There are 20 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Writing system for a new project
From: Gary Shannon
1b. Re: Writing system for a new project
From: J. 'Mach' Wust
1c. Re: Writing system for a new project
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
2.1. Re: OT: Why these exceptions in English?
From: Charlie
2.2. Re: OT: Why these exceptions in English?
From: Gary Shannon
2.3. Re: OT: Why these exceptions in English?
From: R A Brown
2.4. Re: OT: Why these exceptions in English?
From: Lee
2.5. Re: OT: Why these exceptions in English?
From: Garth Wallace
2.6. Re: OT: Why these exceptions in English?
From: Gary Shannon
2.7. Re: OT: Why these exceptions in English?
From: Daniel Nielsen
2.8. Re: OT: Why these exceptions in English?
From: Eugene Oh
3a. Re: OT: conhistorical conjecture
From: R A Brown
3b. Re: OT: conhistorical conjecture
From: Lars Finsen
3c. Re: OT: conhistorical conjecture
From: Peter Bleackley
4a. Re: An interesting noun marking system
From: Peter Bleackley
5a. Re: verbing as a poetic instrument
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
6a. Koro - Undocumented language found in India
From: Lee
6b. Re: Koro - Undocumented language found in India
From: Richard Littauer
6c. Re: Koro - Undocumented language found in India
From: Carsten Becker
6d. Re: Koro - Undocumented language found in India
From: Alex Fink
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Writing system for a new project
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" fizi...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 8:42 pm ((PDT))
For my latest, as yet un-named, project, I'm devising a system of
writing inspired by Hangul, but based on four quadrants, where two
quadrants contain consonant symbols and the other two contain vowel
symbols. In addition there are diacritical marks that modify either
the consonant or the vowel or both.
Each word symbol has a vertical line dividing the symbol into a left
half and a right half.
Each word consists of one to four elements plus optional diacritical marks.
The upper left element is the first consonant.
The upper right element is the first vowel.
The lower left element is the second consonant.
The lower right element is the second vowel.
There are 8 consonant symbols: T/D X(SH)/ZH S/Z K/G C(CH)/J P/B F/V H
There are 10 vowel symbols: A Å Æ Õ E I Î O U Y
(a: father; å: cash; æ: fail; õ: fall; e: say; i: green; î: pin; o:
go; u: glue y: pine)
1 diacritical mark turns consonants to voiced version. (Except H which
becomes HW)
1 vowel modifier diacritical mark turns vowels to: an(am), ån(åm),
æn(æm), õn(õm), en(em), ... etc.
The first vowel is required. The other three elements are optional.
If the second consonant and the second vowel are both absent then the
word is monosyllabic, otherwise it is a two-syllable word.
If the second consonant is absent and the two vowels are the same then
the absent consonant is replaced with a glottal stop. E.g. pa + an =
pa'an vs. pan + an = panan or pi + a = pia.
If the second vowel is absent a very subtle schwa is appended to the
final consonant.
There are 9 choices for each consonant (8 consonants plus omitted
consonant) giving 81 pairs of consonants.
There are 10 choices for the first vowel and 11 choices (including the
choice to omit) for the second vowel giving 110 choices of vowel
combinations. Together than makes 81 * 110 = 8,910 word forms. In
addition, there are four diacritics that can be used in any one of 16
different combinations giving a total of 16 * 8,910 = 142,560 possible
words. Since a diacritic modifying an omitted vowel or consonant is
not meaningful, some small percentage of those words would not
actually be used, but the majority are viable words in the language.
Here's an image of a few sample characters:
http://fiziwig.com/conlang/quadro.png
There first shows the vertical diacritical mark on the left and both
the vertical and horizontal diacritical mark on the right. The second
shows the horizontal only followed by the vertical only, and the third
shows no diacriticals on the left followed by both on the right. Below
the diacriticals are the four quadrants that define the two syllables
of each word.
Comments? Suggestions?
-gary
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Writing system for a new project
Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 3:31 am ((PDT))
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 20:39:55 -0700, Gary Shannon wrote:
>For my latest, as yet un-named, project, I'm devising a system of
>writing inspired by Hangul, but based on four quadrants, where two
>quadrants contain consonant symbols and the other two contain vowel
>symbols. In addition there are diacritical marks that modify either
>the consonant or the vowel or both.
>
>Each word symbol has a vertical line dividing the symbol into a left
>half and a right half.
>Each word consists of one to four elements plus optional diacritical marks.
>The upper left element is the first consonant.
>The upper right element is the first vowel.
>The lower left element is the second consonant.
>The lower right element is the second vowel.
>There are 8 consonant symbols: T/D X(SH)/ZH S/Z K/G C(CH)/J P/B F/V H
>There are 10 vowel symbols: A Å Æ Õ E I Î O U Y
> (a: father; å: cash; æ: fail; õ: fall; e: say; i: green; î: pin; o:
>go; u: glue y: pine)
I don't like theses idiosyncratic vowel signs, but that's a matter of taste.
For one thing, they are anything but exact (is there a length opposition; is
"Y" the only diphthong or are "Æ", "E", "O" diphthongs as well; what is the
difference between "Æ" and "E"?)
>1 diacritical mark turns consonants to voiced version. (Except H which
>becomes HW)
>1 vowel modifier diacritical mark turns vowels to: an(am), ån(åm),
>æn(æm), õn(õm), en(em), ... etc.
>The first vowel is required. The other three elements are optional.
>If the second consonant and the second vowel are both absent then the
>word is monosyllabic, otherwise it is a two-syllable word.
>If the second consonant is absent and the two vowels are the same then
>the absent consonant is replaced with a glottal stop. E.g. pa + an =
>pa'an vs. pan + an = panan or pi + a = pia.
>If the second vowel is absent a very subtle schwa is appended to the
>final consonant.
>
>There are 9 choices for each consonant (8 consonants plus omitted
>consonant) giving 81 pairs of consonants.
>There are 10 choices for the first vowel and 11 choices (including the
>choice to omit) for the second vowel giving 110 choices of vowel
>combinations. Together than makes 81 * 110 = 8,910 word forms. In
>addition, there are four diacritics that can be used in any one of 16
>different combinations giving a total of 16 * 8,910 = 142,560 possible
>words. Since a diacritic modifying an omitted vowel or consonant is
>not meaningful, some small percentage of those words would not
>actually be used, but the majority are viable words in the language.
I guess it is (2*8+1)*(2*10)*(2*8+1)*(2*10+1)=121'380
>Here's an image of a few sample characters:
>http://fiziwig.com/conlang/quadro.png
>
>There first shows the vertical diacritical mark on the left and both
>the vertical and horizontal diacritical mark on the right. The second
>shows the horizontal only followed by the vertical only, and the third
>shows no diacriticals on the left followed by both on the right. Below
>the diacriticals are the four quadrants that define the two syllables
>of each word.
So, in a way of speaking, there are two additional "diacritic quadrants" on
top of the four "letter quadrants" you have described. I first thought the
diacritic would be added to the respective "letter quadrants", and it would
have the same form for both the upper and the lower "letter quadrants". The
additional "diacritic quadrants" stress the vertical axis of the word shapes.
The method of having a single word shape consist of two syllables seems
unusual to me. I guess there has to be a morphological/phonotactical
explanation for it.
It seems remarkable that nasals cannot occur at the beginning of a word.
Why don't you make this a vertical script? Since every word shape has a
vertical axis, you could easily joint the axis of consecutive word shapes.
In that case, it might be more convenient to have a single diacritic shape
that would be added immediately above each quadrant row. I guess the
vertical diacritic shape would be more convenient, since according to the
picture, it seems that the horizontal diacritic shape looks exactly like the
vowel shape in the bottom right quadrant of the third word.
--
grüess
mach
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Writing system for a new project
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" joerg_rhieme...@web.de
Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 8:27 am ((PDT))
Hallo!
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 20:39:55 -0700, Gary Shannon wrote:
> For my latest, as yet un-named, project, I'm devising a system of
> writing inspired by Hangul, but based on four quadrants, where two
> quadrants contain consonant symbols and the other two contain vowel
> symbols. In addition there are diacritical marks that modify either
> the consonant or the vowel or both.
>
> Each word symbol has a vertical line dividing the symbol into a left
> half and a right half.
Which lends itself, as J. Mach Wust has suggested, to a vertical
script with a continuous line running through the glyphs.
> Each word consists of one to four elements plus optional diacritical marks.
> The upper left element is the first consonant.
> The upper right element is the first vowel.
> The lower left element is the second consonant.
> The lower right element is the second vowel.
> There are 8 consonant symbols: T/D X(SH)/ZH S/Z K/G C(CH)/J P/B F/V H
No nasals or liquids?
> There are 10 vowel symbols: A Å Æ Õ E I Î O U Y
> (a: father; å: cash; æ: fail; õ: fall; e: say; i: green; î: pin; o:
> go; u: glue y: pine)
These vowel phonemes are very Englishy, I must say. (Also, in
many 'lects, _fail_ and _say_ have the same vowel, but I don't
wish to start a YAEPT here.)
> [...]
>
> Here's an image of a few sample characters:
> http://fiziwig.com/conlang/quadro.png
>
> There first shows the vertical diacritical mark on the left and both
> the vertical and horizontal diacritical mark on the right. The second
> shows the horizontal only followed by the vertical only, and the third
> shows no diacriticals on the left followed by both on the right. Below
> the diacriticals are the four quadrants that define the two syllables
> of each word.
>
> Comments? Suggestions?
An interesting script indeed. I like the idea, my criticism of the
phonology notwithstanding.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: OT: Why these exceptions in English?
Posted by: "Charlie" caeruleancent...@yahoo.com
Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 9:28 pm ((PDT))
--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Josh Roth <tan...@...> wrote:
> On a slightly different note: the words something/someone/anyone/nothing
> etc., OTOH, almost always take postposed adjectives. You could say they're
> pronouns, so they don't have to follow the same rules as nouns, but I wonder
> why it should be different - it certainly isn't in all languages.
>
Very interesting. Never thought about the pronouns. However, it is possible
to put the adjective before the pronoun, but then the indefinite article must
be used also.
I saw something big.
I saw a big something.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (38)
________________________________________________________________________
2.2. Re: OT: Why these exceptions in English?
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" fizi...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 9:38 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Charlie <caeruleancent...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Very interesting. Never thought about the pronouns. However, it is possible
> to put the adjective before the pronoun, but then the indefinite article must
> be used also.
>
> I saw something big.
> I saw a big something.
>
> Charlie
Yet other pronouns don't seem able to ever take an adjective. We would
never say "I saw a big him." or "Where is the blue it?"
And even when it's wrong the article seems necessary somehow, because
as wrong as those two are, these two are even wronger: "I saw big
him." or "Where is blue it?"
--gary
Messages in this topic (38)
________________________________________________________________________
2.3. Re: OT: Why these exceptions in English?
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 10:21 pm ((PDT))
On 05/10/2010 15:27, Jim Henry wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Eugene
> Oh<un.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Presumably, though, the definite article in both your
>> lects drops in casual speech? That's how I would say
>> it. In a speech, with "the"; with friends, without.
>
> No, I don't think so.
Certainly not. Why the presumption?
> In casual speech, or in a context
> where the year is obvious and doesn't need to be
> mentioned I might reverse the order, saying "October
> Fourth"
Still has "the" for me - "October the fourth". "October
Fourth" feels distinctly American to me. It doesn't come
naturally to this inhabitant of old England ;)
> instead of "the Fourth of October 2010", but I
> don't think I would say "Fourth of October".
Nor I.
--
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 (38)
________________________________________________________________________
2.4. Re: OT: Why these exceptions in English?
Posted by: "Lee" waywardwre...@yahoo.com
Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 10:22 pm ((PDT))
--- On Tue, 10/5/10, Gary Shannon <fizi...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Gary Shannon <fizi...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: OT: Why these exceptions in English?
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Date: Tuesday, October 5, 2010, 11:37 PM
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Charlie <caeruleancent...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Very interesting. Never thought about the pronouns. However, it is possible
> to put the adjective before the pronoun, but then the indefinite article must
> be used also.
>
> I saw something big.
> I saw a big something.
>
> Charlie
Yet other pronouns don't seem able to ever take an adjective. We would
never say "I saw a big him." or "Where is the blue it?"
And even when it's wrong the article seems necessary somehow, because
as wrong as those two are, these two are even wronger: "I saw big
him." or "Where is blue it?"
--gary
- - - -
Maybe a bit of a stretch, but conceivably...
The circle is red, and the triangle yellow. The square, it blue.
She is small; he big.
I suppose this is just a case of an omitted copula, but at least it sounds OK.
OTOH, at the moment I can't figure out how to do the same with the objective
form without sounding like Tarzan...
Him big. Me small.
Lee
Messages in this topic (38)
________________________________________________________________________
2.5. Re: OT: Why these exceptions in English?
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" gwa...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 10:57 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Josh Roth <tan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about the term Asia Minor? Another too-literal borrowing? And musical
> terms like C-major, D-minor?
That's a proper name, though. In proper names, as in Thunderdome, the
only rule is that there are no rules.
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Lee <waywardwre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe a bit of a stretch, but conceivably...
>
> The circle is red, and the triangle yellow. The square, it blue.
> She is small; he big.
>
> I suppose this is just a case of an omitted copula, but at least it sounds
> OK. OTOH, at the moment I can't figure out how to do the same with the
> objective form without sounding like Tarzan...
"The square, it blue" sounds wrong to me. "The square, blue" is acceptable.
This is an omitted copula, though you can do this sort of thing with
pretty much any verb as long as the first iteration states the verb,
and the following pairs all imply that same verb. "Phil runs a gas
station; John, a car dealership". The adjective version can use any
linking verb: "Phil got angry; John sad". Even obliques can join in
the fun: "Phil turned red with anger; John with shame".
Messages in this topic (38)
________________________________________________________________________
2.6. Re: OT: Why these exceptions in English?
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" fizi...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:52 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Jim Henry <jimhenry1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In casual speech, or in a context where the
> year is obvious and doesn't need to be mentioned I might reverse the
> order, saying "October Fourth" instead of "the Fourth of October
> 2010", but I don't think I would say "Fourth of October".
>
So you're saying the definite article needs to be present for that order?
"THE Fourth of October" then seems just as natural as "THE Fourth of
July". But "THE Fourth of July" is not talking about just any date,
but a date of historical significance. And from across the pond there
is:
Remember, remember THE Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
...
Again "THE" seems to signify the specialness of the date, whereas
"Fourth of October" might be used for some ordinary, non-significant
date. I don't think I've ever heard that construction without the
article, though.
--gary
Messages in this topic (38)
________________________________________________________________________
2.7. Re: OT: Why these exceptions in English?
Posted by: "Daniel Nielsen" niel...@uah.edu
Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 12:30 am ((PDT))
>
> This is an omitted copula, though you can do this sort of thing with
> pretty much any verb as long as the first iteration states the verb,
> and the following pairs all imply that same verb. "Phil runs a gas
> station; John, a car dealership". The adjective version can use any
> linking verb: "Phil got angry; John sad". Even obliques can join in
> the fun: "Phil turned red with anger; John with shame".
>
Some of these omitted copulas with prepositional phrases don't seem to sit
well with speakers cognitively, as from the song,
"The only one for me is you, and you for me", meaning, "You are the only one
for me, and you are the only one for me".
Dan N
Messages in this topic (38)
________________________________________________________________________
2.8. Re: OT: Why these exceptions in English?
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" un.do...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 1:56 am ((PDT))
On 6 Oct 2010, at 06:23, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
> On 05/10/2010 15:27, Jim Henry wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Eugene
>> Oh<un.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Presumably, though, the definite article in both your
>>> lects drops in casual speech? That's how I would say
>>> it. In a speech, with "the"; with friends, without.
>>
>> No, I don't think so.
>
> Certainly not. Why the presumption?
Just my way of trying to find commonalities across different idiolects (:
Eugene
Messages in this topic (38)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: OT: conhistorical conjecture
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:38 pm ((PDT))
On 05/10/2010 14:42, Philip Newton wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 14:49, Peter
> Collier<petecoll...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> - Further north still, would Scottish Gaelic have
>> developed/survived in such an environment, or would
>> its immediate promixity to a more closely related
>> language have brought about a different outcome?
>
> Isn't that roughly parallel to asking about the
> survival/development of Scots in OTL? After all, it was
> in proximity to various forms of English.
No, not even _roughly_ parallel.
There was no realization before the 18th century that Gaelic
and Brittonic/proto-Welsh were related. It is quite clear
that at the period Peter is writing about the speakers of
these languages would have regarded them as distinct and
mutually incomprehensible languages; nor one one group have
felt that the other's language was in some way superior to
their own.
------------------------
On 05/10/2010 17:58, Lars Finsen wrote:
> R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>
> But Britain never was by far as romanised as Gaul. The
> British language would never vanish as completely as the
> Gaulish did.
How do you know? The extensive Roman remains throughout
that part of Britain we now call England would seem to belie
that. The indications are, surely, that that part of Britain
was thoroughly romanized.
> I suspect most of the Latin speakers in the
> province vanished in or shortly after 409. Maybe a Latin
> speaking upper class would survive for a few centuries,
> but I don't think they would have succeeded very much
> more in spreading their language than they did in the
> west.
Strange that a Romance language has held on in the Balkans,
even tho Dacia was colonized by the Romans for less time
than Britain was. Personally, I find it difficult to believe
that the urban centers of Britain were not Latin speaking
among all classes by the end of the Roman occupation. Sure,
Brittonic would have survived in the country side, just as
Gaulish did in Gaul. But I see no reason to suppose that
Britain would not have gone much the same way as Gaul if
there had not been a collapse of urban centers generally.
Romano-Britain seems to have suffered a massive lack of
confidence after the legions were withdrawn in the first
decade of the 5th century; its society seems to have
collapsed in the face of Saxon predations from the east and
Irish from the west. Obviously the Romano-Dacians were made
of sterner stuff - maybe they always had to be ;)
-----------------------------------------------
On 05/10/2010 18:41, David McCann wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 14:48 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>
> How Latinised was lowland Britain, I wonder? The Welsh
> loan words from Latin generally seem to come from Latin
> phonological forms, rather than Romance ones.
Hardly! The Latin loan words AFAIK show all the same
features that one would expect from VL - the main problem is
that having been taken into Brittonic they then undergo all
the subsequent sound changes so their Latin origin is often
obscured. I doubt, e.g. that many immediately connect
_chwefror_ with our February or Latin _Fenruariu(m)_.
Of course, Welsh also has learned borrowings just like any
other Romance language and semi-learned forms like _eglwys_
cf. French _église_. It has AFAIK the whole gamut from VL
through semi-learned to direct borrowings.
> And then
> there's the export of British to Brittany by refugees
> from the invasion. If modern refugees are anything to go
> by, the Britons who became Bretons would be those whom
> one would expect to be most Romanised: those who could
> afford to go, rather than the serf-like peasants.
The boats packed with refugees from Africa that try to cross
the Med and sometimes sink under their own weight of human
cargo seem to me to belie that. Breton is far more closely
connected with Cornish than with Welsh. The indications are
AIUI that it was a mass migration of peoples from what is
now south west England fleeing the depredations of Irish
pirates & plunderers. I don't think ordinary fishermen
would be upper-class.
In any case, as I have said, it seems to me that there was a
collapse of urban culture after the legions departed - and
the exodus from SW Briton surely came later.
--
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 (8)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: OT: conhistorical conjecture
Posted by: "Lars Finsen" lars.fin...@ortygia.no
Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 5:42 am ((PDT))
R A Brown wrote:
> quoting me:
> > But Britain never was by far as romanised as Gaul. The
> > British language would never vanish as completely as the
> > Gaulish did.
>
> How do you know? The extensive Roman remains throughout that part
> of Britain we now call England would seem to belie that. The
> indications are, surely, that that part of Britain was thoroughly
> romanized.
Gaul had a Latin culture. There are poets and writers, and the Roman
rule was relatively benign. In contrast, there was almost continuous
unrest in Britain throughout the Roman rule and little immaterial
culture. The Romans must have seemed to be there only to exploit the
natural riches. Several Celtic names of Britons who were high ranking
enough to leave traces of their existence is known from as late as
the 4th century, and significantly, Vortigern is a Celtic name,
although, interestingly, his father seems to have a Latin one. This
indicates to me that the position of Latin was much weaker than on
the continent, and especially after the abandonment.
> > I suspect most of the Latin speakers in the
> > province vanished in or shortly after 409. Maybe a Latin
> > speaking upper class would survive for a few centuries,
> > but I don't think they would have succeeded very much
> > more in spreading their language than they did in the
> > west.
>
> Strange that a Romance language has held on in the Balkans, even
> tho Dacia was colonized by the Romans for less time than Britain was.
It's hard to tell why, really, and a brief Wikipedia look indicates
that the origin of the Romanians isn't clear at all. They may descend
from the original Daco-Romans, or they may descend from a later
immigration of Romance speakers, some say as late as the 10th-12th
centuries.
LEF
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: OT: conhistorical conjecture
Posted by: "Peter Bleackley" peter.bleack...@rd.bbc.co.uk
Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 5:58 am ((PDT))
staving Lars Finsen:
> R A Brown wrote:
>
>> quoting me:
>> > But Britain never was by far as romanised as Gaul. The
>> > British language would never vanish as completely as the
>> > Gaulish did.
>>
>> How do you know? The extensive Roman remains throughout that part of
>> Britain we now call England would seem to belie that. The indications
>> are, surely, that that part of Britain was thoroughly romanized.
>
> Gaul had a Latin culture. There are poets and writers, and the Roman
> rule was relatively benign. In contrast, there was almost continuous
> unrest in Britain throughout the Roman rule and little immaterial
> culture. The Romans must have seemed to be there only to exploit the
> natural riches. Several Celtic names of Britons who were high ranking
> enough to leave traces of their existence is known from as late as the
> 4th century, and significantly, Vortigern is a Celtic name, although,
> interestingly, his father seems to have a Latin one. This indicates to
> me that the position of Latin was much weaker than on the continent, and
> especially after the abandonment.
>
I also think that the word "abandonment" might be significant here.
Perhaps the Romano-British felt that the Empire had betrayed them by
withdrawing the legions, and turned their back on secular Roman culture
as a result?
Pete
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: An interesting noun marking system
Posted by: "Peter Bleackley" peter.bleack...@rd.bbc.co.uk
Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 2:59 am ((PDT))
staving Jörg Rhiemeier:
> Hallo!
>
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 10:50:13 +0100, Peter Bleackley wrote:
>
>> As Khanga�yagon is supposedly an ur-language (an old trope I invoked to
>> explain its magical properties in a suitably mythical way), I often
>> think about what its descendents might be like.
>>
>> Khanga�yagon has quite a complex noun marking system, but leaves
>> differentiating subjects and direct objects to the syntax.
>
> This is, I would say, rather odd. Languages with rich inventories
> of non-core cases tend to have cases also for the core participants
> of the clause.
>
The oddness is there for a reason. I wanted Khangaþyagon's segunakar to
be something a bit different from what we normally think of as cases
(hence their combinatorial exuberance). I therefore left out a
distinction that you'd typically find in a case system, on purpose.
However, I think that accusatives and ergatives would evolve in its
descendents.
Pete
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: verbing as a poetic instrument
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" tsela...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 5:21 am ((PDT))
2010/10/5 René Uittenbogaard <ruitt...@gmail.com>
> Just this weekend I was listening to the beautiful song "Lente me" by
> Toon Hermans.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_COjurSZ4sI
>
>
Yes, possibly his most beautiful one (although "De appels op de tafelsprei"
and "Vierentwintig rozen" are up there as well as immortal classics).
> In this song he takes the "verbing" practice to an extreme, as a
> poetic instrument.
> Translated:
>
> Ik zing je, ik refrein je - I sing you, I chorus you
> Ik sherry en ik wijn je - I sherry and I wine you
> Ik cello en ik vleugel je - I cello and I piano (*) you
> Ik Rembrandt en ik Breughel je - I Rembrandt and I Breughel you (**)
>
> Ik koffie en ik thee je - I coffee and I tea you
> Ik strand je en ik zee je - I beach you and I sea you
> Ik spel je en ik blader je - I spell you and I browse you
> Ik moeder en ik vader je - I mother and I father you
>
> Maar zou ik jou iets mogen vragen - But could I ask you something
> 't gaat veel verder dan een zoen - it goes much further than a kiss
> Zou ik jou wat mogen vragen - Could I ask you something
> Zou jij voor mij wat willen doen? - Would you do something for me?
>
> Lente me, zomer me, - Spring me, summer me,
> September me en winter me - Autumn (***) me and winter me
> Want ik heb je onophoudelijk lief - Because I love you incessantly
> Morgen me, middag me - Morning me, afternoon me,
> Avond me en nacht me - Evening me and night me
> Met andere woorden: - In other words:
> Blijf bij me, alsjeblieft - Stay with me, please.
>
> (*) "Vleugel" = Grand piano
> (**) (Dutch painters)
> (***) "Herfst" (=autumn) would not fit the meter
>
> Personally I find it a shame that he "translates" his own poem by saying
> "in other words"; but who really cares with such a beautiful song.
>
> René
>
This song is especially striking because verbing is *not* a common
phenomenon in Dutch. From any other person, it probably would have sounded
awful. But Toon Hermans was a master of the Dutch language.
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Koro - Undocumented language found in India
Posted by: "Lee" waywardwre...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 7:16 am ((PDT))
Saw this in the news this morning...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101006/ap_on_sc/us_sci_new_language
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
6b. Re: Koro - Undocumented language found in India
Posted by: "Richard Littauer" richard.litta...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 7:28 am ((PDT))
Thanks for this! That's great. Greg Anderson was also in the film The
Linguists.
Really cool.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Lee <waywardwre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Saw this in the news this morning...
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101006/ap_on_sc/us_sci_new_language
>
>
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
6c. Re: Koro - Undocumented language found in India
Posted by: "Carsten Becker" carb...@googlemail.com
Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 8:22 am ((PDT))
Am 06.10.2010 16:07 schrieb Lee:
> Saw this in the news this morning...
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101006/ap_on_sc/us_sci_new_language
There's been some talk about it on the ZBB, as well, here:
http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?t=35925 [1]. I haven't read
the article on the BBC's page, though, however it has been pointed out
that once again the science news reporting of the BBC is exaggerating
things.
Cheers
Carsten
[1] Note that the ZBB will change its address at the end of the month,
so the link won't work anymore then.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
6d. Re: Koro - Undocumented language found in India
Posted by: "Alex Fink" 000...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 8:26 am ((PDT))
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 07:07:22 -0700, Lee <waywardwre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Saw this in the news this morning...
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101006/ap_on_sc/us_sci_new_language
Aha, so it's no longer just hypothesised!
http://specgram.com/CLII.2/03.metalleus.connections.html ;)
Alex
Messages in this topic (4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
