------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 6 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Conlangs of mischief (Was: Re: I'm back!)
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. 1st, 2nd, 3rd - 4th person POV??
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: Basque Gender Marking (was Re: Further language development Q's)
From: Tamas Racsko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: 1st, 2nd, 3rd - 4th person POV??
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: OOPs!! When is a class not a class? (Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes
in Language)
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: 1st, 2nd, 3rd - 4th person POV??
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:54:22 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlangs of mischief (Was: Re: I'm back!)
----- Original Message -----
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
this was returned to me, since it was email #6
> > > Alright, bring it on. Let's see what mischief Metes can cause that
> > > Ebisédian can't do worse. :-)
> >
> > can you get archived messages from the relay list? that might give you
a
> > hint. :)
> >
> > > I'll start: there is no distinction between 2nd and 3rd person in
> > > Ebisédian. This is wonderfully destructive in relays involving
> > > conversations (although we haven't had one like that yet---which may
> > > be a good thing, depending on your POV). Let's see Metes beat that.
> >
> > no word order.
>
> minor clarification - Metes has no word order of its own.
>
> an example...say we had people speaking the following languages...after
the
> colons are whose word order they'd use...
>
> Ebisédian: Ebisédian.
> Metes: Ebisédian.
> Klingon: Klingon.
> Metes: Klingon.
>
>
> ps: please note that I am not trying to steal the crown from you or
> Ebisédian...I was just trying to make polite conversation...something I
> clearly need further practice doing.
>
> sorry.
>
> have a nice day.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:54:48 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 1st, 2nd, 3rd - 4th person POV??
this was #7...
> growing up, I learned how to write...I learned about 1st Person POV (I,
> singular, only writing the thoughts of the narrator) & 3rd Person POV
> (writing the thoughts of everyone in the story) & 2nd Person POV (I've
been
> a bit hazy about how often this delves into the thoughts of others).
>
> BUT, more to the point of this thread, I've lately been hearing about
> another -- a "4th Person POV".
>
> anybody have any ideas or theories about what it might be?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:03:06 +0200
From: Tamas Racsko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Basque Gender Marking (was Re: Further language development Q's)
On 24 Sep 2004 "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Our understanding of its phonology and morphology are based
> almost entirely on how Sumerian words borrowed into Akkadian
> were pronounced, sometimes centuries after Sumerian ceased to
> be spoken as a living language. It is therefore difficult if
> not impossible to know whether these kinds of collocations that
> you mention are not just cliticized forms, and we can therefore
> not know whether to call Sumerian polysynthetic (to the extent
> that that term has any real meaning).
As for the phonetics, maybe you are true. However we make
statements even on PIE phonology that is also a reconstruction.
IMHO therefore this argument is not enough to preclude the theory-
making. Well, we do not know the exact phonetical value of
Sumerian |d| but it surely contrasts with another phoneme
transcribed as |t|. Thus |d| and |t| are proper 'variable names'
in a linguistic function.
As for the morphology, I see things differently. We do not have
to reach phonetical level to form morphological analysis (it is
much more explicit in a logographic language).
Let's see the word |mu-na-ni-n-du-{}| 'he/she has built it there
for him/her'. Morpheme "mu" is the ventive mood marker, i.e. the
subject is personally involved in the act (i.e. he/she is an
animate Actor) and usually (but not ineluctably) benefits for
(another) animate Recipient.
There is another phrase |lugal-e e mu-n-du-{}| 'the king has
build up the temple', (king-ERG temple VENTIVE-PERF:sg3-build-
ABS:sg3). The morphemes |na| and |ni| in the first example may be
clitics but if they are clitic, the behave like infixes (i.e. they
are inserted into a morpheme chain).
There is a third phrase: |nanna-ra urnammu-ke e-a-ni mu-na-n-du-
{}| 'Urnammu has built his temple for god Nanna' (Nanna-DAT Urnammu-
ERG temple-GEN-ANIMATE:sg3 VENTIVE-DAT:ANIMATE:sg3-PERF:sg3-build-
ABS:sg3). There is a separate inserted reference of the Recipient
(in Dative) in the verbal morpheme chain. This is another
characteristic that is common in verbal affixes.
Moreover, AFAIK Sumerian verbal morpheme chains seems to be
strongly positional, that is devided into slots. E.g. in
affirmative: Prefix slots: 1. modal morphemes, 2. directional
morphemes (cf. English phrasal verbs, Slavic verbal prefixes), 3-4-
5. morphemes for verbal arguments (Patient, Recipient, Location
etc.), 6. mood+person+number (of Actor); Verb stem; Suffix slots
... Slots are also an affixal feature.
And finally, there are phonetical changes (assimilations) that
are characteristic for word-internal positions and not for simple
juxtapositions of separate words (unbound morphemes).
And if something behave like an affix, IMHO it can be treated as
an affix. Surely, Sumerian has a very particular affix chaining
(even on noun phrases!), therefore it differs somehow from the
present polysynthetic
languages. But I do not see another "container" for Sumerian in
the
typology schemes I know. (Btw, in English literature, is there
distinction
between terms "polysynthetic" and "incorporating"?)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:58:40 -0400
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 1st, 2nd, 3rd - 4th person POV??
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:54:48 +0200, Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>this was #7...
>
>> growing up, I learned how to write...I learned about 1st Person POV (I,
>> singular, only writing the thoughts of the narrator) & 3rd Person POV
>> (writing the thoughts of everyone in the story) & 2nd Person POV (I've
>been
>> a bit hazy about how often this delves into the thoughts of others).
>>
>> BUT, more to the point of this thread, I've lately been hearing about
>> another -- a "4th Person POV".
>>
>> anybody have any ideas or theories about what it might be?
They occur in Algonquin languages, e.g. in Cree, and refer to another third
person if there's already been mentioned one.
Something similar but far more complex can be observed in sign languages. I
don't know up to how many 'parties' they could reference simultaneously, but
it's much more than in spoken language.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:29:17 +0200
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OOPs!! When is a class not a class? (Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes
in Language)
--- Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev:
> OOPs!! Someone has informed me that JavaScript does
> *not* have the formal
> notion of class in the sense that the term is used
> in OOP and in the way
> that C++ and Java does. I must confess that my
> object-oriented programming
> has been a little in C++ and quite a lot in Delphi
> and Java. So far I've
> done _very_ little in JavaScript, so when Philippe
> mentioned objects and
> classes in JavaScript, I assumed that the terms were
> being used in the
> traditional OOP manner. I should have known better:
> other than a
> resemblance in syntax, JavaScript has nothing to do
> with Java. (Darned
> scripting languages :)
>
> In fact, I discover the way JavaScript deals with
> objects is quite
> different the classic OOP languages. It seems books
> on JavaScript are in
> the habit of using the term 'class' informally for,
> as I understand it, a
> set of objects sharing similar properties & methods.
> But - {blushes deeply}
> - if I had stopped to think about it, Javascript
> could not have formal
> classes because it is such a weakly typed language.
> (Darned scripting
> languages :)
>
> OK - Philippe, if your only experience of using
> objects is JavaScript,
> maybe we had better not continue using the class ~
> object analogy
> otherwise we are very likely to be talking at
> cross-purposes, which won't
> help anybody.
>
As I understood from Flanagan's "JavaScript" (I'm
currently at page 344 of the French edition, and there
are 955 in all), JavaScript in not a real OOP, but it
more or less behaves like an OOP. As I don't know Java
neither C++, it's hard for me to explain it smartly.
What I know is that JS has no types and confuses "+"
and "concatenate" (well, it doesn't really confuse
them, it only makes it very likely that you will have
problems with that some day), which leaves me
voiceless. Otherwise, plenty of interesting things in
it.
So, when I'l be through with JavaScript, I'll learn
Java (probably at least 1500 pages ?) and C++, and a
dozen of other things, including DHTML, XTHML, XML,
XSL, PHP, MySQL, Perl, Unix, vi, Apache, Tomcat, etc,
and then I maybe will be able to send "Hello, world"
on the internaut's screen, just in time to discover
that all what I learned will be outfashioned and I
have to start everything from new again :-]
And of course, I'll never have time to concentrate on
the applications and their functionalities. Which
normally is more or less the thing I'm paid for, as an
analyst.
There is something rotten in the Kingdom of
Programming, IMO.
(NB. I only mentioned "good" and well-known
professional tools above. If you could see how we must
manage with the applications that "professional"
developers sold us, especially their ergonomy,
efficiency and documentation, you could not believe
it. Yesterday I argued with one of them, because I was
looking for information about a command named
"dufetch" in a pdf document, which returned me for
"dufetch": Number of occurences = 0, and they told me
blandly: yes, you should know that you were supposed
to look for "dt_manager", and everything about
"dufetch" is explained there. In fact, "dufetch" means
"dt_manager -fetch". The idea of mentioning that fact
somewhere in their doc never occured to them.)
=====
Philippe Caquant
Ceterum censeo *vi* esse oblitterandum (Me).
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:15:00 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 1st, 2nd, 3rd - 4th person POV??
J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:54:48 +0200, Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>this was #7...
>>
>>
>>
>>> growing up, I learned how to write...I learned about 1st Person POV (I,
>>>singular, only writing the thoughts of the narrator) & 3rd Person POV
>>>(writing the thoughts of everyone in the story) & 2nd Person POV (I've
>>>
>>>
>>been
>>
>>
>>>a bit hazy about how often this delves into the thoughts of others).
>>>
>>> BUT, more to the point of this thread, I've lately been hearing about
>>>another -- a "4th Person POV".
>>>
>>> anybody have any ideas or theories about what it might be?
>>>
>>>
>
>They occur in Algonquin languages, e.g. in Cree, and refer to another third
>person if there's already been mentioned one.
>
>
Unfotunately, writing from this POV would require central character to
be incidental. Not what you'd call easy.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
