in
Flores could very well be influenced by the hominids, but I doubt that
speakers of the Bontoc languages or the Kankanay in the Philippines
will have any influence in their languages from the hominids on
Flores.
Which is why people mentioned that AN speakers migrated from Taiwan
south into insular SEAsia, because what was said implied that AN
languages spread out from Flores (and yes, I know that that wasn't
what was _meant_)
>Wherever AN originated, speakers of it eventually turned up at
> Flores.
>
Yes, and the Flores languages would've been influenced by the
Hominids, if they had their own language.
> Near as I've heard, however, it cannot be stated with absolute >certainty
> that floresiensis did not surive much longer, long enough that they were around
> to meet AN-speakers coming paddling from Taiwan.
Well, speakers would've paddled in from the Philippines first :D
>That Indonesian languages
> would have at some point have been influenced by whatever floresiensis may have
> spoken does thus as far as I can see still belong to the realm of the possibly,
> if more specifically to the province of highly unlikely.
Perhaps, but I doubt all Indonesian languages would've been influenced
by the ones on Flores.
>
> There's also the possibility that some loans might have been conveyed from
> "Floresian" to AN via whatever was spoken by pre-AN H. sapiens in Indonesia.
Perhaps
--
You can turn away from me
but there's nothing that'll keep me here you know
And you'll never be the city guy
Any more than I'll be hosting The Scooby Show
Scooby Show - Belle and Sebastian
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:13:13 -0000
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fwd: Lateral Plosive
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is it humanly possible to have a lateral plosive?
=====
-The Sock
When I read "lateral plosive," my first thought was of that sound
written as "tl" in the Aztec language, e.g., QuetzalcoaTL. The
plosiveness of the T followed by the lateral release of the L. Sound
correct? Of course, TL is unvoiced. There could be a voiced variant
DL. Maybe it's an affricate, though.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:30:24 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: POA ? Re: Lateral Plosive
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 5:36 AM
Subject: Re: Lateral Plosive
> >> > Is it humanly possible to have a lateral plosive?
> Basically, pronounce an L at the right POA (or as close as possible), and
a POA ?
didn't they uplift the Traeki? :)
seriously, outside of the writings of David Brin, what's a POA ?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:00:56 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: langmaker site link not found
http://www.langmaker.com/db/rsc_audienceuglossiaandco.htm
http://www.media-culture.org.au/0003/languages.html
can't find the apologia.
sorry.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:59:19 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: C-14 update (verbs, stratas, suffixes, and more)
http://www.geocities.com/rodlox/Conlangs/c14.html
updating somewhat regularly now.
what do you think? *curious*
do you like it? (yes/no)
does it remind you of other languages? (con/nat)
if it does, what aspects of c-14 remind you of it?
thanks.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:42:39 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: POA ? Re: Lateral Plosive
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 01:30:24PM +0200, Rodlox wrote:
> a POA ?
>
> didn't they uplift the Traeki? :)
>
> seriously, outside of the writings of David Brin, what's a POA ?
Point of Articulation. e.g. labial, dental, alveolar, velar, glottal,
and points between.
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:45:56 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Lateral Plosive
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 12:13:13PM -0000, caeruleancentaur wrote:
> When I read "lateral plosive," my first thought was of that sound
> written as "tl" in the Aztec language, e.g., QuetzalcoaTL. The
> plosiveness of the T followed by the lateral release of the L. Sound
> correct? Of course, TL is unvoiced. There could be a voiced variant
> DL. Maybe it's an affricate, though.
It is an affricate, written [tK)] in CXS, though the [t] is probably
prelateralized.
For those who might not know (there seem to be newcomers on the list
lately; welcome!), that is the same sound as the Klingon
phone spelled |tlh|, and just the tail part of it without the [t]
(the [K] in CXS) is the pronunciation of |ll| in Welsh.
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:17:12 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lateral Plosive
Hi!
Dan Sulani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> How does all this differ from a lateral click?
A lateral click is totally different: you start off with a velar
closure and put the tongue close to top of the mouth and then pull
down the left and right edges of the tongue where you'd pronounce a
lateral . This release makes air suddenly get in between the tongue
and the palate, which can be perceived as a click.
Now, you're stuck with a velar closure which you have several options
to release. Clicks are usually complex because these options are
extensively used by the corresponding languages to make different
phonemes. You can silently open it, or as a plosive (voiced or
voiceless), or as an affricate, or a fricative. Ju'|hoansi allows
voiced/voiceless-plosives (those that start voiced and end voiceless)
and contrasts these with plain voiced and plain voiceless.
Accordingly, it distinguishes these three plosive releases for all its
clicks.
Further, during a velar closure, you can produce the nasal [N] while
doing all this, so a click usually at least is a duplicate
articulation: one in the mouth, one at the velum. Sometimes, more
complicated tertiary articulation is added by additionally closing the
glottis to make an ejective release at the end. Another tertiary
articulatory option would be an aspirated plosive release.
In total: awefully complex if your mothertongue does not support this!
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:27:28 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Lateral Plosive
Mark J. Reed scripsit:
> It is an affricate, written [tK)] in CXS, though the [t] is probably
> prelateralized.
>
> For those who might not know (there seem to be newcomers on the list
> lately; welcome!), that is the same sound as the Klingon
> phone spelled |tlh|,
Judging by Okrand's remarks (and the spelling itself), Klingon "tlh"
is an *aspirated* dental affricate with lateral plosion, [tK)_h].
--
XQuery Blueberry DOM John Cowan
Entity parser dot-com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abstract schemata http://www.reutershealth.com
XPointer errata http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Infoset Unicode BOM --Richard Tobin
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:13:08 -0500
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hobbits spoke Indonesian!
Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Joe wrote:
> > > J Y S Czhang wrote:
> > >
> > > >In a message dated 10/29/2004 1:10:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Joe
> > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > >>Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>There does not seem to be any reason to totally exclude that
> > > >>>possibility.
> > > >>>
> > > >>Except that the Austronesian languages seem to have originated from
> > > >>Taiwan...
> > > >>
> > And are reconstructed only back to ~5000 B.C.E...
>
> I do not see how a Taiwanese origin is relevant.... (snip) Wherever AN
> originated, speakers of it eventually turned up at
> Flores.
True. My only point was the time differential.
>
> As for the temporal aspect, yes, a rather daunting chasm of time separates
> the
> most recent evidence of H. floresiensis and the arrival of AN-speakers at
> the
> place. Near as I've heard, however, it cannot be stated with absolute
> certainty
> that floresiensis did not surive much longer,
My impression was that the most recent find dated only to 13,000 B.C.E., and
that floresiensis _apparently_ died out when H.Sapiens reached Flores. (My
impression is also that we're dealing with just a few finds; the excitement
seems a bit premature.) But in -13,000, even those Sapiens would not have
been AN speakers-- far more likely they were Pre-pre...-proto "Papuan" both
physically and linguistically(1).
-------------------------------
(1) The physical, essentially Negroid, traits-- kinky hair, darker skin,
broad nose-- are still prominent in many AN speakers in the Lesser Sundas;
and there are non-AN linguistic groups in peripheral areas-- Ternate/Tidore
and Halmahera in the north, Alor, Pantar, eastern Timor in the south; a
group was reportedly killed off in the Kei islands in the mid-1800s. I
don't know where the "Negritos" of the Philippines fit in; the name suggests
they might also show pre-AN "Papuan" traits.
--------------------------------
Secondly, there must surely have been even earlier contact with Sapiens,
since Papuoid/Australoid people must have passed thru the Lesser Sundas
in -30/40,000 (or even earlier) on their way to Australia(2).
------------------------------
(2) One of two possible routes; the other is via the northern Moluccas. Even
though Australia/NG was once a single land mass, the strange thing seems to
be that there is little or no connection between "Papuan" languages and
"Australian" languages. But, as in the American case, we have to assume
there were multiple in-migrations.
------------------------------
long enough that they were around
> to meet AN-speakers coming paddling from Taiwan. That Indonesian languages
> would have at some point have been influenced by whatever floresiensis may
> have
> spoken does thus as far as I can see still belong to the realm of the
> possibly,
> if more specifically to the province of highly unlikely.
Even assuming that Fl. survived into post-glacial times-- and it's a
tempting hypothesis-- we know only too well what happens when a "superior"
culture comes in contact with an "inferior" one. At best, some names for
local flora and fauna, and geographical features, might survive.
>
> There's also the possibility that some loans might have been conveyed from
> "Floresian" to AN via whatever was spoken by pre-AN H. sapiens in
> Indonesia.
That IMO is a quite likely scenario.
Admittedly the prehistory of the entire Indonesian archipelago is poorly
known, and interesting finds will probably keep turning up.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:26:01 -0000
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The Conversive
While reviewing some Swahili grammar the other day, I came across an
aspect of the verb called the conversive. The suffix -ua is added to
the verb to "undo" the action of the verb, e.g., funga, fasten;
fungua, unfasten.
Have any of you encountered this in your study of languages? Have
any of you used it in your conlang?
I have discovered it in Senyecan. The prefix µi- puts a verb into
the converse, e.g., pága, fasten; µipága, unfasten.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:32:06 +0000
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lateral Plosive
bob thornton wrote:
>Is it humanly possible to have a lateral plosive?
>
>
Don't think so, but a lateral ejective is a brilliant sound(and sounds a
bit like a stop).
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:53:20 -0500
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Conversive
----- Original Message -----
From: "caeruleancentaur"
> While reviewing some Swahili grammar the other day, I came across an
> aspect of the verb called the conversive. The suffix -ua is added to
> the verb to "undo" the action of the verb, e.g., funga, fasten;
> fungua, unfasten.
> Have any of you encountered this in your study of languages?
English, for one! But I don't think un- can be universally applied to all
verbs as it may do in Swahili. To like (okay), to unlike (not okay), for
instance; we would say, rather, "stop liking."
> Have
> any of you used it in your conlang?
Yes, in Teonaht. The prefix be- "undoes" or reverses the action of the
verb, and very often means to "stop doing X."
beuajarem, "stop detesting, to stop hating."
It comes from the cessative modal adverbial begrem: Elo beg ennyve, "he
stopped eating."
Sally
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/adverbs.html#list
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/verbs.html#modal
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:11:22 -0500
From: Thomas Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: samhain?
> ----- Original Message -----
> > why is 'samhain' pronounced 'saUen' ?
That is an Anglicization based on the modern Irish Gaelic pronunciation.
In Scottish Gaelic the more common pronunciation is /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ (although
some dialects do have /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/. The name is also spelt Samhainn or (in
traditional SG orthography) Samhuinn.
The mh originally represented the nazalised labiodental fricative, in
other words, a nasalized v /v~/. In modern Gaelic, the nasalization of
the consonant is lost, in SG being transferred onto the adjacent
vowel(s), and in IG being lost entirely (AFAIK). In modern IG
intervocalic /v/ very often becomes labialized to /w/, forming a
diphthong; in SG the situation is more complicated: it can remain /v/,
be labialized to /w/, or disappear, depending on the word and dialect.
> ----- Original Message -----
> > I knew about this pronunciation. Would someone help me (us) with
the
> > pronunciation of the other three: Beltane, Imbolc and Lughnassadh?
>
> Beltane is actually an Anglicisation of "Bealtaine"
> pronounced /bjOlhi:ni/ = "May".
What dialect of IG is that? Is it really pronounced with a lenited t?
In SG it's spelt Bealltainn (older: Bealltuinn), pronounced
/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ or /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/. I've read that the "Beall"-/"Bel"-
part of the name is supposedly the name of an old God whose name in
Latinized form was Belus, and that the "-tain(n)" part is a development
of the word for "fire" (mod. SG "teine"), so the name means "Belus'
fire" and refers to the big bonfires which were traditionally lit at
night on the eve of May 1 (and still are -- you should see the one they
do in Edinburgh on top of a hill overlooking the city -- biggest
freaking fire I've ever seen in my life! The naked, red people were
interesting, too).
"Imbolc" is not a modern Gaelic name; it violates the rules of both IG
and SG orthography. I suspect it must have been lifted into English
straight out of Old Gaelic (known to Irish imperialists and the ignorant
as "Old Irish" ;-)) or some other language. If it is OG, then one must
ascertain if the final "c" represents /k/ or /g/ (it stood for both in
OG spelling). If /k/, then it will be something like /imbolk/, with no
epenthetic vowel between the l and the c; however, if it was /g/, then
there will be an epenthetic vowel: /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/. I have never seen this
name in either modern SG or IG; does anybody know what it's supposed to
mean?
Lughnasagh (one "s") is also spelt "Lůnasadh" in SG, and is spelt
"Lúnasa" in IG. The SG pronunciation is /l_du:[EMAIL PROTECTED]@G/. In IG it will be
something like /l_du:[EMAIL PROTECTED]@/, as IG regularly loses final /G/. The modern
SG name for the month of August is Lůnasdal (also spelt Lůnastal),
/l_du:[EMAIL PROTECTED]@l_d/
Le meas,
Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:41:47 -0600
From: Danny Wier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Conversive
From: "caeruleancentaur"
> While reviewing some Swahili grammar the other day, I came across an
> aspect of the verb called the conversive. The suffix -ua is added to
> the verb to "undo" the action of the verb, e.g., funga, fasten;
> fungua, unfasten.
>
> Have any of you encountered this in your study of languages? Have
> any of you used it in your conlang?
>
> I have discovered it in Senyecan. The prefix µi- puts a verb into
> the converse, e.g., pága, fasten; µipága, unfasten.
Well obviously we have it in English, with the prefix -un, and Latin and
Romance languages have dis- or something similar (Spanish has des-).
And yes, that is something I want for my conlang. I'm thinking of using the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (or m-) prefix as a preverb for a reverse action; it's normally the
ablative preposition, "(away) from". (I stole that one from Arabic.)
How is mu pronounced again?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:53:50 -0600
From: Danny Wier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Conversive
I correct myself.
> Well obviously we have it in English, with the prefix -un, and Latin and
> Romance languages have dis- or something similar (Spanish has des-).
That should be un-, and a better example in Latin/Romance might be de- (dé-
in French).
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:38:28 +0000
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advanced English + Babel text
On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, at 06:13 , Thomas R. Wier wrote:
> I will make this my last post in this debate.
>
> From: "Pascal A. Kramm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 01:00:26 -0600, Thomas R. Wier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>> I enter into this thread with much fear and trembling, lest it become
>>> just the kind of flame war that spawned the AUXLANG list. So, I will
>>> keep my comments brief:
>>
>> I wouldn't call it flame war. There was just one guy who didn't bother
>> to read more than the front page and then came up with completely wrong
>> insults.
>
> Actually, I made it explicit that I had read several of the pages.
> It's not clear to me how a native speaker can have "wrong results"
> when identifying grammaticality judgements.
I have a feeling that Pascal might have meant me rather than you. If so,
he misunderstood. If I had wanted to insult I could have done a rather
better job.
In fact, when I read:
"Here it is, my own take at an English spelling reform!
Unlike many others, it doesn't make up some awkward far-fetched spellings,
but rather stays close to the actual official Ipa pronunciations."
..and then found myself presented with awkward far-fetched spellings that
did not stay close to official IPA pronunciations, I suspected that this
was some sort of send-up or parody.
I was just utterly confused: is this serious or is it a jest? *Groan* - I
guess I should have known it was serious. I repent of the jocular tone of
my reply. But I do not retract the actual points I made.
>
>>> (1) It's not clear how this is closer to the IPA (note capitalization)
That was the main objection I raised. I just do not see how the 'reform'
is _closer_ to IPA.
>> So what? Do you capitalize LASER as well? And RADAR? Well? I'm sure you
>> don't. There's no good reason for all-caps words, they only look way
>> ugly.
>
> Except that we English speakers actually *pronounce* each letter
> separately: it's not */ajp@/, but /aj pi ej/.
Quite so - and it some contexts, in fact, it is quite useful to
distinguish between _us_ and _US_ ;)
[snip]
>> Actually it is /konsi:fd/ in my Gettysburg Address. The "v" at the end
>> of a
>> word is changed to a "f" to ease pronunciation (mostly for non-native
>> speakers), and derived words keep this "f" to stay consistent.
Eh?? I guess [ft] is easier for speakers of German & Russian! BUT some
languages actually favor _voiced_ sounds in word final position. There are
non-native speakers who will find [vd] easier than [ft]. I suspect,
however, that the greater number of non-native speakers find any
combination of final consonants awkward and would more easily pronounce
the final -ed as a separate syllable as it once was in English.
If the desire is not only to reform the spelling of English but also to
reform the language to make it easier for non-native speakers, then IMHO
this should be done from a _global_ perspective.
[snip]
>> Well, the German orthography is certainly a hell of a lot better than
>> the major disaster that is the English spelling :P
>
> Which is entirely beside the point.
Yes, it is. Spanish spelling is a whole lot better than English, so is
Italian spelling, Turkish spelling, Xhosa spelling, etc, etc. Indeed, we
English do not even have to look outside our own little island; Welsh
spelling is near phonemic.
"Naw ddy hôl wyrld had wyn langwej widd ddy sęm wyrds" :-)
> The choice is emphatically
> not, nor has it ever been, between a more "English-like" spelling,
> and a more "German-like" spelling.
Certainly not!
> The question was not even whether
> spelling-reform is a good or bad thing -- just that the possibilities
> are not coextensive with the current system or the one you've cooked
> up.
Yes - proposed reforms of English spelling are legion. Rather like
auxlangs, the supply far exceeds the demand. I would expect any new
proposal at least to consider why existing proposals have not been adopted
and attempt to come up with something better.
[snip]
> You know, it's one thing for you to speak ex cathedra about your
> own language -- even when your fellow speakers disagree with you, as
> recently occurred. What I find galling is that you think you can
> act this way about a language which you self-evidently have NOT
> mastered.
I regret I have to say I find myself in complete agreement with Thomas.
> I won't waste my time with this thread any longer.
There's certainly no dialog going on. I too am bowing out.
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:38:39 +0000
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: qT (and not qs) in Q'en|gai
On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, at 12:58 , Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Dear fellow Conlangers!
>
> The High Council for Q'en|gai Language Affairs (HCQLA) likes to
> announce the following.
>
> The High Council made the (preliminarily) final decision to
> introduce a /qT/ consonant cluster into the Q'en|gai language.
[etc. snipped]
:-D
Thanks, Henrik (Note: I spelled it properly this time :)
You've cheered me up no end on this dismal, grey November morning!
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:54:06 -0500
From: "Pascal A. Kramm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advanced English + Babel text
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 20:24:13 -0500, Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I must say, though, that if English is to be globalized as a Lingua Franca,
>the "reformist" might consider that many native speakers of English already
>differ in their pronunciation of some phonemes. We have people in America
>for whom /T/ and /D/ are pronounced /t/ and /d/. It is to THAT generic
>model--i.e., native speakers and their differences--that a global
>pronunciation reform should be pitched, since most languages already have
>these phones, and not to the defective and foreign substitutions made with
>/s/ and /z/, which sound rankly silly to most native speakers of English.
Ok then... no problem for me. Hadn't heard of this pronunciation this far,
but if it's more usual, I'll use it.
>In pronouncing German, I try my
>best to produce the back-trilled "r." I can't do it, it comes out sounding
>like a French "r," but I respect it and the uvular acrobatics of its
>natives.
German "r" is definitely NOT trilled. It's the voiced uvular fricative.
I'm not that good at French, but afaik, it's prectically the same there.
--
Pascal A. Kramm, author of Choton
official Choton homepage:
http://www.choton.org
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:56:19 -0500
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Conversive
Of course, as I think about it a little more, there are myriad subtleties in
what you suggest here that I didn't consider when I shot off my response.
To unfasten doesn't really mean to stop fastening. So my "be-" doesn't
serve quite the same function. Do I have a "conversive" in Teonaht? As in
close, unclose (meaning open? return to the status of being open?)?
Cessative:
walk, stop walking
like, stop liking
eat, stop eating
and on and on.
Be- can be applied to any verb in Teonaht.
Conversive:
close, unclose
fasten, unfasten
love, unlove (there we have a sense of the cessative)
do, undo
create, uncreate (destroy your creation)
but:
read, unread?
think, unthink?
believe, unbelieve?
see, unsee
A conversive can't be applied to every word in Teonaht.
I think the conversive is expressed in the fairly straightforward prefix
"vo-" in Teonaht, which means "no, not." But then again, that opens up
another subtlety! :-#
Vokkare, no-think, doesn't (until now!) mean reverse one's thinking about
something.
Perhaps I should find another prefix, or have either be- or vo- serve double
duty to express the conversive. Vo- could do just that, since T. already
has a construction meanting "think not": kare vera, as opposed to vokkare,
which could mean to reverse one's thinking on a topic. I think use of vo-
will have to be idiomatic to reduce the invention of new basic particles,
and to keep the language more natural. Ver- in German has several different
meanings in front of a verb, or changes the meaning irregularly. I aim for
that in Teonaht.
Meanwhile, to get back to your question:
There are certain verbs, it seems, that can have no conversive, such as
"eat." How do you uneat? "vomit"? Teonaht already has a word for that, but
I can see a bulimic using the expression euphemistically.
How do you unread something? Untouch? What properties would verbs have to
have to be bad candidates for the conversive?
Sally
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Caves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: The Conversive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "caeruleancentaur"
>
>> While reviewing some Swahili grammar the other day, I came across an
>> aspect of the verb called the conversive. The suffix -ua is added to
>> the verb to "undo" the action of the verb, e.g., funga, fasten;
>> fungua, unfasten.
>
>> Have any of you encountered this in your study of languages?
>
> English, for one! But I don't think un- can be universally applied to all
> verbs as it may do in Swahili. To like (okay), to unlike (not okay), for
> instance; we would say, rather, "stop liking."
>
>> Have
>> any of you used it in your conlang?
>
> Yes, in Teonaht. The prefix be- "undoes" or reverses the action of the
> verb, and very often means to "stop doing X."
>
> beuajarem, "stop detesting, to stop hating."
>
> It comes from the cessative modal adverbial begrem: Elo beg ennyve, "he
> stopped eating."
>
> Sally
> http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/adverbs.html#list
> http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/verbs.html#modal
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:03:11 -0800
From: "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tatari Faran: volition, verb complements, phonology update, and more
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 09:43:52PM -0500, Sally Caves wrote:
> Well, you know, Teoh, I'm a great admirer or your inventions, and I
> love all things volitive (as opposed to volatile). :) If it has a
> feature that resembles the volitional in Teonaht, then I cannot
> doubt that Tatari Faran will keep me, at least, pleasantly engaged
> on-line! :) :) :)
You flatter me. Teonaht was one of the things that got me going in
terms of conlanging in the first place. I may or may not have
unconsciously copied from it. :-) As far as volition in Tatari Faran
is concerned, it was not so much intentional as a chance realization
when I was working out the case system (more below).
[...]
> >2) Ah yes, volition, the eyebrow-raiser in my subject line. ;-)
>
> Indeed.
>
> >I
> >found out that due to the nature of Tatari Faran's core case system,
> >volitive and involitive meanings of the same verb referent must be
> >realized as distinct verbs. For example, in English we use "smell"
> >both in the volitive sense "smell this and see" and in the involitive
> >sense "I smell something burning". In Tatari Faran, two distinct verbs
> >are necessary:
>
> Also, "The garbage smells bad." How would you express that?
Hmm. In English we reuse the word "smell" for several things which
Tatari Faran would consider as distinct. You'd just use an adjectival
predicate in this case:
sitiran punaras
trash-ABS stink-ADJ
"The trash is stinky."
> >huena ... hiim [hMna ... hi:m]
> >To sniff at something (volitive)
> >
> >fahun ... uen [fahun ... Mn]
> >To smell something (involitive)
>
> Different from Teonaht, right there, in providing different words.
Ah. I presume Teonaht achieves the same effect by using different
cases with the same verb?
> >They are necessarily different because of the core cases that are used
> >differently with each verb: for _huena_, the sniffer is marked with
> >the originative case:
> >
> >simani ko huena huu na hiim.
> >wolf ORG smell 1sp RCP COMPL
> >["simani kO "hMna hu: na hi:m]
> >"The wolf smelled me (sniffed at me)."
> >
> >For _fahun_, the smeller is marked with the receptive, since the smell
> >involuntarily arrived at his/her nose:
> >
> >huu na fahun punareis sa uen.
> >1sp RCP smell stink CVY COMPL
> >[hu: na fa"hun puna4ejsa Mn]
> >"I smelt an unpleasant odor."
>
> I may be confirming my recently displayed genius for mathematical
> analysis :) in wondering why the verbs need be different if the core
> case particles are separate from them. Is there something about
> predication in Tatari Faran that I don't get?
Well, the core case system is essentially lifted from Ebisédian. (Or,
as I prefer to think of it, it's the Ebisédian case system done
right.) Switching case particles alone does not do what one might
think (see below).
> Is it that the verbs themselves, rather than the subjects, determine
> the core cases?
Correct.
> But couldn't the same be expressed by the presence of the case
> markers used with those verbs (or for those originaries/receptives)?
Whether or not an NP is the subject or topic is independent of which
case it is marked with. In Tatari Faran, as in Ebisédian, the active
and passive voices are one and the same. Hence, what you suggested:
> huu na huena punareis sa uen?
... would be understood as "I was sniffed at by means of the bad
odor", which doesn't quite convey what was intended. :-)
> The "na" would indicate that the smeller/smelling is receptive instead of
> originary, right?
The "na" makes the NP a receptive NP, which in the case of the verb
_huena_ makes it the thing being sniffed at, rather than the sniffer.
Given a verb and a set of NP's marked with particular cases, it
doesn't matter how you permute them; the meaning is always the same
except for emphasis. So,
simani ko huena huu na uen
wolf ORG sniff 1sp RCP COMPL
means "it is the wolf that sniffs at me"; whereas
huu na huena simani ko uen
1sp RCP sniff wolf ORG COMPL
means "it is I at whom the wolf sniffs".
> Don't get me wrong; I love the distinctions you make here in these
> verbs. It's different. Maybe I need to revisit Ebisedian. Is
> Tatari Faran a related language? (Forgive my not picking this up
> from your earlier postings.)
The only relation that Tatari Faran has with Ebisédian is that it
hoisted Ebisédian's case system, discarded the instrumental and
locative, and replaced them with an unbounded number of postpositions
(of which I should probably post at some juncture). In terms of
internal history, Tatari Faran has nothing to do with Ebisédian, being
for one thing spoken on Earth (gasp!), and therefore sporting a much
more approachable vocabulary.
> >[Sidenote: I don't know whether to translate _simani_ as 'dog' or
> >'wolf', as the inhabitants of Fara keep them as pets. They are
> >ferocious enough to be called wolves in the common sense, but they are
> >also domesticated somewhat.]
>
> How domesticated? I have a great fascination for wolves and their
> basic undomesticability. As pups, they can be pets, but not so well
> as adults. Domestic dogs are always infantilized. A grown wolf is
> in a pack with his alpha human, a status that is always at risk of
> being challenged. I read of a man who lived with his pet wolf for
> years, until he became invalided. Then his wolf turned on him. He
> was no longer alpha, and the wolf, ever competitive, took over.
Interesting. The people of Fara treat the wolves basically as servants
and slaves rather than peers. So they are not pets in the sense of
being something you'd let the kids hug, but only in the sense that you
have mastery over them. I'm not sure if such a proposition is
workable, however, being unfamiliar with the dynamics of the wolf
pack.
> >More examples of the volitive/involitive split:
> >
> >juerat ... itu [dzM4at itu] - "to look" (the classic example)
> >hamra ... aram [ham4a a4am] - "to see"
>
> This I like; the verbs hamra/aram seem to revolve around the same
> consonants.
Sometimes verb complements have a tendency to do that, yes.
[...]
> >This last pair is interesting, as the originative can be used for
> >_fusitas_ as well:
> >
> >kisa ko fusitas kin sa sohaa.
> >fire ORG burn stick CVY COMPL
> >"The fire is burning the stick." (Stick is already burning)
> >
> >Note the subtle nuance difference when _habas_ is used:
> >
> >kisa ko habas kin na saa.
> >fire ORG ignite stick RCP COMPL
> >"The fire ignited the stick." (Stick was not burning before)
> >Or, "the stick caught fire."
>
> Aha! Now this is the only place where I see a logical use for a
> different verb. In Teonaht, presumably, one could have the same
> verb for "sniff/smell" based on volition, but a different verb for
> "I smell bad, said the skunk."
Pray elaborate.
> This inceptive use is interesting.
I don't know if it's so much an inceptive usage as a conceptual
distinction between setting something on fire (volitional) and being
passively consumed by fire (involitional). I would imagine to put out
the fire would be one verb, whereas to sit soaking in the puddle of
water would be a different verb.
> >3) More fun with verb complements: I discovered from my informant that
> >verb complements can complement more than just verbs. It's in fact
> >commonly used to turn a noun into zero-valent verb:
>
> I obviously need a review of verb complements in your languages, Teoh.
Which I shall give with pleasure. :-)
Verb complements in Tatari Faran, as far as I know, have no
equivalents in any natlang, which makes them a bit difficult to
explain clearly. They occur only in the indicative mood, and always at
the end of the sentence or clause containing the verb they complement.
I've tried to explain them as being similar to the "up" in the English
phrase "to shut him up". Here, "up" acts as a sort of complement to
"shut". However, in English "up" is an adposition which the Tatari
Faran verb complement is not.
Another description is, they are re-confirmations of the main verb,
which serve as a re-emphasis of the verb at the end of the sentence.
Arthaey suggested to transliterate the complement as "he/she/it did",
for example:
huu sa tapa buara na bata.
I ORG walk volcano RCP COMPL
"I walked to the volcano; I did."
diru kei tsana bata' na aniin.
girl ORG speak chief RCP COMPL
"The girl spoke to the chief; she did."
Or, to impersonate Tweety Bird:
huu nei hamra simani ko aram. Aram, aram!
I FEM-RCP see wolf ORG COMPL COMPL COMPL
"I saw a wolf indeed; I did, I did!"
Only, of course, the Tatari Faran verb complement actually carries a
semantic value compatible with the verb, rather than a mere generic
reaffirmation "I did!".
In my Tatari Faran lexicon, I've chosen to gloss verb complements as
auxilliary verbs. For example, _aram_ is glossed as "to behold"; and
_itu_, the complement of _juerat_ "to look", is glossed as "to cast a
glance".
Perhaps the intricacies of the verb _tapa_, "to walk", might yield
some insight into the matter. Normally, the complement of _tapa_ is
_bata_. However, sometimes one uses other complements instead, such as
_ta'an_, meaning "down to the bottom". For example:
kiran sa tapa buara ka ta'an.
youth CVY walk volcano ORG COMPL
"The youth walked to the bottom of the volcano."
The verb complement here doesn't actually have a full adverbial
meaning, however. The sentence above is better translated "the youth
left the volcano (by descending to the bottom)". The verb complement
implies finality, hence it is "to the bottom" rather than "downwards",
as can be seen below:
> >peira. [pej4a] - rain
> >peira ta'an. [pej4a ta?an] - it is raining.
>
> Lovely. Teonaht, by contrast, has "rain exists" (Tyeel perim), or "rain
> falls" (Tyeel kebon-- non-volitional "fall").
To which I must comment: _perim_ is very reminiscient of the Ebisédian
_Pe'rim_ [p_h&r`im], meaning "universe", and one of its idiomatic uses
is to serve as a replacement of the verb to be (which does not exist
in Ebisédian, ironically enough). One would assert impossibility by
using the nullar locative of _Pe'rim_, essentially saying "in no
universe does this happen!". In the analogous construct with your
Teonaht above, it would mean something like "there is rain in the
universe" -- i.e., rain exists. Interesting coincidence! (Or is it an
actual borrowing? ;-)
> >The complement _ta'an_ is also used with other verbs, such as _tapa_
> >(to walk), to mean "down to the bottom":
>
> So, in hindsight, "rain down[s]." Or something like that.
Correct. Although, _ta'an_ implies that the rain has fallen to the
ground, not just falling downwards. Being a verb complement (or
finalizer as I first called it), it conveys the sense of finality that
the rain is no longer just droplets somewhere up there, but have
arrived on the ground.
[...]
> >More verb complement examples:
> >
> >baran. [ba4an] - morning
> >baran saan. [ba4an sa:n] - it is morning/daybreak.
>
> What is saan?
It means "brightening" or "daybreak". Carries the connotation of rays
of light breaking forth into the passing night. I surmise that _saan_
would also serve as a complement for the verb _to shine_.
[...]
> >jumba. [dzumba] - a rolling earthquake
> >jumba tsitsin. [dzumba tsi.tsin] - a rolling earthquake is
> >happening.
> >
> >The complement _tsitsin_ is odd, in the sense that it is also an
> >adjective meaning "dizzy".
>
> Makes perfect sense!
Why, thank you. :-) The oddity, I suppose, is the fact that it doubles
as an adjective, whereas most verb complements cannot be turned into
adjectives.
> Will stop here and get back to work, despite the fascinations of phonology.
> BTW, what does /M/ signify, me all ignorant.
[M] is the unrounded close back vowel.
[...]
> >a) The receptive case particle _na_ (and _nei_ and _no_) mutates if it
> >follows a noun that ends with a similar-sounding syllable. E.g.:
> >
> >huna + na -> hunan da [hunanda]
> >hina + nei -> hinan dei [hinandej]
>
> I lied. Back at it. A kind of sandhi?
Yes, in fact it is, now that I looked up the word 'sandhi'. :-)
[...]
> These are sound modifications I've considered as well in Teonaht. I'm a
> little sick of all the long words, and I've contemplated a dialect of
> Teonaht that shortens some of them by a system I thought I had borrowed from
> Irish, but I cannot find it if my life depended on it. Teonaht is
> overwhelmed by the bysyllabic CVCV noun/verb/adjective that ends in /@/:
> cona, bita, epa, etc. I thought of mutating them so that final C and V
> switch places: coan, biat, eap, to produce a more diphthongal language.
Good luck with your change. :-)
One of the defining goals in my design of Tatari Faran is to make the
phonology more, er, "smooth"? Unlike the baroque-sounding Ebisédian,
with its complete lack of glides (at least phonemically) and almost
staccato syllables. Well, actually, to be frank, the Ebisédian
phonology is a frankenstein system resulting from my early conlanging
inexperience, where I simply catalogued every sound that I could
pronounce and threw them into Ebisédian (minus [e] and [ej] just for
kicks, but other than that, essentially the extent of my vocalic
capabilities at the time).
> For words like lorfa, milna, etc., where you have CVCCV, the final
> "a" would drop off if the noun is the object or a non-volitional.
> So:
>
> Lorf elry ken, "I saw a wolf," but Ol lorfa-le ke, "A wolf sighted me."
Interlinear, please? :-)
Also, do you have a page describing the phonetic inventory of Teonaht
and its orthographical conventions? I seem to remember reading it
somewhere, but now I can't find it on your Teonaht webpage.
> In fact, I've already adopted that rule. The other is more radical, and a
> component of Menarilihs.
Remind me, is Menarilihs is a dialect of Teonaht? I seem to recall
seeing the name before.
> Meanwhile, do you lose your speech if you see a wolf involuntarily, or if
> the wolf spies you?
[...]
In Tatari Faran, "to see" is inherently non-volitive (its volitive
counterpart being "to look"). This makes for 4 possibilities:
huu na hamra simani ko aram.
I RCP see wolf ORG COMPL
"I see the wolf."
simani ko hamra huu na aram.
wolf ORG see I RCP COMPL
"The wolf was seen by me."
huu ka hamra simanin do aram.
I ORG see wolf RCP COMPL
"I was seen by the wolf."
simanin do hamra huu ka aram.
wolf ORG see I ORG COMPL
"The wolf sees me."
:-)
T
--
Never wrestle a pig. You both get covered in mud, and the pig likes it.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:19:45 -0800
From: "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tatari Faran: volition, verb complements, phonology update, and more
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 05:14:01AM +0200, Rodlox wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> > huena ... hiim [hMna ... hi:m]
> > To sniff at something (volitive)
> >
> > fahun ... uen [fahun ... Mn]
> > To smell something (involitive)
>
> so..."sniff" and "smell" are both with the nasal passages, yes?
>
> what about things smelled with the mouth? (I, for one, can smell *some*
> things better with the roof of my mouth, and *most* things better with my
> nose).
Hmm. I gather it would be "taste" rather than "smell" in that case. I
know that some smells are sensed by the mouth rather than the nose,
but the smell/taste distinction is good enough for the inhabitants of
Fara. Or maybe "smell" is good enough for both purposes; they don't
have a pressing need to distinguish between them anyway.
[...]
> > [Sidenote: I don't know whether to translate _simani_ as 'dog' or
> > 'wolf', as the inhabitants of Fara keep them as pets. They are
> > ferocious enough to be called wolves in the common sense, but they are
> > also domesticated somewhat.]
>
> oh...like dingos. :)
Perhaps. :-) But these wolves are quite a bit larger than dingos, and
a lot more ferocious (hence their use as guards).
T
--
A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems. -- P. Erdos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:35:17 -0500
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advanced English + Babel text
You misunderstand me, Pascal. I said "BACK trilled." The vibration of the
uvula against the back of the tongue (what we call in America a gutteral or
back trill--sounds a little bit like imitating the growling of a dog), which
is practiced by many Germans in pronouncing some "r"s, especially notable in
conjunction with back vowels--Friedrich Wilhelm Emil RRRRRoth!--and
decidedly different from the French uvular "scrape," which I'm better at.
I've heard my native German teacher pronounce it--gerrrrradeaus!--I've heard
my native German friends pronounce it and poke fun at my attempts at it, and
I've had other Germans tell me that the French "r" is just fine, don't be
too hard on myself. It's a SPLENDID sound, and expressed, I believe, by the
IPA graph [R\], or so I've been told. I can only produce it under certain
salivary conditions. ;-)
Sally
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pascal A. Kramm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 20:24:13 -0500, Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>In pronouncing German, I try my
>>best to produce the back-trilled "r." I can't do it, it comes out
>>sounding
>>like a French "r," but I respect it and the uvular acrobatics of its
>>natives.
>
> German "r" is definitely NOT trilled. It's the voiced uvular fricative.
> I'm not that good at French, but afaik, it's prectically the same there.
>
> --
> Pascal A. Kramm, author of Choton
> official Choton homepage:
> http://www.choton.org
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> 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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
