------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Da Mätz se Basa: Syntax
From: René Uittenbogaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: Slang, curses and vulgarities
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: articles
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: articles
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: Slang, curses and vulgarities
From: René Uittenbogaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: /x/ and 'inter-Germanic' (was: Intergermansk)
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Molee's "Saxon English" online
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Da Mätz se Basa: Syntax
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: ANNOUNCE: CXS<->IPA converter online
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: articles
From: Stephen Mulraney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Sauron's conlang (was: Intergermansk - Three Rings)
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: articles
From: Doug Dee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Slang, curses and vulgarities
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Slang, curses and vulgarities
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Intergermansk - Three Rings
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Intergermansk - The North Wind and the Sun
From: "Pascal A. Kramm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: Intergermansk - Three Rings
From: Stephen Mulraney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: articles
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: ANNOUNCE: CXS<->IPA converter online
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: Intergermansk - Three Rings
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: articles
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: Verbs Outside of the Slavic
From: Kevin Athey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: Intergermansk - Pizza packaging text :D
From: "Pascal A. Kramm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: articles
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: Supposed Celtic semiticisms
From: damien perrotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:47:09 +0100
From: René Uittenbogaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Da Mätz se Basa: Syntax
Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Hi!
>
> René Uittenbogaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Henrik Theiling het geskryf:
>>
>>>René Uittenbogaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> comments on my posting:
>>>
>>>>Moenie die deur oopmaak voor die trein stilstaan nie.
>>>
>>>Wow, this is great! It sounds so funny to my (a speaker of German and
>>>Dutch). So funny! (Included in grammar notes...:-))
>>
>>Yes, and it definitely sounds funny to many Dutch people. Luckily I'm in
>>the process of learning to interpret it more and more seriously.
>>Getting the impression that every sentence is funny becomes a hindrance
>>when the speaker/writer is in fact being serious.
>
> I handled it differently: for me it sounds funny, but when I learn it,
> it's no hindrance, it just goes away.
I suppose you have the advantage of actually learning the language - I
didn't actually learn Afrikaans, although I'm really interested in it.
> This happened in Dutch, which
> also sounds quite funny for most Germans, I suppose.
Really? I never heard that Dutch sounds funny to Germans.. I'll ask some
Germans I know :) It's strange, I always imagined that Afrikaners
probably felt bad about their language being laughed at by so many
Dutch, but now that I'm at the other end (Dutch sounding funny to
Germans), I'm actually amused :)
> But this feeling
> quickly disappears after the first grammar rules have to be learnt
> since they are different from the German ones... :-) Still some words
> are funny because the direct translation is funny.
> E.g. 'milieuverpesting' for 'Umweltverschmutzung'. Or
> 'afvoerbuisontstopper' for 'Abflußreiniger'.
I'd say that 'gootsteenontstopper' is more common. And
'milieuverontreiniging' ('milieuverpesting' is not in my Wolters, but
OTOH, Dutch allows so many words to be compounded, that I usually don't
worry about whether a compound word is in the dictionary. But
'milieuverpesting' sounds funny to me, too).
> BTW: Do you have links to audio?
You could try the links listed at http://www.dieknoop.co.za/#luister .
I haven't tried these because I'm in Linux now, and I don't think I've
got a way to play mms:// links and wma-files.
>>... You state that in De Mätz se Basa, 'nich nä' is fine.
*Da* Mätz se Basa. Sorry.
>>Would
>>this also hold for sentences that leave out a constituent, like:
>>
>>Die reėl lui dat 'n uitbreidende bysin deur 'n komma voorafgegaan word,
>>'n beperkende bysin nie.
>
> Yes, this will end in 'nich nä'. I assume that
>
> '..., maar nie 'n beperkende bysin nie.'
>
> would also be valid in Afrikaans? So the 'nie' above is a collapse of
> normal 'nie' and 'nie' complement, too, right?
TTBOMK, I guess that that would not be valid Afrikaans. But mind you,
I have never learned Afrikaans, I'm just trying to figure it out by
examining it.
I think the difference is illustrated by the following examples:
'n Voėl kan vlieg, maar 'n koei nie.
A bird can fly, but a cow cannot.
Ek het 'n voėl gesien, maar nie 'n koei nie.
I've seen a bird, but not a cow.
I guess this means that putting "nich nä" at the end of the sentence
introduces ambiguity. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, though.
Baie groete,
René
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:52:17 +0000
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slang, curses and vulgarities
The thing is, offending people with words isn't the same as swearing,
really. I could say "you're a fat pig" and you might be insulted, but
"pig" is not a swearword in English since it has nonoffensive meanings
as well. Every language I know has some words that are always
vulgar/offensive, but I don't think it's impossible for a language not
to have those kinds of words... that wouldn't mean that people who speak
that language don't offend each other with words though. :) It'd just
mean that they have no words exclusively dedicated to offending people,
and simply recruit other words with non-offensive meanings as well (like
pig above) for the purpose.
> And there is really a language where there are no offensive
> words? I can't believe that there are no words that are at
> least slightly offensive. Offending somebody with words is
> maybe even more effective than beating them (word?). I
> don't think that *always* swallowing anger is that good,
> psychologically. One should not explode because of nothing,
> that's clear. But concerning myself, at some point, I
> cannot keep quiet anymore after having been annoyed by the
> same person over and over. I start throwing around insults
> for a short time then. Since I try to avoid offending
> people, I usually apologize later, being sorry for having
> got loud.
>
> Carsten
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:01:37 -0500
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: articles
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:07:07 -0500, # 1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'd like to know if there are only some places in the worlds where
>languages possess articles and also if the majority does or doesn't use
>articles
>
>I searched and all languages I found wich have one or two articles are IE
>or are situated near of some IE languages
The older IE languages didn't use articles either (Latin, old Germanic). And
I think Slavic languages don't have them either, but I don't know for sure.
I don't know how common they are in the world's languages, but you may
better search for "definitness" instead, since this is what the grammatical
function of articles is called.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:07:02 +0000
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: articles
> It tought it could be only the IE languages but arabic has "el" and
> basque
> has the suffix "-a"
>
> Had "el" and "-a" been borrowed from an IE language?
>
Basque -a is a reduced form of the demonstrative stem ha(r)- (that one),
I believe (the absolutive form is "hura" though). The r often still
remains when a case ending beginning with a vowel is added, for example:
-arekin
-a(r)+ekin
art+"with"
So the Basque article -a isn't related to the IE articles, unless Basque
and PIE decend from a common ancestor (as some people have proposed, but
with no proof). As for the commoness of articles: many languages have
them, and many don't. The most common way a language acquires them is
from demonstratives, as in both Basque and many of the IE languages. For
example, all the Romance languages acquired articles from reduced forms
of Latin demonstratives.
The interesting thing about Basque is that it also grammaticalized the
proximate article "hau" (this). Compare:
irakasleak the teachers originally: those teachers
irakasleok we/all you teachers originally: these teachers
sadly, the usage of the proximate article is restricted mostly now, but
it's still very interesting.
I'd also say that -a is not really definite in meaning in Basque. It
functions more as a default: all NPs in Basque require some kind of
determiner, and when another isn't present -a tends to be added. It can
be interpreted as definite or indefinite in most circumstances... there
are only a few in which it can be only be definite in meaning.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:16:13 +0100
From: René Uittenbogaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slang, curses and vulgarities
I once had a Russian couple over for coffee, and I served them a kind of
cookies called "bokkepootjes" (male-goat's paws) in Dutch. We tried to
find out what that translates to in Russian and arrived at "Š½Š¾Š³Šø ŠŗŠ¾Š·Š»Š°"
/'nogi k6z'la/ (I hope I remember this correctly). But they immediately
warned me that I should not use the word for "male goat" in Russian, as
it's considered a very offensive insult.
Can any of our Russian-speakers confirm this? This usage could of
course be regional; this couple was from near Krasnodar, if I'm correct.
René
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:27:05 +0000
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: /x/ and 'inter-Germanic' (was: Intergermansk)
On Saturday, January 29, 2005, at 07:13 , Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> It is quite clear from Philip's mail that Swedish does not have /x/; it
>> is
>> just that some varieties of Swedish have [x] as a realization of the
>> phoneme /S/, while in other Swedish speaking areas it is realized as [s`
>> ]
>> or [s\].
>
> I don't see how that's clear at all. How do we determine that a phoneme
> that the
> majority pronounces as [x] is, in fact, /S/? Especially when those who
> don't
> mostly use [s`] or [s\] rather than [S]?
I really do not want to get into an argument about at what stage during a
sound change, you change from using one phonemic symbol to another. But I
think I may be excused in view of:
On Friday, January 28, 2005, at 07:51 , Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> Ray Brown wrote:
>
>> I had not realized, I admit, that /S/ in modern Swedish was now
>> (generally/
>> always?) pronounced [x].
[snip]
> It has been spreading northward from southernmost Sweden for more
> than a century -- apparently reaching the Stockholm area after the
> WW2 period, but it has not yet reached the northern half of Sweden,
> where we instead find merger of earlier /S/ and /rs/, nor has it
> reached the Swedish-speaking parts of Finland where /S/ actually
> is realized [s\] -- the actual pronunciation of traditional "/C/"
> on the mainland --, while "/C/" is [ts\] and /rs/ is still [rs].
>
> One often cited reason for the spread of [x] is the "need" to
Not only did Philip not correct my use of /S/, he also used it himself. In
his mail [x], [s`] and [s\] are shown as _phonetic_ symbols. Philip is
Swedish-speaking, I am not.
Also you yourself have written:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2005, at 08:38 , Andreas Johansson wrote:
[snip]
> I'll take exception to that - [x] is all over my Swedish, and over that
> of a
> great many other Swedes. That the phoneme in question is traditionally
> denoted
> /S/ should not be allowed to influence our judgement as to whether it's
> "the
> same" as the /x/ of German or Afrikaans.
and:
> On Thursday, January 27, 2005, at 08:52 , Andreas Johansson wrote:
>
> Quoting Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
>> I had not realized, I admit, that /S/ in modern Swedish was now
>> (generally/
>> always?) pronounced [x].
>
> Other pronunciations are found, including reportedly [S], but I think it'
> s fair
> to say [x] is the standard one. It's often more-or-less rounded,
> especially
> before rounded vowels, and sometimes it's weakened to [M\_0] (that's a vl
> velar
> approximant) - I seem to recall Daniel Andreasson saying he's got that
> pronunciation.
I'm sorry, but my use of /S/ has not been 'corrected' before; it was used
by Philip and you yourself referred to a phoneme "traditionally denoted /S/
". In all the quotes above [x] is shown as a _phone_.
I have only your & Philip's descriptions to go on. If I have drawn the
wrong conclusions, I am sorry - but in view of the evidence presented to
me, I do not think my conclusion was unreasonable.
[Back to Andreas' email of Jan. 29th}
> (Yes, I've got something personal against denoting this phoneme as /S/.)
That was not clear before. I think I may have inadvertently stepped into
an area of inter-Swede disagreement - if so, I want no part part in it.
> Now, this is of limited interest to a project like Folkspraak, since the
> phoneme
> doesn't have much of anything to do with the German /x/, but that's
> another
> matter.
Too true. Also it does not, as far as I can see, invalidate my basic
thesis that because the Folkspraak Charter says:
"The primary design principle is that Folkspraak omit any linguistic
feature not common to most of the modern
Germanic languages."
..then it will omit /x/ (as well as /T/ and /D/.
Basically, my error has been to lump the Swedes in with Norwegians and
Danes as "continental Scandinavians" - ME CVLPA.
===============================================
On Saturday, January 29, 2005, at 08:19 , Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
[snip]
> Sure. If *I* (absit omen) were to design an intergermanic conlang
> I would start from the common North-West Germanic sound system, before
> umlaut, palatalization and the High German sound shift, but merge */T/
> into /t/ and /d/ and allow [v] as a realization of /w/ and [ju] as
> a realization of /iu/eu/.
That seems reasonable :)
===============================================
On Saturday, January 29, 2005, at 10:15 , Isaac Penzev wrote:
> Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
>
>> Sure. If *I* (absit omen) were to design an intergermanic conlang
>
> Guys. That all is very interesting. You may succeed in provoking me to
> start
> such a project...
I know the feeling. The Tutonish extract was like by some, and others have
liked Intergermansk. A pity there is AFAIK no continuous text in
Folkspraak. But it is interesting seeing the quite different approaches of
these three. It does sort of make one feel: "I wonder what I would make of
it" :)
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: 7
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 11:32:49 -0700
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Molee's "Saxon English" online
Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Muke Tever wrote:
>> And here it is:
>> http://wiki.frath.net/Grammar_of_Saxon_English
>>
> Very interesting and, surprisingly to my view, not half-bad.
> On first quick reading, I have two questions for Mr. Molee (or you?)
>
> 1. In the Religious Service: Gebet:
> In the 4th paragraph, "(thau wilt) qnnem" 'accept' [An.nEm]?
> In the 5th paragraph, "annem" 'accept' (imperative) [&n.nEm]?
>
> Is boo-boo? or is there actually vowel-change in the two forms?
Hmm... I don't believe he proposed vowel-change outside of the
handful of irregular verbs he chose to retain. It's either an
alternate preposition prefixed, thus a slightly different word,
(which would explain why he glosses it twice) or an oversight.
> 2. Purged of French elements, OK...Latinate too? But in the lastline of the
> Sermon, we have "relijon".
Yeah, he surely would have had a word for religion already (probably
something in -lor) -- possibly it was a stylistic choice, if not
an oversight.
*Muke!
--
website: http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt: http://kohath.deviantart.com/
FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:30:42 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Da Mätz se Basa: Syntax
Hi!
René Uittenbogaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> > This happened in Dutch, which
> > also sounds quite funny for most Germans, I suppose.
>
> Really? I never heard that Dutch sounds funny to Germans.. I'll ask some
> Germans I know :) ...
:-) I'm interested in their response.
> > E.g. 'milieuverpesting' for 'Umweltverschmutzung'. Or
> > 'afvoerbuisontstopper' for 'Abflußreiniger'.
>
> I'd say that 'gootsteenontstopper' is more common.
Ah, ok. I read the former word on a bottle of just that stuff. So my
sampling might not at all be good. :-)
> And 'milieuverontreiniging' ('milieuverpesting' is not in my
Oops! Were did I find that, then? Even google only finds some 10 hits.
> You could try the links listed at http://www.dieknoop.co.za/#luister .
> I haven't tried these because I'm in Linux now, and I don't think I've
> got a way to play mms:// links and wma-files.
Same here. Hmm.
> >>... You state that in De Mätz se Basa, 'nich nä' is fine.
>
> *Da* Mätz se Basa. Sorry.
I do that regularly, too, actually... :-)
>...
> I think the difference is illustrated by the following examples:
>
> 'n Voėl kan vlieg, maar 'n koei nie.
> A bird can fly, but a cow cannot.
>
> Ek het 'n voėl gesien, maar nie 'n koei nie.
> I've seen a bird, but not a cow.
>
> I guess this means that putting "nich nä" at the end of the sentence
> introduces ambiguity. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, though.
Well, but in De^Ha Mätz se Basa, the first one would put the 'nich' just
before 'nä' and in the second, puts it in front of 'a cow'.
My question was why you would regard an elided constituent (in this
case the verb) special so that you asked whether then, 'nich nä' would
not be allowed. I see nothing special -- and I was thinking that a
simple rule in Afrikaans deletes any two adjacent 'nie' into just one.
(Adjacent 'nä's in my language *do* collapse.) Perhaps I missed your
point and am overseeing a problem. Hmm.
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:33:25 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: CXS<->IPA converter online
Hi!
Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> Since there is no collision, and , is intuitively clear due to its
> similarity with IPA, I think there is problem allowing the
> alternative. ...
Shoot! It should read '...I think ther is *no* problem...'
Especially since it is included in Tristan's chart as he
just told me. I must have overseen that.
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:40:19 +0000
From: Stephen Mulraney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: articles
J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:07:07 -0500, # 1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>I'd like to know if there are only some places in the worlds where
>>languages possess articles and also if the majority does or doesn't use
>>articles
>>
>>I searched and all languages I found wich have one or two articles are IE
>>or are situated near of some IE languages
> The older IE languages didn't use articles either (Latin, old Germanic). And
> I think Slavic languages don't have them either, but I don't know for sure.
You're right, they don't. I've heard it said that the Czech demonstative
adjective,
"ten, ta, to" (meaning "this", more or less) is being increasingly used as
something like a definite article. Certainly I've seen almost article-like uses
of this (identical) word in Polish.
In any case, I don't think there's any special connection between IE langs and
articles. As you said, some non-IE langs have them, lots of IE langs don't have
them, and some IE langs (e.g. the Celtic langs) have only definite articles
(just
like the Semitic langs... see recent thread).
s.
--
Stephen Mulraney [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ataltane.net
This post brought to you by the letter 3 and the number 0xF
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:25:02 +0000
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sauron's conlang (was: Intergermansk - Three Rings)
On Sunday, January 30, 2005, at 01:01 , Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 07:35:14PM -0500, Pascal A. Kramm wrote:
>> Well, your response to my suggestion (that he did base his conlang on
>> pre-existing langs) seemed indeed to suggest that yyou meant he did
>> create a
>> 'a priori' lang:
I made no such response.
>> "It could have been a completely normal and natural
>> lang before Sauron came and changed Mordor into the Land of Shadows...
>> "
>> So if he did *not* create an 'a priori' lang, this is exactly what
>> happened,
>> he used already spoken lang(s) (most probably the previous lang of
>> Mordor)
>> to create his conlang.
>>
>
> It seems that one of us misunderstands the terms "a priori" and "a
> posteriori".
> And I don't know which one of us Ray agrees with. But I would say that
> Esperanto is an a posteriori lang, not an a priori one - it's vocabulary
> was not made up out of thin air, but based on various existing languages.
Of course Esperanto is an a_posteriori language. There are, I know, one or
two apparently a_priori features in it it, but a good 99% of it is
a_posteriori_. All the auxlangs I listed in my previous mail are
a_posteriori.
> Even so, there exists no language that you can point to and say "that's
> what Esperanto used to be before it was Esperanto."
Exactly!
> -Marcos
>
>> --
>> Pascal A. Kramm, author of:
>> Intergermansk: http://www.choton.org/ig/
>> Chatiga: http://www.choton.org/chatiga/
>> Choton: http://www.choton.org
>> Ichwara Prana: http://www.choton.org/ichwara/
>> Skälansk: http://www.choton.org/sk/
>> Advanced English: http://www.choton.org/ae/
With respect to the author of all these conlangs, JRRT said only: "It is
said that the Black Speech was devised by Sauron in the Dark Years.."
I made no other claim than that.
There is *nothing* in JRRT's sentence to suggest whether the creation was
a_priori or a_posteriori or, indeed, mixed. I do, however, know the
meaning of "devised" - everything else is idle speculation.
Please could this rather pointless thread be brought to a close.
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: 12
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:42:20 EST
From: Doug Dee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: articles
In a message dated 1/30/2005 12:09:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>But, more I read grammars of other languages, more I realize that a lot of
>them don't have articles
>Is it something rare in languages?
>Are there only families of languages that use them?
>It tought it could be only the IE languages but arabic has "el" and basque
has the suffix "-a"
>Had "el" and "-a" been borrowed from an IE language?
>I'd like to know if there are only some places in the worlds where languages
>possess articles and also if the majority does or doesn't use articles
>I searched and all languages I found wich have one or two articles are IE or
>are situated near of some IE languages
According to _Definiteness_ by Christopher Lyons (Cambridge U. Press, 1999),
only a minority of languages have articles, but it's "not a small minority,"
and certainly not limited to IE. Lakhota (North America) has articles, and
other people on this list have mentioned Semitic. (Others have also pointed out
that articles were apparently not present in PIE, but have been innovated in
some of its descendants.)
It doesn't seem common for the actual form of an article to be borrowed, but
Lyons notes that languages with articles tend to clump in certain geographical
areas, suggesting that the idea of having articles diffuses from language to
language, but the articles are then made from materials already in the
language (generally demonstratives).
He notes that "The greatest concentration of languages marking definiteness
today is in Western Europe and the lands around the Mediterranean." In large
region of the Mddle East and Central Asia, definiteness is generally marked
only on direct objects. Definiteness marking is almost absent in Australia and
South America.
Doug
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 11:43:17 -0700
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slang, curses and vulgarities
Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The thing is, offending people with words isn't the same as swearing,
> really. I could say "you're a fat pig" and you might be insulted, but
> "pig" is not a swearword in English since it has nonoffensive meanings
> as well.
A lot of the English swearwords also have non-offensive meanings;
there are even pairs of swear/nonswear synonyms like "shit"/"feces" (etc.)
It just seems to be a cultural thing that some words are regarded
as inherently offensive, while others only acquire offensiveness
through offensive use. [Now, to cook up a conlang with swear- and
non-swear words for *everything*. Oh wait, that's Esperanto's -acxo
isn't it?]
*Muke!
--
website: http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt: http://kohath.deviantart.com/
FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:40:42 -0500
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slang, curses and vulgarities
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:52:17 +0000, Chris Bates
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The thing is, offending people with words isn't the same as swearing,
>really. I could say "you're a fat pig" and you might be insulted, but
>"pig" is not a swearword in English since it has nonoffensive meanings
>as well. Every language I know has some words that are always
>vulgar/offensive, but I don't think it's impossible for a language not
>to have those kinds of words... that wouldn't mean that people who speak
>that language don't offend each other with words though. :) It'd just
>mean that they have no words exclusively dedicated to offending people,
>and simply recruit other words with non-offensive meanings as well (like
>pig above) for the purpose.
I believe that all insults have or at least originally had non-offensive
meanings. What may happen is that the non-offensive meaning falls into
disuse when the word is considered too offensive.
Just for fun, here's kind of a detailed semantic analysis of the word
_fuck_: http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/images/fword.mp3 :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:17:59 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Intergermansk - Three Rings
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Mulraney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 4:49 AM
Subject: Re: Intergermansk - Three Rings
> >>>> Here's the "Three Rings" text. First part doesn't rhyme, but I
> As for the German words "dunkel" and "Herr", I can't think of English
> cognates at the moment. Are there any still around?
I thought "Herr" meant either "Mr" or "Sir"
Herr Muller, for example.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:17:56 -0500
From: "Pascal A. Kramm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Intergermansk - The North Wind and the Sun
Here's the translation of The North Wind and the Sun:
http://www.choton.org/ig/texts.html#nw
The English version can also be found at the above address.
The North Wind and the Sun
--------------------------
Nordwind och sonn iste streiding wilch iste starker, wenn reiser kommte hir,
wiklte in warm mantel. Sej overenstämmte dat wilch först suxesste in maching
reiser tak af ers mantel shull is findte starker als annan.
Da nordwind blaste so hard er kunnte, doch ju starker er blaste, desto när
reiser wiklte ers mantel om er; och endlig nordwind gif up forsök.
Da sonn shinte warm, och unmiddelbar reiser takte af ers mantel. Och so
nordwind iste tvingte till bekänn dat sonn is starker fra twe.
--
Pascal A. Kramm, author of:
Intergermansk: http://www.choton.org/ig/
Chatiga: http://www.choton.org/chatiga/
Choton: http://www.choton.org
Ichwara Prana: http://www.choton.org/ichwara/
Skälansk: http://www.choton.org/sk/
Advanced English: http://www.choton.org/ae/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:14:37 +0000
From: Stephen Mulraney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Intergermansk - Three Rings
Rodlox wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Mulraney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 4:49 AM
> Subject: Re: Intergermansk - Three Rings
>
>
>
>>>>>>Here's the "Three Rings" text. First part doesn't rhyme, but I
>
>
>>As for the German words "dunkel" and "Herr", I can't think of English
>>cognates at the moment. Are there any still around?
>
>
> I thought "Herr" meant either "Mr" or "Sir"
>
> Herr Muller, for example.
Yes, but I was looking for an English *cognate*. "Sterben", for instance
has an English cognate in "starve". It doesn't *mean* "starve", though,
it means "die".
"Herr" also means "Lord", in both secular & religious senses.
s.
--
Stephen Mulraney [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ataltane.net
In 1869 the waffle iron was invented for people who had wrinkled waffles.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:20:03 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: articles
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 01:42:20PM -0500, Doug Dee wrote:
> According to _Definiteness_ by Christopher Lyons (Cambridge U. Press, 1999),
Such a clunky word. I think we should call it something else,
linguistic convention be damned. Maybe "definity".
:)
> In large region of the Mddle East and Central Asia, definiteness is
> generally marked only on direct objects. Definiteness marking is
> almost absent in Australia and South America.
I assume you mean the native languages thereof, since definity marking
is alive and well in Spanish, Portuguese, and English. ;-)
Now, such marking makes logical sense to me; I can understand why it
would be innovated. But *in*definity marking, like English "a(n)", I don't
grok at all. Virtually every use of the indefinite article can
be replaced by either nothing or the number "one" without changing the
meaning. So how did the indefinite article develop? And what did it
develop from?
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:43:27 +0100
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: CXS<->IPA converter online
Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I just finished enhancing my CXS/IPA page a bit by face-lifting, and,
> more importantly, by adding a small script that allows online
> conversion between IPA and CXS (both directions).
>
> http://www.theiling.de/ipa/
>
Great! I've already used it in composing my page on Sohlob
historical phonology. It beats Character Map any day. As
you may have seen I already sent you some suggestions through
the site. I included my email adress in one of those, so I
hope it won't be displayed anywhere on site! :)
One thing I don't like is that [] and // included
in the translation string are parsed as errors.
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
(Tacitus)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:42:19 -0500
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Intergermansk - Three Rings
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 02:49:36 +0000, Stephen Mulraney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>As for the German words "dunkel" and "Herr", I can't think of English
>cognates at the moment. Are there any still around? "Dunkel" doesn't
>sound too different from "dark" anyway, especially if we exclude the
>"-el" ending. Oh, just noticed: Pascal says it's cognate to "dusk".
"Herr" derives from an original comparative *he:riro (though in Old High
German it was already he(:)rro) of the adjective he:r, which is still found
in German _hehr_ and in English _hoar_. It comes from a Germanic root
_haira_ 'gray', related to an IE root *kei- (with a downward bow over the k)
that denoted dark colourings.
According to the etymological Duden, the word _dunkel_ is related to the
root found in _damp_ from IE [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'stieben (to scatter?), rauchen
(to
smoke), wehen (blow/waft)'. Merriam-Webster online doesn't relate the word
_dusk_ to this root, but it kind of reluctantly mentions Old English _dust_,
seemingly identical with modern English _dust_ which originates from the
root *dheu-, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'stieben (to scatter?), wirbeln (to whirl),
blasen (to
blow); rauchen (to smoke), dampfen (to steam); in heftiger Bewegung sein (to
be in intense movement)' the same root of Latin _fumus_.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:41:50 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: articles
Hi!
"Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> Now, such marking makes logical sense to me; I can understand why it
> would be innovated. But *in*definity marking, like English "a(n)", I don't
> grok at all. Virtually every use of the indefinite article can
> be replaced by either nothing or the number "one" without changing the
> meaning. So how did the indefinite article develop? And what did it
> develop from?
Simply from 'one' I suppose. In German, there's no difference.
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:42:34 -0600
From: Kevin Athey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Verbs Outside of the Slavic
>From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Elliott Lash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >the rest had been smushed together with the root in a variety of
> >morphophonemic processes.
>
> >What happens in Old Irish is that the aspectual augment <do-cum> in
> >this case, becomes squished together.
>
>I know the terms syncope, apocope, and aphaeresis, but I had never
>come across the terms smush and squish. David Crystal doesn't
>include them in his dictionary. Is there any differnce in these two
>terms or are they pretty much synonymous? :-)>
The most important important linguistic term I learned in my generative
syntax class was "glom". It is a process by which morphemes encliticize.
In diachronic linguistics, glomming is generally followed by smushing and/or
squishing. <grin>
Athey
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:56:01 -0500
From: "Pascal A. Kramm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Intergermansk - Pizza packaging text :D
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:58:02 +1100, Tristan McLeay
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 30 Jan 2005, at 10.16 am, Pascal A. Kramm wrote:
>
>> I got the idea while eating pizza (Dr. Oetker Ristorante Speciale):
>> How about if I submit my lang to an acid test and see how well it can
>> translate a real-world example text? :D
>>
>> So here is the translation of the text on the pizza packaging, see for
>> yourself how much of it you can understand:
>
>This one was much harder to understand, it looks very German (even
>though some of it clearly isn't), though I suppose a German-speaker
>would disagree :) (Fjern plast, for instance---plast might be plastic,
>but fjern I have no idea about.)
Well, this (and also the North Wind text) happens to have a good amount of
words where the English words are quite dissimilar to the words common to
the other Germanic langs...
>> Richlig topte med käs, salami, champinjons och shink on krisp, dinn
>> boden.
>
>Your English translation has 'champignons'. I thought that was the
>French word for mushrooms; do these differ from mushrooms somehow?
"Mushroom" is the general term, just like e.g. "tree" is general.
"Champignon" is a specific type of mushroom, just like an "oak" is a
specific type of tree.
>> Tillbereiding
>> -------------
>> 1. Forwarm oven
>> Elektro-oven: 220-230°C
>> Warmluft: 200°C
>> Gas: 4-5
>
>I'm afraid I don't get this one. What's the 4-5? Short for 400--500
>degrees F? Gas ovens down under are always marked in the temperature
>appropriate for when it was made (i.e. anything after the
>mid-to-late-70s or whenever we metricated are in celsius, but if you
>have a really ancient thing like my sister's it's in fahrenheit).
Beats me - I never had a gas oven... I just translated what was in the
original text (and in English as well) simply given as "Gas: 4-5".
Probably it refers to levels or something, so it's meaning "set your gas
oven to level 4 or 5". Obviously, the higher the level, the hotter it gets.
Seems like gas oven level 5 equates about to 230°C.
--
Pascal A. Kramm, author of:
Intergermansk: http://www.choton.org/ig/
Chatiga: http://www.choton.org/chatiga/
Choton: http://www.choton.org
Ichwara Prana: http://www.choton.org/ichwara/
Skälansk: http://www.choton.org/sk/
Advanced English: http://www.choton.org/ae/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:08:14 -0500
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: articles
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:20:03 -0500, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 01:42:20PM -0500, Doug Dee wrote:
...
>> In large region of the Mddle East and Central Asia, definiteness is
>> generally marked only on direct objects. Definiteness marking is
>> almost absent in Australia and South America.
>
>I assume you mean the native languages thereof, since definity marking
>is alive and well in Spanish, Portuguese, and English. ;-)
>
>Now, such marking makes logical sense to me; I can understand why it
>would be innovated. But *in*definity marking, like English "a(n)", I don't
>grok at all. Virtually every use of the indefinite article can
>be replaced by either nothing or the number "one" without changing the
>meaning. So how did the indefinite article develop? And what did it
>develop from?
In all western European languages I know of, from the numeral _one_! The
funny thing is that in Spanish, there's even a plural of it (unos, unas; it
means 'some of...')!
It seems to me that the indefinit article is kind of a default marking:
Nouns without articles (and other definitness markers such as possessive or
demonstrative adjectives) are unlikely to occur except in tight coalition
with a verb (to kick ass)...
No, forget about it: I'd say that the indefinite article marks nouns to be a
single instance of something countable (Lisa writes a message), whereas
nouns without article denote uncountable entities (Burns wants money, Homer
likes meat).
Multiple instances (obviously of countable entities) have just plural
marking (they have children) - except in French, where they have partitive
marking (the plural marking is only written) with the prefix (?) _des_ /de,
dez/ (the latter before vowels), which makes sense, since partitive means 'a
single instance/a few instances of a something'.
The definite article shows that you presuppose that the entity(s) you're
talking about are already known (I've written the message, I want the money).
Of course, all these differ slightly from language to language.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:20:57 +0100
From: damien perrotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Supposed Celtic semiticisms
Skrivet gant Ray Brown:
>
> A sprachbund might explain the shift to SVO, similae development of def.
> article and the development of wide use of periphrastic verbs (English to
> quite a degree shares the latter develoment). The mutation system of the
> Gaelic langs is IMO different from that of the Brittonic langs (the
> latter
> are far closer to sound changes going on in western Romance).
>
> Ray
I am not sure, but tha might not be a coincidence. Western Britain was
a part of the Roman Empire and all brythonic languages have extensively
borrowed from Latin. A phonetic influence is not imposible.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
