There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Case Inflection Development
From: And Rosta
1.2. Re: Case Inflection Development
From: And Rosta
1.3. Re: Case Inflection Development
From: Roger Mills
1.4. Re: Case Inflection Development
From: J. 'Mach' Wust
1.5. Re: Case Inflection Development
From: René Uittenbogaard
1.6. Re: Case Inflection Development
From: René Uittenbogaard
1.7. Re: Case Inflection Development
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
1.8. Re: Case Inflection Development
From: Maxime Papillon
1.9. Re: Case Inflection Development
From: John Lategan
1.10. Re: Case Inflection Development
From: Roman Rausch
1.11. Re: Case Inflection Development
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
1.12. Re: Case Inflection Development
From: Sasha Boyd
2a. TAKE revision - latest
From: R A Brown
2b. Re: TAKE revision - latest
From: Henrik
3a. Re: Usona Esperantiso and Dothraki
From: Jim Henry
3b. Re: Usona Esperantiso and Dothraki
From: Richard Littauer
3c. Re: Usona Esperantiso and Dothraki
From: Sai
3d. Re: Usona Esperantiso and Dothraki
From: MorphemeAddict
3e. Re: Usona Esperantiso and Dothraki
From: Richard Littauer
3f. Re: Usona Esperantiso and Dothraki
From: Jim Henry
3g. Re: Usona Esperantiso and Dothraki
From: Sai
3h. Re: Usona Esperantiso and Dothraki
From: Vincent Pistelli
4. List of Germanic loanwords in Balto-Finnic?
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
5a. OT : endos vs entos
From: Matthew Turnbull
5b. Re: OT : endos vs entos
From: R A Brown
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Case Inflection Development
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:39 am ((PDT))
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:11:00 +0100, Peter Bleackley wrote:
>
>> In Shakespeare, we do get examples like
>>
>> "Once in a sea-fight against the Count his galleys" (Twelfth Night)
>>
>> Does anyone know when and how the form arose in English?
I can't cite references (maybe something in Cambridge History of English
Language?), but I heard a talk or read an article on it within the last few
years, and iirc the mainstream view nowadays is that it arose as a (possibly
hypercorrectional) reanalysis of the possessive clitic 's (which itself had
evolved out of a case marker).
--And.
Messages in this topic (37)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: Case Inflection Development
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:47 am ((PDT))
And Rosta, On 19/10/2010 16:34:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:11:00 +0100, Peter Bleackley wrote:
>>
>>> In Shakespeare, we do get examples like
>>>
>>> "Once in a sea-fight against the Count his galleys" (Twelfth Night)
>>>
>>> Does anyone know when and how the form arose in English?
>
> I can't cite references (maybe something in Cambridge History of
> English Language?), but I heard a talk or read an article on it
> within the last few years, and iirc the mainstream view nowadays is
> that it arose
in EarlyModern English, I should have said
> as a (possibly hypercorrectional) reanalysis of the
> possessive clitic 's (which itself had evolved out of a case
> marker).
--And.
Messages in this topic (37)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: Case Inflection Development
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:50 am ((PDT))
--- On Mon, 10/18/10, Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 13:14:31 +0200, Daniel Prohaska
> ><dan...@ryan-prohaska.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >>"see" eventually becomes a marker for the object,
> and the meaning shifts
> >>from "a man sees a tree and climbs it" to "a man
> climbs a tree".
> >
> >Verbs may be involved, sure -- AIUI the prototypical
> one is something like
> >"take", as Eric says. But "see" I don't think
> I've ever seen in this role.
> > Do you have a natlang example?
>
Just for what it's worth, in one of the languages I've worked on (Kisar of
Indonesia), a suffix to derive transitive verbs from statives is related
historically to a word meaning 'bring'. Another apparently transitivizing
suffix (but also with object focus) is derived from a word meaning 'give'.
Messages in this topic (37)
________________________________________________________________________
1.4. Re: Case Inflection Development
Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@yahoo.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:22 am ((PDT))
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:35:26 -0400, Alex Fink wrote:
>... since the OED does have the construction recorded before that, with
>citations back to c1000 ("{Th}a Gode his naman neode cigdan"
If I'm not mistaken, "Gode" is a Dative. In that case, this really seems to
be exactly the same construction as in German.
--
grüess
mach
Messages in this topic (37)
________________________________________________________________________
1.5. Re: Case Inflection Development
Posted by: "René Uittenbogaard" ruitt...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:05 pm ((PDT))
2010/10/19 Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <tsela...@gmail.com>:
>
> On 19 October 2010 10:42, J. 'Mach' Wust <j_mach_w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the German form also sheds a light on the original form:
>>
>> dem Jan sein Hund (the-DAT Jan his dog)
>>
>> Here, the possessor is in the Dative case. I guess English and Dutch also
>> would have used a Dative case in this form while there still was a
>> distinctive Dative case. Does anybody know more about that?
>>
>>
> Sounds logical, although I have no idea how it may have looked like in Old
> Dutch.
>
>
>> Another peculiarity of this form is that it is used only for actual
>> possession. A phrase such as the following seems very dubious:
>>
>> *dem Baum sein Blatt (the-DAT tree his leaf)
>>
>> This sounds as if the tree somehow animatedly purchased a leaf. Is it like
>> this in Dutch as well?
>>
>>
> I am not a native speaker, but "de boom z'n blad" does sound weird indeed.
> This structure is mostly used with names, less with common nouns. It feels
> especially weird with inanimate nouns.
>
> Note that in the Dutch construction, the possessives have to be in their
> unaccented form (z'n, d'r) rather than their accented form (zijn, haar).
> "Jan z'n hond" is licit, *"Jan zijn hond" isn't.
Googling for the phrase "den man z'n" (using dative and unmarked form
of the possessive) yields:
- http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/mult001idee07_01/mult001idee07_01_0067.php
"Ik had den man z'n naam niet moeten noemen, ..."
"I should the-DAT man his name not have called, ..."
Year: 1879.
- http://tinyurl.com/denmanzn
"... en zeide toen, dat de muis met haar tanden den ring van
den man z'n vinger zou nemen."
"... and said then, that the mouse with her teeth the-ACC ring of
the-DAT man his finger should take."
Year: 1940?
- http://www.wattpad.com/25161?p=76
"'k Zag aan den man z'n gezicht, dat hij blij was ..."
"I saw on the-DAT man his face, that he glad was ..."
This seems to be regional however.
Year unknown.
This could be an indication that the dative + possessive construction
was the ancestor of the current construction, and maybe even the one in
Afrikaans.
But maybe the Afrikaners have invented the construction parallel to us,
like Christophe suggested.
René
Messages in this topic (37)
________________________________________________________________________
1.6. Re: Case Inflection Development
Posted by: "René Uittenbogaard" ruitt...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:44 pm ((PDT))
About "den man z'n": there is a very interesting document
about this construction online:
http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2002/Hendriks.pdf
indicating that the construction in Dutch dates back as far as 1268,
with feminine singular agreement. His interlinear reads:
Ende al hebbe ic hem ghegeven die oude Dilf hare port met the merne...
And already have I him given that old Dilf her-APP city with the wall...
"And I have already given him that city of Old Delft with the wall..."
René
Messages in this topic (37)
________________________________________________________________________
1.7. Re: Case Inflection Development
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" tsela...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:24 pm ((PDT))
2010/10/19 René Uittenbogaard <ruitt...@gmail.com>
> About "den man z'n": there is a very interesting document
> about this construction online:
>
> http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2002/Hendriks.pdf
>
> indicating that the construction in Dutch dates back as far as 1268,
> with feminine singular agreement. His interlinear reads:
>
> Ende al hebbe ic hem ghegeven die oude Dilf hare port met the merne...
> And already have I him given that old Dilf her-APP city with the wall...
> "And I have already given him that city of Old Delft with the wall..."
>
> René
>
Extremely interesting! Apparently, I was wrong to think the APP construction
("Auxiliary Pronoun Possessive", nice name!) in Dutch was a modern
development, However, this paper hints indeed that even though it evolved in
various different Germanic languages, those developments needn't be related.
For instance, the German APP mandates the dative on the possessor. The paper
above shows examples in Dutch where the possessor is in the nominative,
accusative or genitive.
The issue of gender agreement between the possessive pronoun and the
possessor is an interesting one, because I actually know of one dialect of
Dutch (one of the dialects spoken in Brabant) that has the interesting
feature of having inverse gender agreement in its APP constructions, i.e. a
masculine possessor takes a feminine possessive pronoun and vice versa! I've
heard people talk that way, and it's very weird. I can't imagine how it came
to be that way...
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (37)
________________________________________________________________________
1.8. Re: Case Inflection Development
Posted by: "Maxime Papillon" salut_vous_au...@hotmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:35 pm ((PDT))
> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:28:46 +0100
> From: r...@carolandray.plus.com
> Subject: Re: Case Inflection Development
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
>
> On 19/10/2010 09:42, J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:11:00 +0100, Peter Bleackley
> > wrote:
> >
> >> In Shakespeare, we do get examples like
> >>
> >> "Once in a sea-fight against the Count his galleys"
> >> (Twelfth Night)
>
> In the Millenary Petition to James VI of Scotland when he
> became James I of England in 1603 the phrase "for Christ His
> sake" is found. It is also found in other texts of the
> Tudor & Stuart period IIRC.
>
> >> Does anyone know when and how the form arose in
> >> English?
> >
> > My guess is that it is an old (West?) Germanic form of
> > expressing possession. It is common in Dutch, it used to
> > occur in English,
>
> Yep - IIRC it remained in some English dialects way past
> Shakespeare's time. I'm sure example with 'her' occurred,
> but probably not 'its' since the latter is a relatively late
> development in English, the original neuter possessive being
> 'his' just like the masculine.
>
Just a thought, here. Couldn't this kind of phrase be a case of
hypercorrection? I seem to understand that the "his > 's" hypothesis was common
before the 19th century, so could it not be the case that -just like a modern
English speakers who normally uses "couldn't" switch to "could not" in a formal
context, because that's seen as the correct form- the cited authors may want to
"correct" his possessive phrases by using what they think is more traditional
or may think of it as an archaic but correct usage? "For Christ's sake" is the
kind of sentence you might want to write correctly, and Shakespeare is the kind
of author to authorise himself the use of archaisms.
Maxime
Messages in this topic (37)
________________________________________________________________________
1.9. Re: Case Inflection Development
Posted by: "John Lategan" jla...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:19 pm ((PDT))
2010/10/19 R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com>
> On 19/10/2010 09:42, J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:11:00 +0100, Peter Bleackley
>> wrote:
>>
>> {snip...}
>>
>>
> Yep - IIRC it remained in some English dialects way past Shakespeare's
> time. I'm sure example with 'her' occurred, but probably not 'its' since the
> latter is a relatively late development in English, the original neuter
> possessive being 'his' just like the masculine.
>
>
> it is common throughout German dialects
>>
>
> and isn't it standard in Afrikaans?
>
>
I've tried to follow the thread... but here's the interpretation of
Afrikaans.
Jan se hond (Jan 's dog)
Die boom se blare (the tree 's leaves)
BUT,
Jan sy hond (Jan his dog) ; Jan hom hond (Jan him dog)
>
> But maybe the Afrikaners have invented the construction parallel to us,
> like Christophe suggested.
>
I dont think its parallel because "se" doesn't resemble any Afrikaans
pronoun.
Hy, hom, sy = he, him, his ; Sy, haar, haar = She, her, her
So, I do think it developed *from* Dutch; The Dutch pronoun "ze" (she)
ie: Dutch (and the 'seemans dialekte') had developed it before the 16/17th
Cent.
The Afrikaans possevive marker can (almost) always be translated as the
Enlish clitic " 's"
JOHN LATEGAN
Messages in this topic (37)
________________________________________________________________________
1.10. Re: Case Inflection Development
Posted by: "Roman Rausch" ara...@mail.ru
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:19 am ((PDT))
Is there actually a well-studied and -understood natural language where
cases can be shown to arise from agglutinated postpositions?
> "Jan z'n hond" is a perfectly correct
> way to translate "John's dog" and literally does mean "John his dog".
>interestingly, an analog construction has developed in the egyptian dialect
>of arabic.
Not to forget Quenya:
koarya Olwe 'Olwe's house' (koa 'house', -rya 3rd sg. poss.)
Messages in this topic (37)
________________________________________________________________________
1.11. Re: Case Inflection Development
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" tsela...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:25 am ((PDT))
On 20 October 2010 08:16, John Lategan <jla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've tried to follow the thread... but here's the interpretation of
> Afrikaans.
>
> Jan se hond (Jan 's dog)
>
> Die boom se blare (the tree 's leaves)
>
> BUT,
> Jan sy hond (Jan his dog) ; Jan hom hond (Jan him dog)
>
>
> >
> > But maybe the Afrikaners have invented the construction parallel to us,
> > like Christophe suggested.
> >
>
> I dont think its parallel because "se" doesn't resemble any Afrikaans
> pronoun.
> Hy, hom, sy = he, him, his ; Sy, haar, haar = She, her, her
>
>
I've read it was just an unstressed form of "sy", which got generalised to
all genders and numbers as a possessive marker. Is that so unrealistic?
(also, saying "se" doesn't resemble any Afrikaans pronoun is a bit
exaggerated. The difference between "se" and "sy" is only one vowel!)
> So, I do think it developed *from* Dutch; The Dutch pronoun "ze" (she)
> ie: Dutch (and the 'seemans dialekte') had developed it before the 16/17th
> Cent.
>
>
"Ze" is just an unstressed form of "zij". Why can't "se" be an unstressed
form of "sy", in the same way?
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (37)
________________________________________________________________________
1.12. Re: Case Inflection Development
Posted by: "Sasha Boyd" wrathful.m...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:44 am ((PDT))
I'm just going to sneak in and say thanks for the help everyone.
> Or, if say you wanted an ergative, some ergative constructions develop from
> passive constructions, where the new ergative case is whatever the former
> case of demoted agent was (often instrumental, but can be locative /
> genitive / ...).
I was actually going to ask about the ergative case. It's somewaht
painful now though, since I have all these interesting ideas but don't
have my laptop where all my conlangs are. Arrgh.
Messages in this topic (37)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. TAKE revision - latest
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:42 am ((PDT))
Hi!
Philhellenists and maybe some others might be interested in
the present state of my current revision of TAKE. Possibly
some had spotted that the pages on nouns, adjectives and the
definite article has been up for two or three weeks already.
It used to irk me that in Homer (8th cent. BCE) the sea is
θάλασσα (thalassa) throughout Greek antiquity it remained
θάλασσα (thalassa) - except for the Attic, Boiotian, Cretan
and Euboian dialects that had θάλαττα (thalatta) -
throughout the Koine and the during the Byzantine period it
remained θάλασσα (thalassa) and - Guess what? - it's still
θάλασσα (thalassa) till the present day. Yet in the "RHATL
TAKE" it defied this unbroken history of three millennia and
was θάλασσο (thalasso). Now I've ditched RHATL (and all the
other Hellenic Alternative Time-Lines) together with Joseph
Peanou and his wretched "compositional base" and now, I
hope, common sense has returned.
But the page on numerals did cause me several problems. The
revision now seems to me a great improvement as far numbers
up to 9999 are concerned. I'm still undecided about
million, billion, trillion etc. - a problem for auxlangs
generally, if the stuff I've read on Esperanto is anything
to go by. The page lists one (so far) rejected idea for TAKE
and two possible ones. feedback from those interested would
be most welcome.
http://www.carolandray.plus.com/TAKE/index.html
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
[J.G. Hamann, 1760]
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: TAKE revision - latest
Posted by: "Henrik" theil...@absint.com
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:49 am ((PDT))
Hi!
Poor Ιωσήφ Πεάνου!
I like your decisions, because they leave you with more freedom of design
and you can base the language entirely on personal esthetics.
OTOH, you could simply say that it developed in exactly that universe where
the language you desire was the result. All historical events necessary to
produce that language may be totally unlikely, but that's irrelevant,
because you simply picked that very universe where your language did
develop. Since you describe exactly the universe where your language
developed as you describe, it's irrelevant how many more likely universes
exist. :-) Of course, you may leave parts of history unknown. That is, *if*
you actually still like the idea of a conhistory, this could be the
reasoning to silence spoilsports (or your own doubts). :-)
Have you decided about compounding and derivation yet? My Tirkunan, derived
from Latin, is grammatically isolating, too (with a few exceptional verb
forms), but does have derivational suffixes. So it would be interesting to
see whether there's a different way to transform an inflecting language
elegantly to be isolating for derivation, too.
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Usona Esperantiso and Dothraki
Posted by: "Jim Henry" jimhenry1...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:48 am ((PDT))
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Richard Littauer
<richard.litta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is an article in the most recent issue by our very own David Peterson
> concerning Dothraki, according to DP. Seeing as how I'm one of the guys in
I'm fixing to put an unabridged version of the interview on my own
website -- I've been distracted, and there was miscommunication
between me and the editor of Usona Esperantisto about whether I was
supposed to put the article up on my site simultaneously with the
print zine or some time later. I hope to get it on my site in a day
or two. Meanwhile, I'll send you a copy offline -- feel free to
quote short bits from it in a blog post or whatever, but don't post
the whole thing; post a link to my site when I get the whole HTMLized
interview up.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Usona Esperantiso and Dothraki
Posted by: "Richard Littauer" richard.litta...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:03 am ((PDT))
Thanks Jim! Make sure to give us the link when it comes up.
Richard
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Jim Henry <jimhenry1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Richard Littauer
> <richard.litta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is an article in the most recent issue by our very own David
> Peterson
> > concerning Dothraki, according to DP. Seeing as how I'm one of the guys
> in
>
> I'm fixing to put an unabridged version of the interview on my own
> website -- I've been distracted, and there was miscommunication
> between me and the editor of Usona Esperantisto about whether I was
> supposed to put the article up on my site simultaneously with the
> print zine or some time later. I hope to get it on my site in a day
> or two. Meanwhile, I'll send you a copy offline -- feel free to
> quote short bits from it in a blog post or whatever, but don't post
> the whole thing; post a link to my site when I get the whole HTMLized
> interview up.
>
> --
> Jim Henry
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Usona Esperantiso and Dothraki
Posted by: "Sai" s...@saizai.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:53 pm ((PDT))
FWIW, I got permission from the UE editor to repost the article and
magazine issue in their entirety.
It'll go up on dothraki.conlang.org once Jim has the full version
ready to be linked to.
- Sai
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: Usona Esperantiso and Dothraki
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" lytl...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:43 pm ((PDT))
Richard,
I went to the Esperanto-USA site, but couldn't find anything about David
Peterson or Dothraki.
Can you help me find it?
stevo
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Richard Littauer <
richard.litta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Esperantists among you,
>
> I have no idea where I would get this article, short of subscribing off of
> the
> website here: http://esperanto-usa.org/en/node/7
>
> There is an article in the most recent issue by our very own David Peterson
> concerning Dothraki, according to DP. Seeing as how I'm one of the guys in
> charge of www.dothraki.org, I'd really appreciate it if anyone who does
> get this
> journal could read the relevant article and tell me if there's, in
> particular, any
> vocabulary items - or any other information, if that's cool.
>
> Or maybe someone knows where I could get my hands on a copy? I seem to be
> the only conlanger on this list who is in Scotland, though, and I don't
> know any
> Esperantists...
>
> Richard
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: Usona Esperantiso and Dothraki
Posted by: "Richard Littauer" richard.litta...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:13 pm ((PDT))
It's not up there yet. There will be a post on dothraki.conlang.org soon,
however, as well as another link coming up from Jim's website. I'll cover it
on www.dothraki.org and on the @LearnDothraki twitter when that happens.
Hope that helps.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:40 PM, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard,
> I went to the Esperanto-USA site, but couldn't find anything about David
> Peterson or Dothraki.
> Can you help me find it?
>
> stevo
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Richard Littauer <
> richard.litta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Esperantists among you,
> >
> > I have no idea where I would get this article, short of subscribing off
> of
> > the
> > website here: http://esperanto-usa.org/en/node/7
> >
> > There is an article in the most recent issue by our very own David
> Peterson
> > concerning Dothraki, according to DP. Seeing as how I'm one of the guys
> in
> > charge of www.dothraki.org, I'd really appreciate it if anyone who does
> > get this
> > journal could read the relevant article and tell me if there's, in
> > particular, any
> > vocabulary items - or any other information, if that's cool.
> >
> > Or maybe someone knows where I could get my hands on a copy? I seem to be
> > the only conlanger on this list who is in Scotland, though, and I don't
> > know any
> > Esperantists...
> >
> > Richard
> >
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
3f. Re: Usona Esperantiso and Dothraki
Posted by: "Jim Henry" jimhenry1...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:26 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:40 PM, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard,
> I went to the Esperanto-USA site, but couldn't find anything about David
> Peterson or Dothraki.
I just posted there, giving a link to
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang/dothraki-interview.html
(which redirects to:)
http://jimhenry.conlang.org/conlang/dothraki-interview.html
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
3g. Re: Usona Esperantiso and Dothraki
Posted by: "Sai" s...@saizai.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:30 pm ((PDT))
http://dothraki.conlang.org/interview-w-usona-esperantisto/
Contains links to the UE PDF (both the article excerpt and the whole
issue) and Jim's full version.
- Sai
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
3h. Re: Usona Esperantiso and Dothraki
Posted by: "Vincent Pistelli" pva...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:22 pm ((PDT))
I get this newletter from Esperanto-USA, but I haven't received it yet this
month. When I get the newsletter I will check for information.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Richard Littauer <
richard.litta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd really appreciate it if anyone who does get this
> journal could read the relevant article and tell me if there's, in
> particular, any
> vocabulary items - or any other information, if that's cool.
>
>
--
Vincent Pistelli
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. List of Germanic loanwords in Balto-Finnic?
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" joerg_rhieme...@web.de
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:51 pm ((PDT))
Hallo!
Can anyone help me in finding a list of Germanic loanwords in
Balto-Finnic? Thanks in advance.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. OT : endos vs entos
Posted by: "Matthew Turnbull" ave....@gmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:22 pm ((PDT))
I've been poking around the net, and I can't seem to come up with the
difference between the greek combining prefixes endo- and ento-, I've gotten
the impression that both mean "inside" endo- is somewhat ellative and ento-
is allative, but that seems a bit off to me. I suspect someone on the list
would know.
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: OT : endos vs entos
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:34 am ((PDT))
On 19/10/2010 21:59, Matthew Turnbull wrote:
> I've been poking around the net, and I can't seem to come
> up with the difference between the greek combining
> prefixes endo- and ento-, I've gotten the impression that
> both mean "inside" endo- is somewhat ellative and ento-
> is allative, but that seems a bit off to me.
It is a bit off.
endo- <-- ένδον _endon_ (adverb) = within, inside.
ento- <-- έντος _entos_ (preposition) = within, inside
Just to confuse the issue, _endon_ was occasionally used
with a genitive case just like a preposition, and very
occasionally _entos_ was used as an adverb :)
Neither Greek word has an ellative or allative meaning; they
just mean "inside" (inessive) - one being an adverb and the
other a preposition.
The reason why you haven't been able to come up with a
difference in meaning between the two prefixes is simple:
there ain't one :)
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
[J.G. Hamann, 1760]
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".
Messages in this topic (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
