There are 15 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Terminology question From: Adam Walker 1.2. Re: Terminology question From: Garth Wallace 1.3. Re: Terminology question From: Matthew Boutilier 1.4. Re: Terminology question From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews 1.5. Re: Terminology question From: Adam Walker 1.6. Re: Terminology question From: Garth Wallace 1.7. Re: Terminology question From: Roger Mills 1.8. Re: Terminology question From: Matthew Boutilier 1.9. Re: Terminology question From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews 2.1. Re: Sold here / for sale / on sale / on sale here From: Jim Henry 2.2. Re: Sold here / for sale / on sale / on sale here From: BPJ 3a. Re: 5 Awesome Languages (Somebody Made Up) From: George Marques de Jesus 4.1. Vocalic alternation (was: Is Esperanto Indo-European?) From: R A Brown 4.2. Re: Vocalic alternation (was: Is Esperanto Indo-European?) From: Padraic Brown 5a. Re: [THEORY] Language preservation and people agglomeration. From: Padraic Brown Messages ________________________________________________________________________ 1.1. Re: Terminology question Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 1:50 pm ((PDT)) Someone on another forum suggested calling the slot anaphora, which I usually think of in terms of pronouns. but then this affix is doing something that English handles with pronouns, so that may be the only reason why I think that. Comitative, hmmm, that's used to name a noun case in several languages, and while I don't *think* Gravgaln is going to have that case, it hasn't been ruled out as yet, so I'm not sure whether it would work language-internally or not, but it's pretty sure to cause at least some confusion cross-linguistically. But then confusion seems to be as much a point of grammatical terminology (case names, etc.) as does the impartation of information. So I guess I could follow tradition and do whatever I please. :) Adam On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlar...@gmail.com>wrote: > all i can think of is *comitative*, which suggests 'going (or, maybe even > enduring/doing something) together.' > > matt > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I have an affix slot on my verbs in Gravgaln which can be filled with one > > of three affixes, -qgaś (reciprocal), -khezh (reflexive), and -zem > > (together). > > > > dd'ugqgaś = to hit each other > > > > dd'ugkhezh = to hit oneself > > > > dd'ugzem = to both (or all) hit (something) (simultaneously?) > > > > I can't think what to label this slot so as to conveniently talk about it > > in the grammar. *Is* there a term that lumps these three ideas? > > > > Adam who is slowly building this language... > > > Messages in this topic (64) ________________________________________________________________________ 1.2. Re: Terminology question Posted by: "Garth Wallace" gwa...@gmail.com Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:04 pm ((PDT)) Not connative, comitative. But "comitative" usually refers to a noun case that expresses accompaniment, corresponding to the English word "with" in e.g. "I went running with my dog" (but not in "I hit the nail with a hammer", which would be the instrumental case). This seems to be about a subset of verb voice though, so that isn't really applicable; reflexives and reciprocals don't have much to do with accompaniment. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemo...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's what I'm figured. Connative sonds good to me. > > Mellissa Green > > > @GreenNovelist > > -----Original Message----- > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On > Behalf Of Matthew Boutilier > Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 12:33 PM > To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu > Subject: Re: Terminology question > > all i can think of is *comitative*, which suggests 'going (or, maybe even > enduring/doing something) together.' > > matt > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have an affix slot on my verbs in Gravgaln which can be filled with one >> of three affixes, -qgaś (reciprocal), -khezh (reflexive), and -zem >> (together). >> >> dd'ugqgaś = to hit each other >> >> dd'ugkhezh = to hit oneself >> >> dd'ugzem = to both (or all) hit (something) (simultaneously?) >> >> I can't think what to label this slot so as to conveniently talk about it >> in the grammar. *Is* there a term that lumps these three ideas? >> >> Adam who is slowly building this language... >> Messages in this topic (64) ________________________________________________________________________ 1.3. Re: Terminology question Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" bvticvlar...@gmail.com Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:17 pm ((PDT)) yeah, i was thinking the same thing. but i could not come up with another nice greco-latinate grammar word. what about *cohortative*? because the subjects are acting as a single entity on something else. now, i know that's generally a *mood* (i only know it from Hebrew grammars as "Imma do X / let's do X") but, to hell with convention. matt On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Garth Wallace <gwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not connative, comitative. > > But "comitative" usually refers to a noun case that expresses > accompaniment, corresponding to the English word "with" in e.g. "I > went running with my dog" (but not in "I hit the nail with a hammer", > which would be the instrumental case). This seems to be about a subset > of verb voice though, so that isn't really applicable; reflexives and > reciprocals don't have much to do with accompaniment. > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews > <goldyemo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That's what I'm figured. Connative sonds good to me. > > > > Mellissa Green > > > > > > @GreenNovelist > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On > Behalf Of Matthew Boutilier > > Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 12:33 PM > > To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu > > Subject: Re: Terminology question > > > > all i can think of is *comitative*, which suggests 'going (or, maybe even > > enduring/doing something) together.' > > > > matt > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I have an affix slot on my verbs in Gravgaln which can be filled with > one > >> of three affixes, -qgaś (reciprocal), -khezh (reflexive), and -zem > >> (together). > >> > >> dd'ugqgaś = to hit each other > >> > >> dd'ugkhezh = to hit oneself > >> > >> dd'ugzem = to both (or all) hit (something) (simultaneously?) > >> > >> I can't think what to label this slot so as to conveniently talk about > it > >> in the grammar. *Is* there a term that lumps these three ideas? > >> > >> Adam who is slowly building this language... > >> > Messages in this topic (64) ________________________________________________________________________ 1.4. Re: Terminology question Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" goldyemo...@gmail.com Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:18 pm ((PDT)) Sorry, I misheard. I do wear hearing aids too. Mellissa Green @GreenNovelist -----Original Message----- From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of Garth Wallace Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 6:05 PM To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu Subject: Re: Terminology question Not connative, comitative. But "comitative" usually refers to a noun case that expresses accompaniment, corresponding to the English word "with" in e.g. "I went running with my dog" (but not in "I hit the nail with a hammer", which would be the instrumental case). This seems to be about a subset of verb voice though, so that isn't really applicable; reflexives and reciprocals don't have much to do with accompaniment. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemo...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's what I'm figured. Connative sonds good to me. > > Mellissa Green > > > @GreenNovelist > > -----Original Message----- > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On > Behalf Of Matthew Boutilier > Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 12:33 PM > To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu > Subject: Re: Terminology question > > all i can think of is *comitative*, which suggests 'going (or, maybe even > enduring/doing something) together.' > > matt > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have an affix slot on my verbs in Gravgaln which can be filled with one >> of three affixes, -qgaś (reciprocal), -khezh (reflexive), and -zem >> (together). >> >> dd'ugqgaś = to hit each other >> >> dd'ugkhezh = to hit oneself >> >> dd'ugzem = to both (or all) hit (something) (simultaneously?) >> >> I can't think what to label this slot so as to conveniently talk about it >> in the grammar. *Is* there a term that lumps these three ideas? >> >> Adam who is slowly building this language... >> Messages in this topic (64) ________________________________________________________________________ 1.5. Re: Terminology question Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:35 pm ((PDT)) On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Garth Wallace <gwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Matthew Boutilier > <bvticvlar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > yeah, i was thinking the same thing. but i could not come up with another > > nice greco-latinate grammar word. > > > > what about *cohortative*? > > > > because the subjects are acting as a single entity on something else. > > I think Adam was talking about a name for the slot that can be filled > by a reflexive, reciprocal, or "together" affix, not a name for the > "together" affix specifically. At least, that's how I read his > message. > That's correct, Garth. that's exactly what I'm looking for. I don't know if I'll find anything or not. I'm just asking. Adam Messages in this topic (64) ________________________________________________________________________ 1.6. Re: Terminology question Posted by: "Garth Wallace" gwa...@gmail.com Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:35 pm ((PDT)) On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlar...@gmail.com> wrote: > yeah, i was thinking the same thing. but i could not come up with another > nice greco-latinate grammar word. > > what about *cohortative*? > > because the subjects are acting as a single entity on something else. I think Adam was talking about a name for the slot that can be filled by a reflexive, reciprocal, or "together" affix, not a name for the "together" affix specifically. At least, that's how I read his message. Messages in this topic (64) ________________________________________________________________________ 1.7. Re: Terminology question Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:36 pm ((PDT)) How about "participatory"? (But I can't make an '-ative' form out of it...) --- On Fri, 6/7/13, Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlar...@gmail.com> wrote: From: Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlar...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Terminology question To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu Date: Friday, June 7, 2013, 6:17 PM yeah, i was thinking the same thing. but i could not come up with another nice greco-latinate grammar word. what about *cohortative*? because the subjects are acting as a single entity on something else. now, i know that's generally a *mood* (i only know it from Hebrew grammars as "Imma do X / let's do X") but, to hell with convention. matt On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Garth Wallace <gwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not connative, comitative. > > But "comitative" usually refers to a noun case that expresses > accompaniment, corresponding to the English word "with" in e.g. "I > went running with my dog" (but not in "I hit the nail with a hammer", > which would be the instrumental case). This seems to be about a subset > of verb voice though, so that isn't really applicable; reflexives and > reciprocals don't have much to do with accompaniment. > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews > <goldyemo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That's what I'm figured. Connative sonds good to me. > > > > Mellissa Green > > > > > > @GreenNovelist > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On > Behalf Of Matthew Boutilier > > Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 12:33 PM > > To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu > > Subject: Re: Terminology question > > > > all i can think of is *comitative*, which suggests 'going (or, maybe even > > enduring/doing something) together.' > > > > matt > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I have an affix slot on my verbs in Gravgaln which can be filled with > one > >> of three affixes, -qgaś (reciprocal), -khezh (reflexive), and -zem > >> (together). > >> > >> dd'ugqgaś = to hit each other > >> > >> dd'ugkhezh = to hit oneself > >> > >> dd'ugzem = to both (or all) hit (something) (simultaneously?) > >> > >> I can't think what to label this slot so as to conveniently talk about > it > >> in the grammar. *Is* there a term that lumps these three ideas? > >> > >> Adam who is slowly building this language... > >> > Messages in this topic (64) ________________________________________________________________________ 1.8. Re: Terminology question Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" bvticvlar...@gmail.com Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:37 pm ((PDT)) OOOOH. that makes a lot more sense!! i blame my natural inclination for terminologico-etymological symmetry in wanting to replace 'together.' 'reference'? 'direction'? 'directionality'? matt On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Garth Wallace <gwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Matthew Boutilier > <bvticvlar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > yeah, i was thinking the same thing. but i could not come up with another > > nice greco-latinate grammar word. > > > > what about *cohortative*? > > > > because the subjects are acting as a single entity on something else. > > I think Adam was talking about a name for the slot that can be filled > by a reflexive, reciprocal, or "together" affix, not a name for the > "together" affix specifically. At least, that's how I read his > message. > Messages in this topic (64) ________________________________________________________________________ 1.9. Re: Terminology question Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" goldyemo...@gmail.com Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:46 pm ((PDT)) Ir maybe participative? It sounds like you're looking for a adjective that describes what these three are. Mellissa Green @GreenNovelist -----Original Message----- From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of Roger Mills Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 6:37 PM To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu Subject: Re: Terminology question How about "participatory"? (But I can't make an '-ative' form out of it...) --- On Fri, 6/7/13, Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlar...@gmail.com> wrote: From: Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlar...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Terminology question To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu Date: Friday, June 7, 2013, 6:17 PM yeah, i was thinking the same thing. but i could not come up with another nice greco-latinate grammar word. what about *cohortative*? because the subjects are acting as a single entity on something else. now, i know that's generally a *mood* (i only know it from Hebrew grammars as "Imma do X / let's do X") but, to hell with convention. matt On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Garth Wallace <gwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not connative, comitative. > > But "comitative" usually refers to a noun case that expresses > accompaniment, corresponding to the English word "with" in e.g. "I > went running with my dog" (but not in "I hit the nail with a hammer", > which would be the instrumental case). This seems to be about a subset > of verb voice though, so that isn't really applicable; reflexives and > reciprocals don't have much to do with accompaniment. > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews > <goldyemo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That's what I'm figured. Connative sonds good to me. > > > > Mellissa Green > > > > > > @GreenNovelist > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On > Behalf Of Matthew Boutilier > > Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 12:33 PM > > To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu > > Subject: Re: Terminology question > > > > all i can think of is *comitative*, which suggests 'going (or, maybe even > > enduring/doing something) together.' > > > > matt > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I have an affix slot on my verbs in Gravgaln which can be filled with > one > >> of three affixes, -qgaś (reciprocal), -khezh (reflexive), and -zem > >> (together). > >> > >> dd'ugqgaś = to hit each other > >> > >> dd'ugkhezh = to hit oneself > >> > >> dd'ugzem = to both (or all) hit (something) (simultaneously?) > >> > >> I can't think what to label this slot so as to conveniently talk about > it > >> in the grammar. *Is* there a term that lumps these three ideas? > >> > >> Adam who is slowly building this language... > >> > Messages in this topic (64) ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 2.1. Re: Sold here / for sale / on sale / on sale here Posted by: "Jim Henry" jimhenry1...@gmail.com Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 2:08 pm ((PDT)) On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Scott Hlad <scotth...@telus.net> wrote: > So how does this work in other natlangs and conlangs? In gjâ-zym-byn, one would probably say something like (tyn kŏ i) kâj-faj-van <gâ> place this at exchange-able-V.STATE <thing> <thing> Sold Here To say that a specific unique item is available for sale, e.g. a house or used car, one might say: kâj-faj-van rî'mâ kŏ exchange-able-V.STATE house this (this house is) For Sale I'm not sure how one would say a thing is available at a lower price than usual. gzb can talk about prices/costs but it's not very concise about it, and in this context one would want a brief way of expressing the idea of a lower-than-expected price. Maybe: kâj-ha cŏ jĭrn-i kâj-faj-van <gâ> exchange-stuff few/little quantity-at exchange-able-V.STATE <thing> <thing> is buy/sellable for little money -- Jim Henry http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/ http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org Messages in this topic (27) ________________________________________________________________________ 2.2. Re: Sold here / for sale / on sale / on sale here Posted by: "BPJ" b...@melroch.se Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 2:11 pm ((PDT)) 2013-06-07 12:36, taliesin the storyteller skrev: > On 2013-06-07 07:15, H. S. Teoh wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:00:52PM -0500, George Corley wrote: >>> In an attempt to salvage this somewhat, I can't really comment too >>> much on the "for sale"/"on sale" distinction in other >>> languages, /../ > > ... but I can at least comment for my natlang. (AFMNL?) > > Norwegian: > > Something discounted is "på salg". > > Something that is posible to buy is "til salgs". I think the final > 's' is a frozen genitive. Ads in the newspapers for selling stuff > often start with "til salgs". The preposition _til(l)_ used to govern the genitive. Still does in Icelandic and Faroese. In Swedish we have _till sjöss_ 'at sea' and _till fots_ 'on foot' as well. Something discounted is _på rea_ (short for _realisation_) and something possible to buy is _till salu_ (with a frozen Old Scandinavian weak feminine genitive ending!) With real estate it can be _till försäljning_ too. 'For rent' is for some reason _att hyra_ or _till uthyrning_. /bpj Messages in this topic (27) ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 3a. Re: 5 Awesome Languages (Somebody Made Up) Posted by: "George Marques de Jesus" georgemje...@gmail.com Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 3:16 pm ((PDT)) On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Garth Wallace <gwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > http://geeksmash.com/entertainment-news/5-awesome-languages-somebody-made-up763?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_65137 > > > > Yes, it's one of those inescapable Internet list articles, and it's > > really just a list of conlangs attached to major sci-fi/fantasy > > properties, but hey, it's some positive notice for conlangs. It also > > links to a TVTropes page: > > http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConLang > > > I'm addicted to TVTropes since last week, but I didn't know it had its own conlang: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustForFun/TVTropesConLang George Marques http://georgemarques.com.br Messages in this topic (3) ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 4.1. Vocalic alternation (was: Is Esperanto Indo-European?) Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 12:22 am ((PDT)) On 07/06/2013 11:58, Padraic Brown wrote: > --- On Wed, 6/5/13, Olivier Simon wrote: > >> IE languages have two features which can be found among >> them, or at least traced back to PIE, though the >> presently spoken language only displays a few remnants >> of them. - Some kind of vocal alteration; the best >> known is the "ablaut" as in English "speak/spoke" or >> "foot/feet", but it > > Foot/feet, I am fairly certain, is umlaut, not ablaut. Quite right - it is umlaut or, more strictly, i-umlaut and has nothing whatever to do with IE ablaut. Umlaut may also be caused by vanishing final -a and, more rarely, -u. it is a form of vocalic assimilation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umlaut_(linguistics) > Classic ablaut is sing/sang/sung (and maybe song as > well). sing/sang/song certainly. The Germanic languages preserve this features; it is also commonly found in ancient Greek where for example, the verb "to leave" has the following stems: lip- (zero grade) leip- (e grade) loip- (o grade) > Fotiz > fe:t > feet is pretty clear i-umlaut. It most certainly is. >> can be found elsewhere as in French "mourir/meurt". >> This > > I'm pretty sure this is not ablaut either. It most certainly is _not_ ablaut; nor is it umlaut either. > Both come from the Latin root mort-, which I don't think > showed any kind of ablaut variation. Well, the stem mor- of the Latin _morī (Vulgar Lat. *morīre /mɔ'rirɛ/) "to die". But you are quite right, the Latin verb shows no sign of any kind of ablaut variation whatsoever. > The above looks terribly suspicious of some other > process. It is. > Perhaps borrowing from some other Gallic language > (Provencal, e.g.) or some weird French sound change. 'Tis the latter - the _ou_ is a regular development from unstressed VL /ɔ/ in an unblocked syllable, and the _eu_ is the regular development of VL /ɔ/ when stressed. > That said, Latin itself does show some ablaut remnants It did, but .... > as I recall: cado ~ cecidi; ... ain't one. The /ɪ/ of -cid- is a regular weakening of post-tonic unstressed /a/ in unblocked syllables that occurred in early Latin, i.e. cecidī /'kɛkɪdi:/ <-- *cecadī /'kɛkadi:/ > pendo ~ pondus and the like. That is one. But it is not a common feature of the language. > It could be that Romance carries some of those over into > the modern languages. But by that time they were regarded as independent words. The various vowel alternations that are found in the Romance languages, e.g. Spanish verbs with -ie- ~ -e- ~ i alternation, and _-ue- ~ -o- ~ -u- alternation, are the result of _regular_ development of Vulgar Latin vowels in different phonetic environments. They are nothing whatsoever to do with IE ablaut, nor with umlaut of any kind. Vowel alternation can be triggered by a variety of different things and is not confined to IE languages. -- Ray ================================== http://www.carolandray.plus.com ================================== "language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions for individual beings and events." [Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895] Messages in this topic (48) ________________________________________________________________________ 4.2. Re: Vocalic alternation (was: Is Esperanto Indo-European?) Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 4:35 am ((PDT)) --- On Sat, 6/8/13, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote: > > It could be that Romance carries some of those over into > > the modern languages. > > But by that time they were regarded as independent words. > The various vowel alternations that are found in the > Romance languages, e.g. Spanish verbs with -ie- ~ -e- ~ i > alternation, and _-ue- ~ -o- ~ -u- alternation, are the > result of _regular_ development of Vulgar Latin vowels in > different phonetic environments. They are nothing > whatsoever to do with IE ablaut, nor with umlaut of any > kind. Right. As with the French example, these have to do with the treatment of stressed vowels. As I recall, stressed long o becomes ue and stressed long e becomes ie. Thus pó:to > puedo while in the infinitive and 1&2 plural, the stress shifts to the ending: potére > poder. In school, we learned these as "boot" verbs. Because the usual arrangement of the conjugation looks something like a boot, especially when the altered vowel forms are outlined. This isn't confined to verbs of course: Puerto Rico (a nice agglomeration of Latin and Visigothic that!) shows the same variation. > Ray Welcome back, by the way! Padraic Messages in this topic (48) ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 5a. Re: [THEORY] Language preservation and people agglomeration. Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com Date: Sat Jun 8, 2013 4:20 am ((PDT)) --- On Wed, 6/5/13, Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm gradually accepting the idea that > a language can only be preserved > if there are a large agglomeration of people that speak it. > And also that there's no way to help endangered languages but > economically developping these agglomerations, including by increasing > their population. > > Any noticeable problems with this idea? Not so much problems as perhaps observations: Israel, Cornwall and the Wampanoag Nation have active language preservation movements; Israel has almost 8 millions while Cornwall has around 500 thousand and there are around 2000 Wampanoags. Clearly, they don't share "large agglomerations of people" in common! But they do share a strong drive and desire to bring their communal languages back from extinction. I think numbers of people can be very helpful when it comes to pushing the local government into some kind action (funding for programs, etc.). Numbers are also certainly helpful to sustain the project -- inevitably, some number of speakers will move away from the community or marry outside the community or otherwise become separated from the speakers of the language. If you've only got a small handful of speakers, this could be a devastating problem! If you've got hundreds of thousands or millions of speakers, this is not so big a problem. But large numbers of people don't make a movement successful! For any kind of social movement to be successful, it has to have drive and staying power. People must want to keep doing it, regardless of the odds against success and regardless of how meddlesome the government is. Learning a language to native proficiency is a big commitment in time; passing it on to the next generation is a big commitment in the future. It might be that commitment and energy as opposed to a large population are the keys to language preservation. Padraic > > Até mais! > > Leonardo > 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/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------