There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: PIE stops (was: Allophony in Siye)
From: And Rosta
1.2. Re: PIE stops
From: And Rosta
1.3. Re: PIE stops (was: Allophony in Siye)
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
1.4. Re: PIE stops (was: Allophony in Siye)
From: Mike S.
1.5. Re: PIE stops
From: Alex Fink
1.6. Re: PIE stops
From: Mike S.
2.1. Re: [CHAT] Re: Nations
From: Douglas Koller
3a. [NATLANG] Word order and information flow
From: Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro
3b. Re: [NATLANG] Word order and information flow
From: Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro
3c. Re: [NATLANG] Word order and information flow
From: Jim Henry
3d. Re: [NATLANG] Word order and information flow
From: Mike S.
3e. Re: [NATLANG] Word order and information flow
From: Basilius
3f. Re: [NATLANG] Word order and information flow
From: Basilius
4a. Re: True Blood Language?
From: G. van der Vegt
5a. Re: Coping with Lojban (was: Conlangs as Academic Evidence in Lingui
From: And Rosta
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: PIE stops (was: Allophony in Siye)
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:17 am ((PDT))
Alex Fink, On 12/08/2012 16:09:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:39:29 +0200, BPJ<b...@melroch.se> wrote:
>
>> The fact that *b is rare in PIE is a bit of a snag, since the
>> bilabial implosive is the most common, but I think that the
>> bilabial implosive may have merged with *w anyway. It's even
>> possible that original /b/ merged with /w/ causing original
>> /ɓ/ to lose implosion and become /b/ earlier than the changes
>> which affected remaining implosives in Indic, Greek and
>> Germanic.
>
> If it were the latter, /b_</> /b/> /w/ i.e. *b> *bh> *w chain-shiftwise,
> we should be able to see it in the root cooccurrence restrictions, against
> *TeDh *DheT *DeD. That is, unlike the other members of Dh, *bheD would be
> illicit but √bheT √bheDh would be okay. Do we see that?
>
> Come to think of it, this should shed light on *b> *w as well; we would have
> no *wReD but some √wReT √wReDh, and probably a bias against simple *weD too.
> Do we see that?
> ... hm, "root" is *wreh2d-, isn't it. That's not promising.
So the /b/--/w/ merger would antedate the *DeD constraint; and possibly between
the two, /D/ acquired a realization with a phonation that motivates *DeD.
Presumably, DeD roots would have become TeD, or DeT, or DheD, or DeDh; I don't
know if there are statistical patterns or the existence of plesionymous
doublets (that would indicate different dialectal outcomes of DeD) that would
shed any light on what DeD tended to become, which might then shed light on the
realization of /D/ at the time the *DeD constraint kicked in (-- I can imagine
ejectives changing to /T/ or /Dh/ (assuming those to be ordinary pulmonics with
a normal phonation contrast), depending on whether voicing or aspiration was
more prominent as the basis of /T/:/Dh/ at the time, but you would expect
implosives to become /Dh/ rather than /T/).
Jörg Rhiemeier, On 12/08/2012 20:29:
> I think the glottalic hypothesis makes a better account for the
> absence of */b/ than any speculations about a /b/-/w/ merger.
> If */b/ merged with */w/, why didn't */bh/?
Just because /b/ merged with /w/, there'd be no reason to expect /bh/ to join
in the merger. If you mean "why didn't /bh/ rather than /b/ merge with /w/",
then the answer is simply that the evidence is for /b/--/w/ merger.
> Also, as Alex says,
> a chain shift /b/> /bh/> /w/ can be ruled out, as that would
> have created irregularities in the root structure constraints
> (which are in themselves a piece of evidence for glottalism).
It can't be ruled out; it just entails a particular ordering of the changes.
> In PIE, no two plain voiced stops occur in a single root, while
> otherwise two stops in a root have to agree in their voicing
> and aspiration. PIE */bh/ behaves as it should regarding these
> rules, and not like */b/.
The pluses of the glottalic theory are that it can tie together the absence of
/b/ with *DeD. The pluses of the /b/--/w/ merger theory are principally that it
explains the weird /wr/ and /wl/ and secondarily that it explains the high
frequency of /w/. I think the latter has the better pluses. *DeD suggests that
at some point /D/ had glottalic realization, either [t'] or "[d']" (implosive).
Assuming that late PIE did have a [dh]:[d]:[t(h)] contrast (or was it
[Th]:[d]:[t]?), it seems to me slightly easier to get to [dh]:[d]:[t(h)] from
[d(h)]:[d']:[t(h)] (/d/ becomes pulmonic and accordingly aspiration (or
voicing) on /dh/ becomes contrastive) than from [d(h):[t']:[t(h)] (>
[d(h)]:[t]:[th] > [dh]:[d]:[t(h)]).
In all of this I am merely an interested and not very knowledgeable amateur, I
hasten to add.
--And.
Messages in this topic (29)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: PIE stops
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:14 pm ((PDT))
And Rosta, On 13/08/2012 19:17:
> So the /b/--/w/ merger would antedate the *DeD constraint; and
> possibly between the two, /D/ acquired a realization with a phonation
> that motivates *DeD. Presumably, DeD roots would have become TeD, or
> DeT, or DheD, or DeDh; I don't know if there are statistical patterns
> or the existence of plesionymous doublets (that would indicate
> different dialectal outcomes of DeD) that would shed any light on
> what DeD tended to become, which might then shed light on the
> realization of /D/ at the time the *DeD constraint kicked in (-- I
> can imagine ejectives changing to /T/ or /Dh/ (assuming those to be
> ordinary pulmonics with a normal phonation contrast), depending on
> whether voicing or aspiration was more prominent as the basis of
> /T/:/Dh/ at the time, but you would expect implosives to become /Dh/
> rather than /T/).
The figures in
<http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/nels39/NELS-39Abstracts/cooper.pdf> might suggest
that DeD became DheD, and that the *DeD constraint was preceded by one
favouring likeness of manner in the stops (i.e favouring TeT, DeD, DheDh).
--And.
Messages in this topic (29)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: PIE stops (was: Allophony in Siye)
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" joerg_rhieme...@web.de
Date: Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:06 pm ((PDT))
Hallo conlangers!
On Monday 13 August 2012 20:17:26 And Rosta wrote:
> Alex Fink, On 12/08/2012 16:09:
> > On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:39:29 +0200, BPJ<b...@melroch.se> wrote:
> >> The fact that *b is rare in PIE is a bit of a snag, since the
> >> bilabial implosive is the most common, but I think that the
> >> bilabial implosive may have merged with *w anyway. It's even
> >> possible that original /b/ merged with /w/ causing original
> >> /ɓ/ to lose implosion and become /b/ earlier than the changes
> >> which affected remaining implosives in Indic, Greek and
> >> Germanic.
> >
> > If it were the latter, /b_</> /b/> /w/ i.e. *b> *bh> *w
> > chain-shiftwise, we should be able to see it in the root cooccurrence
> > restrictions, against *TeDh *DheT *DeD. That is, unlike the other
> > members of Dh, *bheD would be illicit but √bheT √bheDh would be okay.
> > Do we see that?
> >
> > Come to think of it, this should shed light on *b> *w as well; we would
> > have no *wReD but some √wReT √wReDh, and probably a bias against simple
> > *weD too. Do we see that? ... hm, "root" is *wreh2d-, isn't it. That's
> > not promising.
>
> So the /b/--/w/ merger would antedate the *DeD constraint;
This would be necessary, yes.
> and possibly
> between the two, /D/ acquired a realization with a phonation that
> motivates *DeD. Presumably, DeD roots would have become TeD, or DeT, or
> DheD, or DeDh; I don't know if there are statistical patterns or the
> existence of plesionymous doublets (that would indicate different
> dialectal outcomes of DeD) that would shed any light on what DeD tended to
> become, which might then shed light on the realization of /D/ at the time
> the *DeD constraint kicked in (-- I can imagine ejectives changing to /T/
> or /Dh/ (assuming those to be ordinary pulmonics with a normal phonation
> contrast), depending on whether voicing or aspiration was more prominent
> as the basis of /T/:/Dh/ at the time, but you would expect implosives to
> become /Dh/ rather than /T/).
The paper you linked in your second post looks interesting;
I have to examine it more closely. It also depends on how the
three-grade system came into being in the first place. The
best candidate for the nearest living kin of Indo-European is
Uralic, which doesn't have it - it has a single set of (plain
voiceless) stops. Of course, Uralic may have merged the three
grades Tocharian-wise, but the next closest kin seems to be
Eskimo-Aleut, which is like Uralic in this regard, so Proto-
Indo-Uralic may also have had only one grade of stops. But we
are treading on dangerously unknown terrain here ;)
> Jörg Rhiemeier, On 12/08/2012 20:29:
> > I think the glottalic hypothesis makes a better account for the
> > absence of */b/ than any speculations about a /b/-/w/ merger.
> > If */b/ merged with */w/, why didn't */bh/?
>
> Just because /b/ merged with /w/, there'd be no reason to expect /bh/ to
> join in the merger. If you mean "why didn't /bh/ rather than /b/ merge
> with /w/", then the answer is simply that the evidence is for /b/--/w/
> merger.
It depends on the features of the phonemes in question. If
*b merged with *w and *bh not, then *bh must have had some
property that allowed it to escape being "taken along" by
*b on its way to *w. A chain shift *b > *bh > *w looks
more likely, and if it antedated the stop grade assimilation
and the *DeD constraint, it may indeed have happened!
> > Also, as Alex says,
> > a chain shift /b/> /bh/> /w/ can be ruled out, as that would
> > have created irregularities in the root structure constraints
> > (which are in themselves a piece of evidence for glottalism).
>
> It can't be ruled out; it just entails a particular ordering of the
> changes.
Yes. If it happened before the *DeD constraint took force,
it may well have happened.
> > In PIE, no two plain voiced stops occur in a single root, while
> > otherwise two stops in a root have to agree in their voicing
> > and aspiration. PIE */bh/ behaves as it should regarding these
> > rules, and not like */b/.
>
> The pluses of the glottalic theory are that it can tie together the absence
> of /b/ with *DeD.
Yes.
> The pluses of the /b/--/w/ merger theory are principally
> that it explains the weird /wr/ and /wl/ and secondarily that it explains
> the high frequency of /w/. I think the latter has the better pluses.
Sure. These pluses are not to be ignored at any cost.
> *DeD
> suggests that at some point /D/ had glottalic realization, either [t'] or
> "[d']" (implosive). Assuming that late PIE did have a [dh]:[d]:[t(h)]
> contrast (or was it [Th]:[d]:[t]?),
The former, I think; the reflexes of *Dh are voiced in so many
branches that it must have been voiced.
> it seems to me slightly easier to get
> to [dh]:[d]:[t(h)] from [d(h)]:[d']:[t(h)] (/d/ becomes pulmonic and
> accordingly aspiration (or voicing) on /dh/ becomes contrastive) than from
> [d(h):[t']:[t(h)] (> [d(h)]:[t]:[th] > [dh]:[d]:[t(h)]).
Yes, but AFAIK, implosive grades do not tend to lack the labial
member. But ejectives may turn into implosives first before
they are deglottalized:
[t]:[t']:[d] > [t]:[d']:[d(h)] > [t]:[d]:[dh]
> In all of this I am merely an interested and not very knowledgeable
> amateur, I hasten to add.
I am also an amateur, perhaps better-versed in PIE matters than
you, but still only an amateur!
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
Messages in this topic (29)
________________________________________________________________________
1.4. Re: PIE stops (was: Allophony in Siye)
Posted by: "Mike S." maik...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:05 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 2:17 PM, And Rosta <and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The pluses of the glottalic theory are that it can tie together the
> absence of /b/ with *DeD. The pluses of the /b/--/w/ merger theory are
> principally that it explains the weird /wr/ and /wl/ and secondarily that
> it explains the high frequency of /w/. I think the latter has the better
> pluses. *DeD suggests that at some point /D/ had glottalic realization,
> either [t'] or "[d']" (implosive). Assuming that late PIE did have a
> [dh]:[d]:[t(h)] contrast (or was it [Th]:[d]:[t]?), it seems to me slightly
> easier to get to [dh]:[d]:[t(h)] from [d(h)]:[d']:[t(h)] (/d/ becomes
> pulmonic and accordingly aspiration (or voicing) on /dh/ becomes
> contrastive) than from [d(h):[t']:[t(h)] (> [d(h)]:[t]:[th] >
> [dh]:[d]:[t(h)]).
>
> In all of this I am merely an interested and not very knowledgeable
> amateur, I hasten to add.
>
> --And.
>
Preceding the well-founded but typologically bizarre final stage of PIE in
which */t dh d/ were realized as [t d_h\ d], I think we have a moderate
amount of consensus that */t dh d/ were realized as [t d ???], where the
big question is what the ??? value of the D-series was.
When the absence/rarity of traditionally reconstructed */b/ was initially
speculated in this discussion to be due to an earlier merger with */w/, the
larger suggestion was that the Pre-PIE D-series were _voiced spirants_, not
implosives (or ejectives). That makes */b/ = [B] -> */w/ pretty easy to
imagine, and it seems the best place to start if you want to insist that
*/b/ -> */w/ merger happened.
I am curious if anyone following this thread knows any evidence supporting
this. As far as root constraints, it just dawned on me while writing this
that if the D-series started out as two series of spirants, voiced and
voiceless, that later merged, then roots TeD, DheD, DeT, DeDh could all
mesh with the voicing-agreement constraint that allows TeT and DheDh and
disallows TeDh and DheT. Of course, DeD is disallowed... is there any
precedent for two spirants being barred in a root? Maybe one of them was
forced to dissimilate into a plosive?
Of course, one would want to explain */t dh d/ later changing from [t d
T~D] to [t d_h\ d]. Any ideas?
Messages in this topic (29)
________________________________________________________________________
1.5. Re: PIE stops
Posted by: "Alex Fink" 000...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:09 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 20:14:20 +0100, And Rosta <and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>And Rosta, On 13/08/2012 19:17:
>> So the /b/--/w/ merger would antedate the *DeD constraint; and
>> possibly between the two, /D/ acquired a realization with a phonation
>> that motivates *DeD. Presumably, DeD roots would have become TeD, or
>> DeT, or DheD, or DeDh; I don't know if there are statistical patterns
>> or the existence of plesionymous doublets (that would indicate
>> different dialectal outcomes of DeD) that would shed any light on
>> what DeD tended to become, which might then shed light on the
>> realization of /D/ at the time the *DeD constraint kicked in (-- I
>> can imagine ejectives changing to /T/ or /Dh/ (assuming those to be
>> ordinary pulmonics with a normal phonation contrast), depending on
>> whether voicing or aspiration was more prominent as the basis of
>> /T/:/Dh/ at the time, but you would expect implosives to become /Dh/
>> rather than /T/).
>
>The figures in
><http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/nels39/NELS-39Abstracts/cooper.pdf> might
>suggest that DeD became DheD, and that the *DeD constraint was preceded by one
>favouring likeness of manner in the stops (i.e favouring TeT, DeD, DheDh).
It would be nice to see that work not in abstract -- even better, to see the
dataset.
For instance, how does one extract the CVC core of a root? If, for instance,
the core of *sTVC is *TVC, as it probably is, then this would contaminate the
consonant-series correlations if the T had later assimilated in voice to the
/s/. If I remember right it looks like this is the case; there are *sTeDh but
not plain *TeDh.
(Also, there's this idea that all PIE roots are "fundamentally" CVC but I don't
hold with it. Many are, but there are too many to handwave away that aren't,
not recoverably.)
Also, I'm not sure what order to read the tables in! There's a gap in table
(3) I didn't know about that looks like it's at DeDh, but is it really at DheD?
Tangentially, another intriguing theory which may bear on the origin of the
stop series contrast is the idea that the PIE accent was once tonal. This
permits a good explanation of the observed accent alternations, and
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 01:31:01 -0400, Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dybo I think has actually noted correlations between the phonation of stops
>in PIE roots and their accent paradigm which under this theory trace back to
>preferences of *high tone after *voiceless stops and *low tone after *voiced
>stops, which is quite a good way to see things line up.
>
>Unfortunately I can't re-find a good paper I once read on this, to refresh
>my own memory and give better details, but
> http://starling.rinet.ru/Texts/tonacc.pdf
>at least draws analogies with observable Caucasian situations.
Alex
Messages in this topic (29)
________________________________________________________________________
1.6. Re: PIE stops
Posted by: "Mike S." maik...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:03 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The figures in <
> http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/nels39/NELS-39Abstracts/cooper.pdf> might
> suggest that DeD became DheD, and that the *DeD constraint was preceded by
> one favouring likeness of manner in the stops (i.e favouring TeT, DeD,
> DheDh).
>
> It would be nice to see that work not in abstract -- even better, to see
> the dataset.
>
> For instance, how does one extract the CVC core of a root? If, for
> instance, the core of *sTVC is *TVC, as it probably is, then this would
> contaminate the consonant-series correlations if the T had later
> assimilated in voice to the /s/. If I remember right it looks like this is
> the case; there are *sTeDh but not plain *TeDh.
> (Also, there's this idea that all PIE roots are "fundamentally" CVC but I
> don't hold with it. Many are, but there are too many to handwave away that
> aren't, not recoverably.)
>
> Also, I'm not sure what order to read the tables in! There's a gap in
> table (3) I didn't know about that looks like it's at DeDh, but is it
> really at DheD?
>
>
Table 3 also indicates that the either TeDh (or DheT, depending how you
read the table) exists. Therefore I believe that they are most likely
including sTeDh as TeDh. Yes, the dataset would be nice to have.
Messages in this topic (29)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: [CHAT] Re: Nations
Posted by: "Douglas Koller" douglaskol...@hotmail.com
Date: Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:13 pm ((PDT))
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:44:11 -0500
> From: carra...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [CHAT] Re: Nations
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> The Hakka are very much Han. But the biggest divide in Taiwanese society
> is between Mainlanders (those who came over with Chang Kaishek in the 40's)
> and those who were there before that.
Ah, the old taro and the sweet potato. My ex was a product of one of those
unions.
Kou
Messages in this topic (31)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. [NATLANG] Word order and information flow
Posted by: "Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro" hcesarcas...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:58 pm ((PDT))
Hallo conlangers!
September I start my doctorate program in Computer Engineering. I am trying
to create a grammar induction system with cognitive architectures, and my
intuition is based on the information flow.
I started thinking about how this information flow works for languages with
different word orders.
Russell Tomlin obtained the following frequency distribution for 402
languages of the world. SOV 45%, SVO 42%, VSO 9%, VOS 3%, OVS 1% and OSV
0%. A similar distribution can be seen in WALS data.
Thinking abouit this distribution I realized that the commonest two
features are:
1. objects usually are adjacent to verbs (96%);
2. subjects tend to come before objects (91% -- In languages that
objects and verbs are adjacent to each other, subjects are the first
constituent of a clause -- 87%)
I understand that these langauges usually put the subject as the focus of
the clause, or that objects and verbs can be thought as a single
constituent (the predicate).
But here comes my question. What about languages in which subjects do not
come before objects. As far as I could see VOS languages are usually
Austronesian, and the subject is still the focus, but it is placed at the
end of a clause instead of the beginning. What about VSO languages? Which
one is the focus? The verb? The object? Why aren't they adjacent? This only
makes sense for me if the verb were a verbnoun, and the subject a dependent
term of this verbnoun (something like "its owner").
Matthew Dryer, the author of the word order data in WALS proposes to divide
the languages into a 4-way typology, instead of a 6-way tyopology. He
proposes "SV & OV", "SV & VO", "VS & VO" and "VS & OV". He says that VSO
and VOS languages are not two different sets, as VSO languages do use VOS
sentences and vice-versa. So they are verb-initial languages.
But according to his proposal SOV and OSV languages are the same thing and
this doesn't work for me.
Can someone explain me how the information flow works for each word order?
What about the verb-initial languages? And OVS and OSV?
Best regards,
Hugo Cesar
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: [NATLANG] Word order and information flow
Posted by: "Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro" hcesarcas...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:57 pm ((PDT))
Does anyone know if the object-initial languages (OVS and OSV) tend to be
ergative-absolutive?
It would make sense since the first word, which usually is the focus of the
sentence, would be the one in the absolutive case (the object). I made this
hypothesis based on an analogy to subject-initial nominative-accusative
languages (the word in the nominative case is the focus).
Maybe the position of the focus can be related to the position of the
subject of an intranstive clause. Something like "The word in the
absolutive/nominative case is placed at the end of a clause? Or at the
beginning?"
Can anyone give me some counterexamples? Does anyone have any other
hypotheses?
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro <
hcesarcas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hallo conlangers!
>
> September I start my doctorate program in Computer Engineering. I am
> trying to create a grammar induction system with cognitive architectures,
> and my intuition is based on the information flow.
>
> I started thinking about how this information flow works for languages
> with different word orders.
>
> Russell Tomlin obtained the following frequency distribution for 402
> languages of the world. SOV 45%, SVO 42%, VSO 9%, VOS 3%, OVS 1% and OSV
> 0%. A similar distribution can be seen in WALS data.
> Thinking abouit this distribution I realized that the commonest two
> features are:
>
> 1. objects usually are adjacent to verbs (96%);
> 2. subjects tend to come before objects (91% -- In languages that
> objects and verbs are adjacent to each other, subjects are the first
> constituent of a clause -- 87%)
>
> I understand that these langauges usually put the subject as the focus of
> the clause, or that objects and verbs can be thought as a single
> constituent (the predicate).
>
> But here comes my question. What about languages in which subjects do not
> come before objects. As far as I could see VOS languages are usually
> Austronesian, and the subject is still the focus, but it is placed at the
> end of a clause instead of the beginning. What about VSO languages? Which
> one is the focus? The verb? The object? Why aren't they adjacent? This only
> makes sense for me if the verb were a verbnoun, and the subject a dependent
> term of this verbnoun (something like "its owner").
>
> Matthew Dryer, the author of the word order data in WALS proposes to
> divide the languages into a 4-way typology, instead of a 6-way tyopology.
> He proposes "SV & OV", "SV & VO", "VS & VO" and "VS & OV". He says that VSO
> and VOS languages are not two different sets, as VSO languages do use VOS
> sentences and vice-versa. So they are verb-initial languages.
>
> But according to his proposal SOV and OSV languages are the same thing and
> this doesn't work for me.
>
>
> Can someone explain me how the information flow works for each word order?
> What about the verb-initial languages? And OVS and OSV?
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Hugo Cesar
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: [NATLANG] Word order and information flow
Posted by: "Jim Henry" jimhenry1...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:26 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro
<hcesarcas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone know if the object-initial languages (OVS and OSV) tend to be
> ergative-absolutive?
The only OVS language I'm tolerably familiar with is Hixkaryana. If I
recall correctly, it doesn't have grammatical case, but relies on word
order and postpositions to mark theta roles. I'm not sure it doesn't
have some other behaviors that could be classified as accusative or
ergative, though. I don't have my book on it handy, but I'll try to
remember to look when I get home.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: [NATLANG] Word order and information flow
Posted by: "Mike S." maik...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:10 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro <
hcesarcas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Russell Tomlin obtained the following frequency distribution for 402
> languages of the world. SOV 45%, SVO 42%, VSO 9%, VOS 3%, OVS 1% and OSV
> 0%. A similar distribution can be seen in WALS data.
> Thinking abouit this distribution I realized that the commonest two
> features are:
>
> 1. objects usually are adjacent to verbs (96%);
> 2. subjects tend to come before objects (91% -- In languages that
> objects and verbs are adjacent to each other, subjects are the first
> constituent of a clause -- 87%)
>
FWIW you have the percentages mixed up; it's OV-adjacent 91% and SO-order
96%. SO-order is the most common thing cross-linguistically in S-O-V
combinations.
> Matthew Dryer, the author of the word order data in WALS proposes to divide
> the languages into a 4-way typology, instead of a 6-way tyopology. He
> proposes "SV & OV", "SV & VO", "VS & VO" and "VS & OV". He says that VSO
> and VOS languages are not two different sets, as VSO languages do use VOS
> sentences and vice-versa. So they are verb-initial languages.
>
> But according to his proposal SOV and OSV languages are the same thing and
> this doesn't work for me.
It makes a certain sense from a purely syntactical point of view: You have
predominantly right-headed, left-branching languages ("SV & OV"),
left-headed, right-branching ones ("VS & VO") and ones with the verb in the
middle (SVO and OVS). Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think it's worth
making separate categories for the latter two; OVS is only 1% and the main
idea I think is that the verb is in the middle and thus case roles tend
more to be determined by word order.
> Can someone explain me how the information flow works for each word order?
> What about the verb-initial languages? And OVS and OSV?
>
That's a pretty big can of worms. Topic and focus are indicated all sorts
of ways, including in English clefting and intonation. I have no idea if
anyone can make general correlations between information flow and word
order, but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who could.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro <
hcesarcas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone know if the object-initial languages (OVS and OSV) tend to be
> ergative-absolutive?
>
> WALS has a pretty cool feature combination function:
http://wals.info/feature/combined/81A/98A
Unfortunately in this combination there is not a lot of overlap between the
two datasets. No OSV languages are indicated; however the 3 OVS languages
indicated are either neutral alignment (2 instances) or nom-acc (1
instance). If what Matthew Dryer says is of any relevance then
theoretically, maybe OSV are something like SOV and OVS is like SVO. In
that case, SVO (and OSV?) are, perhaps not surprisingly, predominantly
neutral alignment, and SOV (and OSV?) more varied, with nom-acc still
somewhat more represented than erg-abs.
Best,
-Mike
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: [NATLANG] Word order and information flow
Posted by: "Basilius" vecher...@yandex.ru
Date: Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:24 am ((PDT))
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:58:12 -0300, Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro wrote:
>I understand that these langauges usually put the subject as the focus of
>the clause <...>
I think there's a wrong assumption here. In terms of topic-focus division (a.
k. a. theme-rheme, which terminology I prefer, BTW, for both "focus" and
"topic" have too many other uses) subjects tend to be topics=themes rather than
focuses=rhemes.
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:10:42 -0400, Mike S. wrote:
>That's a pretty big can of worms. Topic and focus are indicated all sorts
>of ways, including in English clefting and intonation. I have no idea if
>anyone can make general correlations between information flow and word
>order, but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who could.
I think "posponing the new information" is an accepted principle. Also,
*statistically*, subjects tend to be themes, in-focus parts of rhemes are
objects more often than anything else (in transitive clauses), and finite verbs
tend to be backgrounded (i. e. neither the contrasstive part of focus nor the
in-focus part of rhemes. Hmmm... did I mention that "focus" is a confusing
term?). Which seems to mean, BTW, that languages with truly free ordering of
main constituents will be statistically SVO.
However, I suspect there's no solid typology behind all that. In particular, I
wonder if "posponing the new information" is indeed universal, that is, if
there are indeed no languages putting their rhemes first (when there's a
choice); a lot of languages have this as an emphatic option, but I'm really
curious if it's the default anywhere.
-- Basilius
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3f. Re: [NATLANG] Word order and information flow
Posted by: "Basilius" vecher...@yandex.ru
Date: Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:42 am ((PDT))
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:24:03 -0400, I wrote:
>(i. e. neither the contrasstive part of focus nor the in-focus part of rhemes.
>Hmmm... did I mention that "focus" is a confusing term?).
Well, not just confusing. It forces one to compose sentences that sound like
tongue-twisters, while discussing this topic (or subject?). I mean, there are
typos in the above quote, including one that affects the sense; the corrected
version of my previous message is below.
===================
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:58:12 -0300, Hugo Cesar de Castro Carneiro wrote:
>I understand that these langauges usually put the subject as the focus of
>the clause <...>
I think there's a wrong assumption here. In terms of topic-focus division (a.
k. a. theme-rheme, which terminology I prefer, BTW, for both "focus" and
"topic" have too many other uses) subjects tend to be topics=themes rather than
focuses=rhemes.
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:10:42 -0400, Mike S. wrote:
>That's a pretty big can of worms. Topic and focus are indicated all sorts
>of ways, including in English clefting and intonation. I have no idea if
>anyone can make general correlations between information flow and word
>order, but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who could.
I think "posponing the new information" is an accepted principle. Also,
*statistically*, subjects tend to be themes, in-focus parts of rhemes are
objects more often than anything else (in transitive clauses), and finite verbs
tend to be backgrounded (i. e. neither the contrastive part of topics nor the
in-focus part of rhemes. Hmmm... did I mention that "focus" is a confusing
term?). Which seems to mean, BTW, that languages with truly free ordering of
main constituents will be statistically SVO.
However, I suspect there's no solid typology behind all that. In particular, I
wonder if "posponing the new information" is indeed universal, that is, if
there are indeed no languages putting their rhemes first (when there's a
choice); a lot of languages have this as an emphatic option, but I'm really
curious if it's the default anywhere.
-- Basilius
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: True Blood Language?
Posted by: "G. van der Vegt" gijsstri...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:45 pm ((PDT))
On 13 August 2012 06:28, Eric Christopherson <ra...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2012, at 10:20 PM, John Erickson wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know what language the vampire authority on True Blood is
> > using? Is it a natlang or a conlang?
>
> Apparently it's bastardized Hebrew (I recognized a few words and thought
> maybe it was real Hebrew), and not everyone's pleased:
> http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/103445/hbos-true-blood-libel
As the comments in the article you linked repeatedly point out, it's
actually Aramaic.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Coping with Lojban (was: Conlangs as Academic Evidence in Lingui
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:38 am ((PDT))
Michael Everson, On 04/04/2011 18:04:
> On 4 Apr 2011, at 16:30, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>
>> Not that I ever was seriously involved with Lojban, but I did try to
>> understand how Lojban works and what all that "logical language" fuzz is
>> about, and I soon ran into a barrier of alien concepts and untranslatable
>> terminology, and just could not get the hang of it.
>
> I thought from the first time I looked at it that the "untranslatable
> terminology" was a cop-out.
I see it as a virtue. In principle it should mean that the terms can be given
very precise definitions. And it does mean that the grammatical description is
not contaminated by baggage from description of other languages. In
linguistics, recycling of terminology from one language to another and one
analytical framework to another is a problem.
--And.
Messages in this topic (3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
