There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
From: Michael Everson
1b. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
From: And Rosta
1c. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
From: And Rosta
1d. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
From: Matthew Boutilier
1e. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
From: Garth Wallace
1f. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
From: Jim Henry
1g. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
From: Eric Christopherson
1h. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
From: Charlie Brickner
1i. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
From: Garth Wallace
1j. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
From: Matthew Boutilier
2a. Re: agent of an antitransitive verb
From: Roman Rausch
2b. Re: agent of an antitransitive verb
From: Roger Mills
2c. Re: agent of an antitransitive verb
From: Patrick Dunn
2d. Re: agent of an antitransitive verb
From: Charlie Brickner
2e. Re: agent of an antitransitive verb
From: Eugene Oh
2f. Re: agent of an antitransitive verb
From: Adam Walker
2g. Re: agent of an antitransitive verb
From: MorphemeAddict
2h. Re: agent of an antitransitive verb
From: Adam Walker
3a. Re: New Blog Post: Moten Part VIII: Surdé clinaison, Def initio
From: BPJ
3b. Re: New Blog Post: Moten Part VIII: Surdé clinai son, Def initio
From: Eugene Oh
4a. Re: OT: Grave Accent (Re: Superdeclension in Quenya? (and in Old Alb
From: BPJ
5a. Re: OT: ASL
From: Sai
5b. Re: OT: ASL
From: Adam Walker
6a. Re: New Blog Post: Moten Part VIII: Surdéclinaison, Def inition a
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
6b. Re: New Blog Post: Moten Part VIII: Surdéclinaison, Def inition
From: Garth Wallace
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
Posted by: "Michael Everson" ever...@evertype.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:30 am ((PDT))
On 22 Mar 2012, at 12:53, MorphemeAddict wrote:
> I just came across this odd sentence from the blurb of a new book
> acquisition at the library:
>
> Two pairs of parents, one of whose child has hurt the other, ...
>
> Here, it looks like the possessive "whose" should actually be "who's",
> since the possessive is of the whole phrase "one of who".
No, "whose" is the genitive of "who". You'd say "one of whose children's books
has hurt the other" though.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:27 am ((PDT))
Lovely datum - thanks for sharing. Others' 'correction' to "one of whose
children" is a pseudocorrection, changing both syntax and meaning. The
correct 'correction' would be "one of whom's child", but that's still a
very unusual sort of piedpiping. I doubt whether any dialect has a rule
requiring "whose" rather than "whom's", given how rare the overall
construction must be.
On Mar 22, 2012 12:54 PM, "MorphemeAddict" <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just came across this odd sentence from the blurb of a new book
> acquisition at the library:
>
> Two pairs of parents, one of whose child has hurt the other, ...
>
> Here, it looks like the possessive "whose" should actually be "who's",
> since the possessive is of the whole phrase "one of who". It just seems
> strange to me.
>
> stevo
>
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:28 am ((PDT))
Or "one of which's child".
On Mar 22, 2012 2:27 PM, "And Rosta" <and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lovely datum - thanks for sharing. Others' 'correction' to "one of whose
> children" is a pseudocorrection, changing both syntax and meaning. The
> correct 'correction' would be "one of whom's child", but that's still a
> very unusual sort of piedpiping. I doubt whether any dialect has a rule
> requiring "whose" rather than "whom's", given how rare the overall
> construction must be.
> On Mar 22, 2012 12:54 PM, "MorphemeAddict" <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I just came across this odd sentence from the blurb of a new book
>> acquisition at the library:
>>
>> Two pairs of parents, one of whose child has hurt the other, ...
>>
>> Here, it looks like the possessive "whose" should actually be "who's",
>> since the possessive is of the whole phrase "one of who". It just seems
>> strange to me.
>>
>> stevo
>>
>
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" bvticvlar...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:30 am ((PDT))
>
> Here, it looks like the possessive "whose" should actually be "who's",
> since the possessive is of the whole phrase "one of who". It just seems
> strange to me.
>
ah methinks i see what you're saying. at any rate i think (despite that
this is probably good english) the "of whose" is redundant, albeit a
redundancy programmed into the grammar.
the function played by the genitive "whose" seems to be the same as when
you say "a friend of mine" or "an acquaintance of John's" -- where grammar
would *logically* prescribe "a friend of *me*" or "an acquaintance of John"
(since "me," historically dative/accusative, is the only form of the 1st
person sing. pronoun that ought to follow prepositions like "of"). but for
some reason using that extra genitive "feels" good.
maybe?
but i get what you mean. the blurb is trying to possessivize "one of whom";
"the child of one [pair] of whom..."; what's *really* supposed to be
possessivized is "one"; but "one's of whom child" and "[one of whom]'s
child" aren't really options. turning "who(m)" into "whose" seems to be a
logically questionable way of doing this, but the only solution i can
imagine english grammar permitting.
matt
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Michael Everson <ever...@evertype.com>wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2012, at 12:53, MorphemeAddict wrote:
>
> > I just came across this odd sentence from the blurb of a new book
> > acquisition at the library:
> >
> > Two pairs of parents, one of whose child has hurt the other, ...
> >
> > Here, it looks like the possessive "whose" should actually be "who's",
> > since the possessive is of the whole phrase "one of who".
>
> No, "whose" is the genitive of "who". You'd say "one of whose children's
> books has hurt the other" though.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" gwa...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:57 am ((PDT))
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:53 AM, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just came across this odd sentence from the blurb of a new book
> acquisition at the library:
>
> Two pairs of parents, one of whose child has hurt the other, ...
>
> Here, it looks like the possessive "whose" should actually be "who's",
> since the possessive is of the whole phrase "one of who". It just seems
> strange to me.
"One of who is child has hurt the other"?
I see what you're saying. Since the phrase "one of who" is possessive,
not the single word "who", you're saying the clitic <'s> should be
attached to the end of the noun phrase instead of inflecting "who".
But that's not how it works. The way I understand it, "whose" isn't
really an inflected form of "who", it's just how "who" + possessive
<'s> is spelled because the form <who's> is off limits since "who's"
is always a contraction of "who is". Basically, the rule "who's means
who is" is more important and trumps the normal pattern of appending
<'s> to the noun phrase.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
Posted by: "Jim Henry" jimhenry1...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:24 am ((PDT))
On 3/22/12, And Rosta <and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lovely datum - thanks for sharing. Others' 'correction' to "one of whose
> children" is a pseudocorrection, changing both syntax and meaning. The
I'm not sure what's the best way to express what was apparently meant
-- both the original sentence and all the profferred corrections in
this thread feel stylistically awkward if not ungrammatical to me.
But "one of whose child" seems particularly odd, since the "one of
whose" seems that it must be selecting one member of a set with more
than one member; so having it followed by a singular noun doesn't seem
to work in my 'lect. E.g.,
1. I met an author only one of whose books I had read.
2. I met two authors only one of whose books I had read.
3. *I met two authors only one of whose book I had read.
The first and second sentences mean different things, namely "I had
read only one book out of the books that author had written" and "I
had read one or more books by one of those authors and none by the
other." The third sentence perhaps ought to mean "I had read exactly
one book by one of those authors and none by the other," but it just
doesn't work in my 'lect; I'd need to say something longer like "I met
two authors; I'd read one book by one of them but nothing by the
other."
> correct 'correction' would be "one of whom's child", but that's still a
"one of whom's child" feels stilted and formal, but not nonsensical,
like "one of whose child".
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" ra...@charter.net
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:10 am ((PDT))
On Mar 22, 2012, at 7:53 AM, MorphemeAddict wrote:
> I just came across this odd sentence from the blurb of a new book
> acquisition at the library:
>
> Two pairs of parents, one of whose child has hurt the other, ...
>
> Here, it looks like the possessive "whose" should actually be "who's",
> since the possessive is of the whole phrase "one of who". It just seems
> strange to me.
>
> stevo
I notice the same trouble with how to say "the friend of mine who is also a
friend of yours":
*you and I's friend
*your and my friend
the friend of yours and mine (grammatical, but very awkward)
Some dialects seem to have _yours and mine[']s_, but I'm not sure it would be
useful in this case.
Or, if you want to use a first-person plural pronoun in an expression meaning
"the friend of both of ours", how do you say it?
*both of us's friend
*both of ours friend
*both of our friends (I actually heard this one recently, and it was clear from
context that it meant the one friend of both of us, rather than the two friends
of us)
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
Posted by: "Charlie Brickner" caeruleancent...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:42 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:56:51 -0700, Garth Wallace <gwa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>The way I understand it, "whose" isn't really an inflected form of "who", it's
>just how "who" + possessive <'s> is spelled because the form <who's> is off
>limits since "who's" is always a contraction of "who is".
Are you sure about that? It seems to me that Nom. hwā, Gen. hw�s, and
Acc. hwǣm are the ancestors of who, whose, whom.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1i. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" gwa...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:38 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Charlie Brickner
<caeruleancent...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:56:51 -0700, Garth Wallace <gwa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The way I understand it, "whose" isn't really an inflected form of "who", it's
>>just how "who" + possessive <'s> is spelled because the form <who's> is off
>>limits since "who's" is always a contraction of "who is".
>
> Are you sure about that? It seems to me that Nom. hwā, Gen. hwæs, and
> Acc. hwǣm are the ancestors of who, whose, whom.
Yes, but I'm speaking synchronically. In current usage, it seems to be
a matter of spelling (probably because "whose" and "who's" are
pronounced identically).
Besides, isn't hwæs just the Old English genitive ending that
developed into the <'s> clitic? If so, then the development in the
spoken language is entirely regular, and it's only the spelling
(motivated by the conflict with the homophonous contraction) that
makes it look strange.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1j. Re: OT: odd phrasing in English
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" bvticvlar...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:02 pm ((PDT))
>
> Besides, isn't hwæs just the Old English genitive ending that
> developed into the <'s> clitic? If so, then the development in the
> spoken language is entirely regular, and it's only the spelling
> (motivated by the conflict with the homophonous contraction) that
> makes it look strange.
>
our possessive <'s> is a truncation of OE *-es*, the genitive ending for
(masculine and neuter) a-stem nouns. i.e.:
*ð**æs monnes wif* > the man's wife
but, yes, historically speaking, the -s on *monnes* is the *same* -s at the
end of *hwæs*; both come from the same PIE genitive marker.
*hw**æs* does indeed become modern "whose," and "who's" can reflect only
either "who has" or "who is" (which were never, to the best of my
knowledge, contracted in OE).
i think the real problem above stems from the fact that english cannot
easily possessivize [[one of whom]]; how do you shorten "the child of one
of whom"? since few people are likely to say "whom" to begin with, "[[one
of whom]]'s child" easily becomes "[[one of who]]'s child"; and, since
*everybody knows* that the possessive form of "who" is "whose," [[[one of
who]'s]] is written as "one of whose" -- which, at first glance, doesn't
even sound all that abnormal to me.
this is the problem with a language that can do both
[POSSESSOR's POSSESSEE] and [POSSESSEE of POSSESSOR]; in latin, for
example, you could probably get away with
quorum puer unius
which.GEN.PL kid.NOM one.GEN
"of which [pairs], the child of one" ;"the child of one of which [pairs]"
but english's strict inability to possessivize (with <'s>) the first of an
"X of Y" pair makes the english situation much more complicated. if you
want to say "the onions of the king of France," can you say "the king of
France's onions"? can't that also mean "the king of the onions of France"?
if your idiolect permits you to say "the king's of France onions," you get
$20.
anyway, it's tricky, and that's my two cents.
cheers,
matt
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Garth Wallace <gwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Charlie Brickner
> <caeruleancent...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:56:51 -0700, Garth Wallace <gwa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>The way I understand it, "whose" isn't really an inflected form of
> "who", it's
> >>just how "who" + possessive <'s> is spelled because the form <who's> is
> off
> >>limits since "who's" is always a contraction of "who is".
> >
> > Are you sure about that? It seems to me that Nom. hwā, Gen. hwæs, and
> > Acc. hwǣm are the ancestors of who, whose, whom.
>
> Yes, but I'm speaking synchronically. In current usage, it seems to be
> a matter of spelling (probably because "whose" and "who's" are
> pronounced identically).
>
> Besides, isn't hwæs just the Old English genitive ending that
> developed into the <'s> clitic? If so, then the development in the
> spoken language is entirely regular, and it's only the spelling
> (motivated by the conflict with the homophonous contraction) that
> makes it look strange.
>
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: agent of an antitransitive verb
Posted by: "Roman Rausch" ara...@mail.ru
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:37 am ((PDT))
>I would say "He died of cancer", "He died by the sword", "He died in a car
accident".
Doing a search on Yahoo and using 'fire' instead of 'sword' (since 'die by
the sword' is something of a stock phrase), I get the following numbers of
results:
"died of cancer": 1300 000
"died from cancer": 160 000
"died by cancer": 4000
"died by fire": 15 000
"died from fire": 5000
"died of fire": 5000
"died from injuries": 160 000
"died of injuries": 70 000
"died by injuries": 44
"died in a car accident": 340 000
"died of a car accident": 10 000
"died from a car accident": 7000
"died by a car accident": 2500
If this is in any way reliable, it would seem that the directness of
causation matters in order for the by-phrase to be acceptable, so that: fire
> car accident > cancer > injuries.
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: agent of an antitransitive verb
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:43 am ((PDT))
From: Roman Rausch <ara...@mail.ru>
Still, finding a language
where *'The door opened by the wind' is perfectly regular would clear the
question up for me...
---------------------------------------------------
A language might well have some particle/preposition that meant both 'because
of'' and ' by means of' , which to my mind, at least, are sort-of
related........
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: agent of an antitransitive verb
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" pwd...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:48 pm ((PDT))
IIRC, ancient Greek dia can mean "because of" if governing the accusative,
and by means of if governing the dative . . . or am I mistaken?
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Roman Rausch <ara...@mail.ru>
> Still, finding a language
> where *'The door opened by the wind' is perfectly regular would clear the
> question up for me...
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> A language might well have some particle/preposition that meant both
> 'because of'' and ' by means of' , which to my mind, at least, are sort-of
> related........
>
--
Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
order from Finishing Line
Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
and
Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: agent of an antitransitive verb
Posted by: "Charlie Brickner" caeruleancent...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:28 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:48:04 -0500, Patrick Dunn <pwd...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>IIRC, ancient Greek dia can mean "because of" if governing the accusative,
>and by means of if governing the dative . . . or am I mistaken?
>
With accusative: through, throughout, during, by, with a view to, on account,
for the sake, by reason of
With dative: by means of, and many others.
According to Liddell and Scott.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: agent of an antitransitive verb
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" un.do...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:55 pm ((PDT))
Agreed with stevo, and along Roman's lines I also bring up "death by chocolate"
for your amusement and reference.
FWIW the door opened by the wind is perfectly natural to me.
Eugene
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 Mar 2012, at 14:37, Roman Rausch <ara...@mail.ru> wrote:
>> I would say "He died of cancer", "He died by the sword", "He died in a car
> accident".
>
> Doing a search on Yahoo and using 'fire' instead of 'sword' (since 'die by
> the sword' is something of a stock phrase), I get the following numbers of
> results:
>
> "died of cancer": 1300 000
> "died from cancer": 160 000
> "died by cancer": 4000
>
> "died by fire": 15 000
> "died from fire": 5000
> "died of fire": 5000
>
> "died from injuries": 160 000
> "died of injuries": 70 000
> "died by injuries": 44
>
> "died in a car accident": 340 000
> "died of a car accident": 10 000
> "died from a car accident": 7000
> "died by a car accident": 2500
>
> If this is in any way reliable, it would seem that the directness of
> causation matters in order for the by-phrase to be acceptable, so that: fire
>> car accident > cancer > injuries.
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: agent of an antitransitive verb
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:02 pm ((PDT))
Death _by_ natural causes, BUT he died _from_ natural causes.
Adam
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Eugene Oh <un.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreed with stevo, and along Roman's lines I also bring up "death by
> chocolate" for your amusement and reference.
>
> FWIW the door opened by the wind is perfectly natural to me.
>
>
>
> Eugene
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 22 Mar 2012, at 14:37, Roman Rausch <ara...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> >> I would say "He died of cancer", "He died by the sword", "He died in a
> car
> > accident".
> >
> > Doing a search on Yahoo and using 'fire' instead of 'sword' (since 'die
> by
> > the sword' is something of a stock phrase), I get the following numbers
> of
> > results:
> >
> > "died of cancer": 1300 000
> > "died from cancer": 160 000
> > "died by cancer": 4000
> >
> > "died by fire": 15 000
> > "died from fire": 5000
> > "died of fire": 5000
> >
> > "died from injuries": 160 000
> > "died of injuries": 70 000
> > "died by injuries": 44
> >
> > "died in a car accident": 340 000
> > "died of a car accident": 10 000
> > "died from a car accident": 7000
> > "died by a car accident": 2500
> >
> > If this is in any way reliable, it would seem that the directness of
> > causation matters in order for the by-phrase to be acceptable, so that:
> fire
> >> car accident > cancer > injuries.
>
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
2g. Re: agent of an antitransitive verb
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" lytl...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 3:50 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Death _by_ natural causes, BUT he died _from_ natural causes.
>
It's not that clear-cut for me. "Death by natural causes", "died of/from
natural causes". The other versions are all completely understood, too,
just not how I would say them.
stevo
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Eugene Oh <un.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Agreed with stevo, and along Roman's lines I also bring up "death by
> > chocolate" for your amusement and reference.
> >
> > FWIW the door opened by the wind is perfectly natural to me.
> >
> >
> >
> > Eugene
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On 22 Mar 2012, at 14:37, Roman Rausch <ara...@mail.ru> wrote:
> >
> > >> I would say "He died of cancer", "He died by the sword", "He died in a
> > car
> > > accident".
> > >
> > > Doing a search on Yahoo and using 'fire' instead of 'sword' (since 'die
> > by
> > > the sword' is something of a stock phrase), I get the following numbers
> > of
> > > results:
> > >
> > > "died of cancer": 1300 000
> > > "died from cancer": 160 000
> > > "died by cancer": 4000
> > >
> > > "died by fire": 15 000
> > > "died from fire": 5000
> > > "died of fire": 5000
> > >
> > > "died from injuries": 160 000
> > > "died of injuries": 70 000
> > > "died by injuries": 44
> > >
> > > "died in a car accident": 340 000
> > > "died of a car accident": 10 000
> > > "died from a car accident": 7000
> > > "died by a car accident": 2500
> > >
> > > If this is in any way reliable, it would seem that the directness of
> > > causation matters in order for the by-phrase to be acceptable, so that:
> > fire
> > >> car accident > cancer > injuries.
> >
>
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
2h. Re: agent of an antitransitive verb
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:46 pm ((PDT))
But you wouldn't say/accept, "He died _by_ natural causes," woud you? _By_
has really weird distribution.
Adam
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:49 PM, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Death _by_ natural causes, BUT he died _from_ natural causes.
> >
>
> It's not that clear-cut for me. "Death by natural causes", "died of/from
> natural causes". The other versions are all completely understood, too,
> just not how I would say them.
>
> stevo
>
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Eugene Oh <un.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed with stevo, and along Roman's lines I also bring up "death by
> > > chocolate" for your amusement and reference.
> > >
> > > FWIW the door opened by the wind is perfectly natural to me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Eugene
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On 22 Mar 2012, at 14:37, Roman Rausch <ara...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> I would say "He died of cancer", "He died by the sword", "He died
> in a
> > > car
> > > > accident".
> > > >
> > > > Doing a search on Yahoo and using 'fire' instead of 'sword' (since
> 'die
> > > by
> > > > the sword' is something of a stock phrase), I get the following
> numbers
> > > of
> > > > results:
> > > >
> > > > "died of cancer": 1300 000
> > > > "died from cancer": 160 000
> > > > "died by cancer": 4000
> > > >
> > > > "died by fire": 15 000
> > > > "died from fire": 5000
> > > > "died of fire": 5000
> > > >
> > > > "died from injuries": 160 000
> > > > "died of injuries": 70 000
> > > > "died by injuries": 44
> > > >
> > > > "died in a car accident": 340 000
> > > > "died of a car accident": 10 000
> > > > "died from a car accident": 7000
> > > > "died by a car accident": 2500
> > > >
> > > > If this is in any way reliable, it would seem that the directness of
> > > > causation matters in order for the by-phrase to be acceptable, so
> that:
> > > fire
> > > >> car accident > cancer > injuries.
> > >
> >
>
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: New Blog Post: Moten Part VIII: Surdé clinaison, Def initio
Posted by: "BPJ" b...@melroch.se
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:19 am ((PDT))
On 2012-03-22 10:20, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
>> Works the same way in Old Albic. A genitive of an animate noun
>> > can be marked with a local case to create the equivalent of English
>> > "at/from/to someone's":
>> >
>> > Agama Mørdindoson.
>> > AOR-go-1SG:A Mørdindo-GEN-ALL
>> > 'I went to Mørdindo's (home).'
>> >
>> >
> Interesting. So Old Albic has both Suffixaufnahme and at least one example
> of surdéclinaison. Interesting, I am not aware of a single natlang example
> that features both. Or did Old Georgian also allow such constructions?
In Mærik a genitive can take further cases Suffixaufnahme-style,
and since a genitive can be used pars pro toto for the entire
genitive phrase it would probably be used on its own with added
case endings, so that in the exchange.
"I found a book."
"Alice's or Bob's?"
"Alice's."
The genitives in the second and third sentence would take an
accusative ending. Would that count as surdéclinaison?
/bpj
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: New Blog Post: Moten Part VIII: Surdé clinai son, Def initio
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" un.do...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:50 pm ((PDT))
In the same vein, if in Classical Arithide "I shall give this prize to the one
that sings best" translates as:
"...rōstē koeronae"
I.e. best.ADV sing.AGT.DAT
Is that either of Suffixaufnahme or surdéclinaison ?
To me the distinction is still very fuzzy!
Eugene
Sent from my iPhone
On 22 Mar 2012, at 15:19, BPJ <b...@melroch.se> wrote:
> On 2012-03-22 10:20, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
>>> Works the same way in Old Albic. A genitive of an animate noun
>>> > can be marked with a local case to create the equivalent of English
>>> > "at/from/to someone's":
>>> >
>>> > Agama Mørdindoson.
>>> > AOR-go-1SG:A Mørdindo-GEN-ALL
>>> > 'I went to Mørdindo's (home).'
>>> >
>>> >
>> Interesting. So Old Albic has both Suffixaufnahme and at least one example
>> of surdéclinaison. Interesting, I am not aware of a single natlang example
>> that features both. Or did Old Georgian also allow such constructions?
>
> In Mærik a genitive can take further cases Suffixaufnahme-style,
> and since a genitive can be used pars pro toto for the entire
> genitive phrase it would probably be used on its own with added
> case endings, so that in the exchange.
>
> "I found a book."
> "Alice's or Bob's?"
> "Alice's."
>
> The genitives in the second and third sentence would take an
> accusative ending. Would that count as surdéclinaison?
>
> /bpj
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: OT: Grave Accent (Re: Superdeclension in Quenya? (and in Old Alb
Posted by: "BPJ" b...@melroch.se
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 8:42 am ((PDT))
On 2012-03-21 01:14, David Peterson wrote:
> It'd be better if we used a method for emphasis that leaves the string in
> tact so we can avoid this problem.
There *is* such a method which has been used in email for *years*.
Since we discuss language all the time we might want to
reserve _underscoring_ for metacitaitions, and write
the philological asterisk inside the underscores to
distinguish it from emphasis asterisks.
/bpj
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: OT: ASL
Posted by: "Sai" s...@saizai.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:44 am ((PDT))
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 09:52, Brian Woodward <altriu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone know of any good resources online that teach ASL? Something that
> would at least teach the basics. Videos are a plus.
My favorite book on grammar etc is the ASL Green Book, teacher's
edition — and then read through Klima & Bellugi, Signs of Language.
- Sai
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: OT: ASL
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:10 am ((PDT))
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Sai <s...@saizai.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 09:52, Brian Woodward <altriu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Does anyone know of any good resources online that teach ASL? Something
> that would at least teach the basics. Videos are a plus.
>
> My favorite book on grammar etc is the ASL Green Book, teacher's
> edition � and then read through Klima & Bellugi, Signs of Language.
>
> - Sai
>
But keep in mind that Klima & Bellugi is a bit dated and getting moreso all
the time. The field has advanced A LOT since they wrote SoL.
Adam
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: New Blog Post: Moten Part VIII: Surdéclinaison, Def inition a
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" joerg_rhieme...@web.de
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:56 pm ((PDT))
Hallo conlangers!
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:20:54 +0100 Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
> On 21 March 2012 16:30, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhieme...@web.de> wrote:
> [...]
> > Right. This is also the way it works in Old Albic:
> >
> > Adarama am catham ndaron Atambaradon.
> > AOR-give-3SG:P-1SG:A the-OBJ cat-OBJ man-DAT Atambara-ABL-M-DAT
> > 'I have the cat to a man from Atambara.'
> >
> >
> Yes. As you may remember, I used an Old Albic example to illustrate
> Suffixaufnahme in my LCC4 presentation :) .
Yes. I gave you an example to use in your presentation.
> [...]
> > Works the same way in Old Albic. A genitive of an animate noun
> > can be marked with a local case to create the equivalent of English
> > "at/from/to someone's":
> >
> > Agama Mørdindoson.
> > AOR-go-1SG:A Mørdindo-GEN-ALL
> > 'I went to Mørdindo's (home).'
> >
> >
> Interesting. So Old Albic has both Suffixaufnahme and at least one example
> of surdéclinaison. Interesting, I am not aware of a single natlang example
> that features both. Or did Old Georgian also allow such constructions?
I don't know about Old Georgian. The Old Albic construction is
modelled on English constructions of the sort "I went to M.'s",
which are usually analyzed as elliptic constructions of the type
"I went to M.'s (home)", or in Old Albic, _Agama (cathan)
Mørdiondoson_, which is a regular suffixaufnahme construction.
> [...]
> > In Old Albic, the relative clause is preceded by an article which
> > is inflected for the case and number of the noun it modifies.
> > Things like "the one that ..." are expressed that way, too:
> >
> > An larasa cenithi daroama am darath san.
> > the-DAT sing-3SG:A good-SUP-INS give-FUT-3SG:P-1SG:A the-OBJ gift this
> > 'Who sings best, to him I will give this gift.'
> >
> >
> That's basically how Moten does it too, but since in Moten the article is
> an inflectional infix, the result is surdéclinaison:
>
> Kopejufeano |lezuj |lajteos luden joplude|n ige.
> ko-pe-uf<e>an-no j-lezu-j
> |la-i-t<e>o-s l<d>en-n
> j-opl<d>e-j-n i-ge.
> INS-SUP-great<ART>-SUP INF-sing-INF BEN-PRS-be<ART>-DEP this<ACC.SG>-ACC
> INF-give<ACC.SG>-INF-ACC PRS-have.
> I will give this to whoever sings greatest.
>
> Literally: "(I) shall transfer this from me for the benefit of the one that
> sings with the most greatness" (_joplej_ implies a transfer from the
> speaker, so you don't need to indicate a subject).
>
> (I'm curious whether the full interlinear is making things simpler or
> actually more complicated to understand ;) )
>
> The details are different (benefactive prefix instead of dative case,
> separate article vs. infix), but this underlying structure is quite similar.
I see.
> > > - formation of adverbial subclauses by inflecting conjugated verbs using
> > > noun cases (I will discuss that in my next post).
> >
> > As above, by means of an inflected article in Old Albic:
> >
> > Amad alarasa Mørdindo am laras adarasa Phendrato son am darath.
> > the-ABL AOR-sing-3SG:P-3SG:A Mørdindi the-OBJ song AOR-give-3SG:P-3SG:A
> > Phendrato he-DAT the gift
> > 'After Mørdindo sang the song, Phendrato gave him the gift.'
> >
> >
> Interesting. This is indeed not unlike one of the ways Moten handles
> adverbial phrases (by inflecting noun clauses as above), although the more
> common way is slightly different (but still involves surdéclinaison).
>
> Funny how the underlying principles are so similar...
"Great minds think alike", or something like that ;) It is indeed
interesting how different approaches led to comparable structures
here.
> > Is this what you mean?
> >
> >
> Yes, but with inflectional affixes rather than separate articles :) .
>
>
> > > - all kinds of restricted patterns and one-offs, which can be used to
> > > create new lexical items (for instance, in Moten the word for "week" is
> > > _negesizdan_, which is actually an inflected form meaning "for seven
> > days").
> >
> > There may be such forms in Old Albic, too; they are not yet well
> > explored.
> >
> >
> It's a great way to derive new vocabulary in ways different from plain
> derivation or compounding. And necessary in Moten since it has only very
> little derivation.
Old Albic has similar amounts of derivational suffixes as Latin
or Ancient Greek, and very productive compounding, but that
doesn't mean that it can't create new lexical items by means
of something like surdéclinaison. As I said, not yet well
explored.
> > > And I'm sure you could imagine many more things to do. Those are just
> > > the
> > > patterns of surdéclinaison that appear in Moten (and similarly in
> > Basque).
> > >
> > > That's the power of surdéclinaison: it's far broader than
> > > Suffixaufnahme,
> >
> > Certainly!
> >
> > > to which it bears only a passing similarity (I'm nearly sure they are
> > > actually incompatible: Suffixaufnahme requires word marking,
> > surdéclinaison
> > > seems to require group marking, i.e. marking NPs for function only once,
> > a
> > > the edge of the phrase).
> >
> > Surdéclinaison indeed seems at least to correlate with group
> > inflection,
>
>
> Yes, although Old Albic seems to prove you can have at least som forms of
> surdéclinaison even in a word marking language.
Yes. I won't say that surdéclinaison can only occur in group-
inflecting languages. I know too little about the occurence of
such patterns in the languages of the world.
> > while suffixaufnahme is a matter of word inflection
> > (AFAIK Georgian lost suffixaufnahme when it moved from word
> > inflection to group inflection, but I am not sure).
> >
> >
> Yeah, you cannot have agreement within a noun phrase in a language that
> doesn't have word marking, so group marking seems to preclude
> Suffixaufnahme.
Exactly. Where adjectives are not marked with case suffixes, it
would be strange if genitive NP were undergoing suffixaufnahme!
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Êm, a Êm atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Êmel." - SiM 1:1
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
6b. Re: New Blog Post: Moten Part VIII: Surdéclinaison, Def inition
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" gwa...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:15 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhieme...@web.de> wrote:
> Hallo conlangers!
>
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:20:54 +0100 Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
>
>> Interesting. So Old Albic has both Suffixaufnahme and at least one example
>> of surdéclinaison. Interesting, I am not aware of a single natlang example
>> that features both. Or did Old Georgian also allow such constructions?
>
> I don't know about Old Georgian. The Old Albic construction is
> modelled on English constructions of the sort "I went to M.'s",
> which are usually analyzed as elliptic constructions of the type
> "I went to M.'s (home)", or in Old Albic, _Agama (cathan)
> Mørdiondoson_, which is a regular suffixaufnahme construction.
Heh, that makes me want to do something similar with Ekmar-Tenkar.
Though it may be overkill.
Messages in this topic (6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
