There are 16 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: A Diachronic Riddle - Help?
From: Lee
1b. Re: A Diachronic Riddle - Help?
From: Roman Rausch
1c. Re: A Diachronic Riddle - Help?
From: Peter Bleackley
2a. Re: possible impossibles
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
3a. Killing inflections
From: Nathan Unanymous
3b. Re: Killing inflections
From: Alex Fink
3c. Re: Killing inflections
From: Nathan Unanymous
4a. Re: making an oral conlang
From: Ben Scerri
4b. Re: making an oral conlang
From: Roger Mills
5.1. Re: False friends
From: Roger Mills
5.2. Re: False friends
From: Lars Finsen
5.3. Re: False friends
From: Charlie
6a. Re: Path vs. Manner Languages
From: vii iiix
6b. Re: Path vs. Manner Languages
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
7a. Re: Aspirated Nasals
From: Toms Deimonds Barvidis
8a. Re: we like to verb things
From: Lars Finsen
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: A Diachronic Riddle - Help?
Posted by: "Lee" waywardwre...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:17 pm ((PDT))
After reading How the Hebrew Language Grew by Edward Horowitz, I now almost
find myself wondering if *non-*Semitic languages could develop naturally,
*anything* is possible... ;)
The way Faeyran's root and marker merging remind me of how a single Hebrew root
becomes many different words when different "vowel markers" are applied.
Granted, I'm likely stretching things a bit, ;) but the historical sections of
the book may provide ideas on creating an ancestor for Faeyran.
Lee
--- On Thu, 8/19/10, Patrick Dunn <pwd...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Patrick Dunn <pwd...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A Diachronic Riddle - Help?
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Date: Thursday, August 19, 2010, 3:10 PM
Dude, if semitic languages could develop naturally, *anything* is possible.
> Rather than applying grammatical affixes to root stems, Feayran circumfixes
> its roots around its grammatical markers. In most cases this just looks like
> infixing, but in some roots, either the first or second component of the
> root is null. Thus, depending on the root, grammatical markings can appear
> as prefixes, infixes, or suffixes.
Aha! That's true of a lot of infixes too, though.
>
> Examples:
>
> root - noun form - verb form
>
> *skaì - óaskaì (someone awake) - iváviskaì (I am awake)
> th*lme - thóalme (warmth) - thivávilme (I am warm)
> avalash* - avalashóa (hope) - avalashivávi (I am hopeful)
>
> Further complicating matters, the complexity of both root components
> varies--so, there is no "infixed markers fall after the first metric foot"
> or such pattern that I can see.
There's the problem.
Here's one solution that occurs to me. The original root in the PL
for skai wasn't -skai but V-skai; the original root for th-lme was
th-lme; the original root for avalash- was sh-. avala- is a prefix or
the element of a compound. Then all you got to do is account for any
cruft before the first C, and come up with a way that V drops out word
initially (not hard). The drawback is, depending how many of your
roots have something like avalash-, you could end up with a lot of
extra morphemes to account for.
I'd definitely analyze it as an infixing of the grammatical morphemes
rather than a circumfixing of the root, though. I mean, unless you
want to.
The Unfolding of Language, by someone or other, is a pretty good
description of how some of the weirder bits of language (like the
semitic languages) evolve. Might be a good resource if you can dig it
up.
> While I like the system, and I've had some simple conversations in the
> languages with learners to at least suggest that it's parseable, I'm totally
> at a lost as to how it could have developed diachronically, and without a
> protolanguage, I don't know how to go about related languages. I'm a little
> afraid I'll end up having to go in and gut my lexicon, redoing a lot of
> established words in an attempt to create some semblance of etymological
> feasibility--perhaps infixing roots grew out of old multi-word phrases?
Well, this could *be* the protolanguage. There's nothing tht says
that a protolanguage has to be simple or even well understood. I
mean, look at PIE. If anything, most IE languages have simpler
grammars than PIE, for at least some values of "simple."
--
I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window
to window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance. --Arthur
Rimbaud
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: A Diachronic Riddle - Help?
Posted by: "Roman Rausch" ara...@mail.ru
Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:47 pm ((PDT))
>Rather than applying grammatical affixes to root stems, Feayran circumfixes
>its roots around its grammatical markers. In most cases this just looks like
>infixing, but in some roots, either the first or second component of the
>root is null. Thus, depending on the root, grammatical markings can appear
>as prefixes, infixes, or suffixes.
>root - noun form - verb form
>*skaì - óaskaì (someone awake) - iváviskaì (I am awake)
>th*lme - thóalme (warmth) - thivávilme (I am warm)
>avalash* - avalashóa (hope) - avalashivávi (I am hopeful)
Maybe elements like _óa_ were originally independent and free in their
position. Then they were by convention pre-, in- or suffixed to the roots.
The infixes could replace a weak vowel that was about to vanish, for
example. Or maybe there was a Semitic-style root-colouring by single vowels
in place which was extended to more complicated elements.
Another language from the family could do a more conventional thing and
agglutinate all of them as suffixes.
I am actually working on a similar thing - my language is somewhat
unconventional by natural language standards. But rather than deriving it
from a conventional proto-language, I'm trying to derive a parallel,
conventional language from the same anomalous proto-language.
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: A Diachronic Riddle - Help?
Posted by: "Peter Bleackley" peter.bleack...@rd.bbc.co.uk
Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:24 am ((PDT))
staving David Edwards:
>
> Here's the weirdness that's giving me trouble:
>
> Rather than applying grammatical affixes to root stems, Feayran circumfixes
> its roots around its grammatical markers. In most cases this just looks like
> infixing, but in some roots, either the first or second component of the
> root is null. Thus, depending on the root, grammatical markings can appear
> as prefixes, infixes, or suffixes.
>
The protolanguage contained a schwa, that has since been lost. Here are
the etymologies for your examples
> Examples:
>
> root - noun form - verb form
>
> *skaì - óaskaì (someone awake) - iváviskaì (I am awake)
@*...@kai @�...@kaì @ivá...@kaì
> th*lme - thóalme (warmth) - thivávilme (I am warm)
t...@me th�...@me thivá...@me
> avalash* - avalashóa (hope) - avalashivávi (I am hopeful)
avalash*@ avalashóa@ avalashivávi@
Pete
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: possible impossibles
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" joerg_rhieme...@web.de
Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:21 pm ((PDT))
Hallo!
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:31:08 -0400, Brett Williams wrote:
> My language that's only typewritten doesn't have much in the way of
> grammar yet. What I'd like to do with the grammar is try out some
> things that might be impossible, to see whether I can prove them
> possible by succeeding at them. So I'd like your suggestions: How
> could I structure a grammar that might be impossible-- but might not?
The canonical example of a grammar which is probably impossible by
humans to use in real time is perhaps Jeffrey Henning's Fith:
http://www.langmaker.com/fith.htm
That language is stack-based rather than using phrase structure rules
as human languages (even Lojban!) do. While simple Fith sentences
do not look very weird, and a proper subset can be devised that can
be described with phrase structure rules and learned by humans (see
"Shallow Fith" on the page mentioned above), the full grammar of
Fith allows for excessive amounts of center-embedding and other
bizarre structures the human mind is almost certainly at a loss with.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Killing inflections
Posted by: "Nathan Unanymous" nathanms...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:44 pm ((PDT))
I made a very Latin-looking language called Emnonian, and in wearing it down
to Jos-Emnonian I have found no unity in wared-down inflections. The problem
is that last syllable vowels are deleted and consonants are assimilated, e.g.:
lufus /Ëlu.fus/ "hereditary king"
luvus
luvs
luvz
luzz /luzË/ "head of state"
I wouldn't mind luzz being head-of-state, but that's just one case: nominative.
The other two cases are lufut â luzz, lufu â luv.
For the word luzz, the luzz, luzz, luv is fine - but other words have totally
different patterns:
** declension 1 **
laranz, laranz, laram (guard)
shrund, shrunz, shrun (noblewoman)
Éus, Éus, Éu (pagan god)
fajar, fajas, faja (prarie)
ja, jas, ja (genius)
sËulazË, sËulazË, sËulaz (teacher)
** declension 2 **
zañçË, zañçisË, zañç (mammal)
ais, aisË, ai (male bird)
ain, ais, aon (female bird)
So I have three options: do the sound changes differently, make the
declensions irregular, or discover some pattern in some words which is applied
to every word and make a uniform declension table.
While I could do the first two it would be much more fun to do the latter; but
I
need help in finding a pattern to be exploited.
By the way, I've been much more successful in making verb conjunctions; I've
narrowed 3 to 1 but for an interrogative mood. The grammar would look nicer if
Jos-Emnonian had only one declension.
I can't wait for responses.
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Killing inflections
Posted by: "Alex Fink" 000...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:03 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:37:25 -0400, Nathan Unanymous <nathanms...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>** declension 1 **
>laranz, laranz, laram (guard)
>shrund, shrunz, shrun (noblewoman)
>Eus, Eus, Eu (pagan god)
>fajar, fajas, faja (prarie)
>ja, jas, ja (genius)
>s:ulaz:, s:ulaz:, s:ulaz (teacher)
>** declension 2 **
>zaJC:, zaJCis:, zaJC (mammal)
>ais, ais:, ai (male bird)
>ain, ais, aon (female bird)
That doesn't look so intractable.
I think the first trick that should be up your sleeve is *keeping some
consonant cluster outcomes active in the phonology*, so that the underlying
forms can be regular but the surface forms can have sandhi. For instance,
maybe there could be a rule that /rs/ is realised as [s], and that might
hypothetically mean you neither need to change the forms nor make a
(separate) subdeclension for the _fajar_ type. Of course, which rules it
makes sense to use here depends on what the sound changes were, and which of
their effects are still visible at other morpheme junctures.
So, let me sketch what I might do. I'll call your cases 1, 2, and 3, by
column. It would seem to make sense to form case 2 as one of the other
cases with an /-s/ suffix, and it seems slightly easier from that if the
base of the suffixed form is case 3. If you do that, you can get by in your
table with phonological rules and only a few reshapings:
* there's epenthesis of an /i/ in three-consonant clusters
* /s/ voices after voiced consonants
* nasals before /s/ assimilate in place
* [z:] is /zz/
One reshaping is because _shrun > shrunz_ doesn't match _aon > ais_. _Aon_
looks more irregular in the vowel too, so that's probably where analogy
would apply. Levelling could proceed from either form _ais_ or _aon_. If
you want to keep 'female bird' and 'male bird' distinct, it'd make most
sense to level from _aon_ and change the line to _(aon-?) aonz aon_. If you
feel like this is a good chance to collapse the two words and lose the sex
marking, OTOH, you could do that.
The second reshaping is for _ai > ais:_ vs. _Eu > Eus_. Short /s/ feels
soundly more regular here, i.e. I'd go _ai > ais_.
Thirdly and similarly, _zaJCis:_ would be replaced by _zaJCis_.
Case 1 is trickier, and more diverse. A lot of what happens there involves
either identity to case 3, or a final fricative making it close to case 2;
the lines which have neither (_shrund_, _fajar_, maybe _zaJC:_?) aren't very
systematic. So, I must say, if you are constraining yourself to having only
one paradigm, the most natural courses I see from here are to merge with
either case 2 or 3. If that doesn't please, then it might be time for a
radical move: pick one of the distinctive suffixes, like _-d_ or _-r_ (and
of them one with a high frequency), and just shmear it over the whole thing,
still modulo phonology. E.g. if you chose _-d_, you might have
larand (keeping the place assimilation)
shrund
Eud
fajad
jad
s:ulazd (is that cluster legit?)
zaJCid (taking the liberty of an epenthetic vowel again)
aid
aond
So that's one way. Another thing you might do, but a bit stranger, would be
to take case 1 as the base and try to get case 3 with some deletion-type
rules: e.g. to form it, shorten a long final consonant, or delete a short
non-nasal final consonant. (Only reshaping then is _laram_ to _laran_.)
But this is questionable as something you can do in the phonology, so maybe
it doesn't satisfy you as having just one declension.
Alex
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Killing inflections
Posted by: "Nathan Unanymous" nathanms...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:12 pm ((PDT))
Here's what I've decided to do:
First of all, the writing system barely changed as the language did, so e.g.
<t>
represents /s/ at the margins of words, /t/ next to liquids, and /d/ everywhere
else. So i'll write the written as well as the phonological:
The case 2 (which is genitive) ending becomes <-t> /-s/, with voicing
assimilation.
The case 3 (which is accusative) ending becomes the root.
The case 1 (which is nominative), orriginally had -us as the Emnonian masc., -
an/-ad/-ar was the femn., and -a was the neut (in other cases distinction was
lost). Since the neuter ending disappears and there are three feminine endings,
I've decided that Jos-Emnonian merges femn and neut as "ending-less" in the
nominative, and <-t> /-s/ as the masc nominative ending.
Interestingly, even though the Jos-Emnonians are patriarchal, the femn would
become the default gender (as it used to be neut)
As for /zañç, zañçis, zañç/, the palatals were originally allophones before
front
vowels and /j/; it would be written <zansj, zansjis, zansj>, so if Jos-Emnonian
just got rid of the <j> by ananogy, it would become <zant, zant, zant> /zans,
zans, zans/. Analogy could make the <-t> /-s/ ending masculine, making it
finally <zant, zant, zan> /zans, zans, zan/ "male mammal" and <zan zant zan>
/zan zans zan/ "female mammal"
Analogy makes the male bird <ait, ait, ai> /ais, ais, ai/ and the female bird
<ai
ait ai> /ai, ais, ai/
Thus, I have a lovely three-case two-gender one-declension paradigm.
Thanks for the help.
>>** declension 1 **
>>laranz, laranz, laram (guard)
>>shrund, shrunz, shrun (noblewoman)
>>Eus, Eus, Eu (pagan god)
>>fajar, fajas, faja (prarie)
>>ja, jas, ja (genius)
>>s:ulaz:, s:ulaz:, s:ulaz (teacher)
>>** declension 2 **
>>zaJC:, zaJCis:, zaJC (mammal)
>>ais, ais:, ai (male bird)
>>ain, ais, aon (female bird)
>
>That doesn't look so intractable.
>
>I think the first trick that should be up your sleeve is *keeping some
>consonant cluster outcomes active in the phonology*, so that the underlying
>forms can be regular but the surface forms can have sandhi. For instance,
>maybe there could be a rule that /rs/ is realised as [s], and that might
>hypothetically mean you neither need to change the forms nor make a
>(separate) subdeclension for the _fajar_ type. Of course, which rules it
>makes sense to use here depends on what the sound changes were, and
which of
>their effects are still visible at other morpheme junctures.
>
>So, let me sketch what I might do. I'll call your cases 1, 2, and 3, by
>column. It would seem to make sense to form case 2 as one of the other
>cases with an /-s/ suffix, and it seems slightly easier from that if the
>base of the suffixed form is case 3. If you do that, you can get by in your
>table with phonological rules and only a few reshapings:
>* there's epenthesis of an /i/ in three-consonant clusters
>* /s/ voices after voiced consonants
>* nasals before /s/ assimilate in place
>* [z:] is /zz/
>One reshaping is because _shrun > shrunz_ doesn't match _aon > ais_.
_Aon_
>looks more irregular in the vowel too, so that's probably where analogy
>would apply. Levelling could proceed from either form _ais_ or _aon_. If
>you want to keep 'female bird' and 'male bird' distinct, it'd make most
>sense to level from _aon_ and change the line to _(aon-?) aonz aon_. If you
>feel like this is a good chance to collapse the two words and lose the sex
>marking, OTOH, you could do that.
>The second reshaping is for _ai > ais:_ vs. _Eu > Eus_. Short /s/ feels
>soundly more regular here, i.e. I'd go _ai > ais_.
>Thirdly and similarly, _zaJCis:_ would be replaced by _zaJCis_.
>
>Case 1 is trickier, and more diverse. A lot of what happens there involves
>either identity to case 3, or a final fricative making it close to case 2;
>the lines which have neither (_shrund_, _fajar_, maybe _zaJC:_?) aren't very
>systematic. So, I must say, if you are constraining yourself to having only
>one paradigm, the most natural courses I see from here are to merge with
>either case 2 or 3. If that doesn't please, then it might be time for a
>radical move: pick one of the distinctive suffixes, like _-d_ or _-r_ (and
>of them one with a high frequency), and just shmear it over the whole thing,
>still modulo phonology. E.g. if you chose _-d_, you might have
>larand (keeping the place assimilation)
>shrund
>Eud
>fajad
>jad
>s:ulazd (is that cluster legit?)
>zaJCid (taking the liberty of an epenthetic vowel again)
>aid
>aond
>
>So that's one way. Another thing you might do, but a bit stranger, would be
>to take case 1 as the base and try to get case 3 with some deletion-type
>rules: e.g. to form it, shorten a long final consonant, or delete a short
>non-nasal final consonant. (Only reshaping then is _laram_ to _laran_.)
>But this is questionable as something you can do in the phonology, so maybe
>it doesn't satisfy you as having just one declension.
>
>Alex
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: making an oral conlang
Posted by: "Ben Scerri" psykieki...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:51 pm ((PDT))
I believe if someone was to successfully pull this off they'd need to create
the conlang in a pair or small group (I say small to keep cohesion, as a
large one you'd have dialects developing before the language itself is even
speakable). This way each could practice the words against one another and
basic grammar could be figured out from the speech. Furthermore, the memory
of one person would be reinforced by another, so forgetting a word would not
be as detrimental, as it is possible the partner or group remembers it where
you do not.
I actually think this would be a really fun exercise.
On 20 August 2010 04:44, Patrick Dunn <pwd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting. I find a phonology pretty easy to interiorize. Aerest
> has a pretty complicated phonology, but I can just look at a word and
> it "feels" Aerest or not. (Strangely, though, the name of the
> language is a problem; it was chosen before the phonology was settled,
> and I'm not sure it fits. Maybe it's an Anglicization of something
> like Aeres. But that sounds almost exactly like "Irish." So I'm not
> sure that's a good idea)
>
> Grammar is hard for me to interiorize. Aerest grammar is a little
> complicated, but not too bad -- only a few noun classes, a couple
> irregular verbs. But I still have to double check my paradigm charts
> whenever I decline a consonant stem noun, and mutation stem nouns
> aren't even a double check; it's a single check.
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Vincent Pistelli <pva...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The biggest problem with creating a conlang in your mind are the
> phonology
> > and vocabulary. It is very difficult to remember which sounds are in
> your
> > language and the rules that govern them without writing it down.
> Vocabulary
> > is difficult because words are usually learned via repetition, but it
> > wouldn't be impossible to do that in your head. Grammar, on the other
> hand,
> > might be very easy to create in your head.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Vincent Pistelli
> >
>
>
>
> --
> I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window
> to window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance. --Arthur
> Rimbaud
>
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: making an oral conlang
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:00 pm ((PDT))
--- On Thu, 8/19/10, Matthew Turnbull <ave....@gmail.com> wrote:
(Karen Badham also commented similarly)--
> I did start one, and then eventually
> switched to writting it down. I never
> had trouble with the grammar except I could never remember
> the 2>3.ani and
> 3.ani>3.inani markers for verbs. As for vocabulary I
> said to myself "if I
> can't remember it, it's no longer part of the language" I
> gave it up because
> of lexicon constraints eventually, but it took me nearly a
> month to give up
> on not writing it. During that time I had maybe a few dozen
> lexemes and
> quite a bit of grammar. I didn't work on it often and I
> think that was why
> it failed, not because of not writing it. (snip) I fully believe
> that if I devoted
> more time to a similar project that it could be done.
>
> I think that it is much easier to learn something if you
> write it down
> though, probably because my brain is used to learning by
> copying notes.
>
Our ability to remember things has been terribly compromised by literacy. In
school, everyone I can think of had trouble memorizing even a simple sonnet.
Even a few centuries ago, people memorized Bible passages/Shakespeare/the
classics etc. at great length, probably because they never knew when they'd
have the book again.
Consider: almost all the languages described for the first time in the
18th/19th/early 20th C. were unwritten. Field workers frequently commented that
"X wasn't very fluent, but Elder Y was;" so even in a non-literate culture
there were people who didn't know/couldn't remember "all" the words. Even in
the field methods course I took, it was emphasized that when approaching an
unwritten language you had to ask around in the community to find someone who
was considered a fluent speaker.
Some few probably had a natural gift for language + good memory-- they tended
to become shamans/elders/storytellers and memorized tons of texts (cf. the
Iliad and the Odyssey), that had been passed down from generation to generation
and repeated over and over. It was not only their history, but also the
laws/customs and their religion that was contained in those texts.
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5.1. Re: False friends
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:24 pm ((PDT))
--- On Thu, 8/19/10, Tony Harris <t...@alurhsa.org> wrote:
> On 08/19/2010 12:33 PM, Roger Mills
> wrote:
> > But coriander and cilantro are the same thing,
> AFAIK....though "coriander" is more likely to appear in an
> Asian/Indian recipe, "cilantro" in a Latin Amer. one. A
> powerful flavor, use with care :-))))
> >
> > OTOH Br.Engl has different words for a number of
> foodstuffs (among other things)-- courgette = zucchini, and
> a different word for eggplant too, as I recall.
> >
> Are you sure? I use coriander in a variety of dishes,
> and it's a gentle spice. Used with things like
> apple-based desserts for example. Cilantro on the
> other hand seems to be a very sharp flavor. I don't
> happen to have cilantro here so I can't verify, but they
> seem to taste different. I suppose that could be
> psychological.
>
_Reasonably sure_ they're the same. It could be that the seeds (ground) are
less pungent than the leaves. I grew coriander in my garden once. The leaves
are definitely pungent.... My distaste for it probably stems from initial uses,
unfamiliar with it-- used too much, resulting in a soapy flavor (which is what
the leaves taste like to me.)
Of course, coriander is one of the ingredients of curry powder, though
overwhelmed by all the other spices.
On an old TV cooking program there were some interesting ancient Roman
recipes-- things like leeks or fava beans sauteed, then flavored with
coriander-- quite good actually.
Messages in this topic (106)
________________________________________________________________________
5.2. Re: False friends
Posted by: "Lars Finsen" lars.fin...@ortygia.no
Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 3:26 am ((PDT))
Den 19. aug. 2010 kl. 18.33 skreiv Roger Mills:
> But coriander and cilantro are the same thing, AFAIK....though
> "coriander" is more likely to appear in an Asian/Indian recipe,
> "cilantro" in a Latin Amer. one. A powerful flavor, use with
> care :-))))
The spice known here as koriander also is mild. They use it a lot in
Indian cooking (mostly the Pakistani variety here, though its hardly
very different, except for the lack of pork, of course). In my
opinion they overdo it, so whenever I cook Indian, I reduce on the
coriander, and omit the cardamum and cinnamon entirely, I don't like
sweet spices with fish or meat. Some coriander however can make a
very savoury difference in many dishes.
LEF
Messages in this topic (106)
________________________________________________________________________
5.3. Re: False friends
Posted by: "Charlie" caeruleancent...@yahoo.com
Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:35 am ((PDT))
--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Roger Mills <romi...@...> wrote:
>
> _Reasonably sure_ they're the same. It could be that the seeds
> (ground) are less pungent than the leaves.
Coriander sativum: leaves, seeds, and roots are eaten. Seeds have a different
flavor from the other two. The flavor of the root is more intense than that of
the leaves. Different cultures have opted for different parts of the plant in
their cuisine.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (106)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: Path vs. Manner Languages
Posted by: "vii iiix" v...@live.com.au
Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:08 pm ((PDT))
Just to get back on topic...
Does anyone have some interesting or well developed Path vs. Manner systems
e.c.t in their conlangs. I was thinking of combining Path and Manner in
language. Well i was intedning to have a path language but have suffixes for
verbs which would encode manner as well, but I'm not sure yet. I was also
thinking about creating an absolute spatial reference system, anyone done
anything similar?
cheers,
vii
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
6b. Re: Path vs. Manner Languages
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" tsela...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 11:53 pm ((PDT))
On 19 August 2010 21:52, David Peterson <deda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 8â50 AM, Amanda Babcock Furrow wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 01:48:12AM -0700, David Peterson wrote:
> >
> >> Well, perhaps not in the last nine years...
> >>
> >>
> http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104D&L=CONLANG&P=R19389
> >
> > My god, has it been that long?!
>
> It surprised me too. That means there's a nine-years-ago me that
> was on the Conlang List! Just wild, man... (30 is just around the
> corner for me.)
>
>
Same here! It's weird to see your own words of 9 years ago! To think that
I've been on this list for at least 12 years...
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. Re: Aspirated Nasals
Posted by: "Toms Deimonds Barvidis" emopun...@inbox.lv
Date: Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:14 pm ((PDT))
Quoting "Roger Mills" <romi...@yahoo.com>:
> --- On Wed, 8/18/10, Toms Deimonds Barvidis <emopun...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
>> The protolanguge of Longrimol - Quebut, has three aspirated
>> nasals, sounds that IMO fit in the phonetic system of it
>> very well. However, they did not survive in
>> Longrimol; they were broken down to nasal+voiceless stop and
>> then
>> eventually were voiced between vowels.
>> I want these nasals to disappear in another of the daughter
>> language of Quebut, the Nagatol language, but I don't
>> want them to go the same route they did in Longrimol. So,
>> any of you know a possible change that might happen to
>> these nasals?
>> BTW, they are, of course, mh, nh Åh.
>>
> How about:
> 1. vowels are (automatically) nasalized before all nasals
> 2. aspirated nasals become voiceless
> 3. voiceless nasals > 0
> 4. leaving a sequence of: nasalized vowel + h + (whatever follows)
> 5. (this might create a stage where nasalized vowel before /h/ is automatic,
>i.e. non-phonemic)
> 6. the nasalized vowels before voiced nasals would probably remain
>nasalized, but not contrastively-- OTOH though if you have sequences like
>...V+N+C..., those nasals might also > 0 (as in French) and you would be
>left with contrastive (phonemic) nasalized vowels.
>
> An amusing development between 2 and 3 might be for the (still present)
>nasal articulation to affect the quality of the vowel-- V+mh might show some
>rounding, V+nh raising, V+Nh lowering/backing-- this could create
>diphthongs (nasalized, of course), inter alia.
>
> Somewhat baroque, perhaps :-))))))
The idea of diphthongs does appeal me, actually. It would be nice to have some
diphthongs in Nagatol (even though
nasalised), since the ones inherited from Quebut were monophthongised .
--
In mist and twilight I shall linger
~TDB~
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8a. Re: we like to verb things
Posted by: "Lars Finsen" lars.fin...@ortygia.no
Date: Fri Aug 20, 2010 3:38 am ((PDT))
Den 19. aug. 2010 kl. 14.12 skreiv Larry Sulky:
> Good to know that English-speakers aren't the only ones.
In Norwegian the tendency for verbing things seems to have faded. At
least in writings 50 years old or more I find much use of the verbs
"bile" - travel by car, and "trikke" - travel by tram/streetcar, but
since about 1970 they have gone completely out of fashion. We say "ta
bilen" (take the car) or simply "kjøre" (drive) and "ta
trikken" (take the tram) instead.
Rather than verbing, there is still a vivid tendency to noun things,
giving me often quite a lot of work whenever I have some text to
clean up. But this is a tendencey in English as well, which I come
across quite a bit in translation work.
LEF
Messages in this topic (5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com
conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
