Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: TAKE 2nd verb page updatedc

Expand Messages
  • Henrik Theiling
    Hi! ... You probably meant to add a link to that page? :-) http://www.carolandray.plus.com/TAKE/Verbs2.html Just found a small typo: The people make_s_ laws
    Message 1 of 12 , Nov 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi!

      R A Brown writes:
      >...
      > 'verbs - Part 2' is now, hopefully, completed (apart probably from
      > correcting one or two typos :)

      You probably meant to add a link to that page? :-)

      http://www.carolandray.plus.com/TAKE/Verbs2.html

      Just found a small typo: 'The people make_s_ laws ...'

      It is again a very nice read. For me, TAKE also serves as a very
      interesting and concise introduction to Ancient Greek. :-) And your
      thorough construction of TAKE is fascinating! I like it very much.

      Altogether, some structure of TAKE look quite like Chinese to me,
      e.g. the relative clauses that look just like any other attribute
      (like adjectives) and the underspecification of voice.

      Have you decided about derivation yet? Because I don't think it is
      *necessary* (although maybe otherwise handy) per se to drop
      participles and infinitives completely if you have (agglutinative)
      derivation, since these forms may become lexicalised and I think it is
      justified to call them derivation instead of inflection. It seems the
      forms are not needed with the current grammar, though -- you found
      elegant ways to do without them.

      Speaking of derivation: I find having two stems for kállo and kaló a
      bit non-(f)auxlangish -- have you noticed this and thought about
      having a regular relation between them?

      >...
      > We now have enough of the language to be able to give specimen texts;
      > but I haven't done this yet.

      I can't wait to see some!

      > The language has not turned out quite as I expected it would; I am,
      > for example, still not altogether happy with the personal pronouns.
      >
      > But the experiment has been (and still is) interesting. Trying to do a
      > Latino sine flexione' for ancient Greek, which had a far more complex
      > morphology than Latin, and to stick more strictly to the concept of
      > sine flexione' than LSF actually does is not easy :)

      Your efforts have produced a beautifully structured language, and the
      web presentation is very nice, too!

      **Henrik
    • MorphemeAddict@WMCONNECT.COM
      In a message dated 11/1/2007 9:46:58 AM Central Daylight Time, ... Another typo: /Some people mediopassive/Some people use mediopassive / stevo
      Message 2 of 12 , Nov 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 11/1/2007 9:46:58 AM Central Daylight Time,
        theiling@... writes:


        > http://www.carolandray.plus.com/TAKE/Verbs2.html
        >
        Another typo:
        /Some people mediopassive/Some people use mediopassive /

        stevo </HTML>
      • R A Brown
        ... A literal translation of the Greek, I fear, in which ὁ δῆμος is singular. Actually people can be found used as singular in English, but this
        Message 3 of 12 , Nov 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Henrik Theiling wrote:
          > Hi!
          >
          > R A Brown writes:
          >
          >>...
          >>'verbs - Part 2' is now, hopefully, completed (apart probably from
          >>correcting one or two typos :)
          >
          >
          > You probably meant to add a link to that page? :-)
          >
          > http://www.carolandray.plus.com/TAKE/Verbs2.html
          >
          > Just found a small typo: 'The people make_s_ laws ...'

          A literal translation of the Greek, I fear, in which ὁ δῆμος is
          singular. Actually 'people' can be found used as singular in English,
          but this usage does sound strange in contemporary 21st century usage.
          Also, of course, if I were treating 'people' as a singular collective I
          should have written 'The people makes laws for itself' - but I've
          changed the verb to "make' :)

          > It is again a very nice read. For me, TAKE also serves as a very
          > interesting and concise introduction to Ancient Greek. :-) And your
          > thorough construction of TAKE is fascinating! I like it very much.

          Thank you.

          > Altogether, some structure of TAKE look quite like Chinese to me,
          > e.g. the relative clauses that look just like any other attribute
          > (like adjectives)

          Yes, but there are good _Greek_ precedents for that. In Classical Greek
          more often than note a _participle_ phrase is preferred, and this must
          be attributive. Thus rather than "the house that Jack built" one could
          quite well have "the by Jack built house". I believe such constructions
          also in in literary German.

          As I wrote the use of the definite article instead of a relative pronoun
          is found in Homer & some dialects. Arguably such clause are adjectival
          and attributive. Certain this construction is found in medieval Greek, e.g.
          τὰ βουίδα τὰ ἐλάβετε
          the oxen the you-took, i.e. the oxen [which] you took

          εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν ὁ Θεὸς σὲ ἔδωκεν
          into the+ACC place the+ACC the+NOM God you gave
          into the place which God gave you

          In both instances the clause is treated exactly the same way as a
          postposited attributive adjective. This construction apparently remained
          in living use until the 16th century .

          > and the underspecification of voice.

          Once all endings are removed this seems the only logical conclusion.

          > Have you decided about derivation yet? Because I don't think it is
          > *necessary* (although maybe otherwise handy) per se to drop
          > participles and infinitives completely if you have (agglutinative)
          > derivation, since these forms may become lexicalised and I think it is
          > justified to call them derivation instead of inflection.

          Only when lexicalized. There may well be a few former participles with
          derived meanings which are retained as _deverbal adjectives_, not verbal
          adjectives.

          > It seems the
          > forms are not needed with the current grammar, though -- you found
          > elegant ways to do without them.

          Thank you. I am trying to be as strict as possible about the 'no
          inflexions" business and am not prepared to compromise with things like
          LSF's -re and -nte.

          > Speaking of derivation: I find having two stems for kállo and kaló a
          > bit non-(f)auxlangish -- have you noticed this and thought about
          > having a regular relation between them?

          I have noticed it. I haven't thought much about derivation. Do I keep
          form derived from the ancient language (which is what I believe Peano
          did with LSF and Latin), or do I regularize the whole derivational
          apparatus?

          >>We now have enough of the language to be able to give specimen texts;
          >>but I haven't done this yet.
          >
          > I can't wait to see some!

          I shan't do very much to start with in case modifications of the
          language prove necessary. but I'll probably put a draft version of the
          Pater Noster on line soon.

          [snip]
          >>But the experiment has been (and still is) interesting. Trying to do a
          >>Latino sine flexione' for ancient Greek, which had a far more complex
          >>morphology than Latin, and to stick more strictly to the concept of
          >>sine flexione' than LSF actually does is not easy :)
          >
          > Your efforts have produced a beautifully structured language, and the
          > web presentation is very nice, too!

          Thank you - it's encouraging to know :)
          --------------------------------
          MorphemeAddict@... wrote:
          [snip]
          > Another typo:
          > /Some people mediopassive/Some people use mediopassive /

          Thanks for point it out - I have now amended it.

          --
          Ray
          ==================================
          http://www.carolandray.plus.com
          ==================================
          Entia non sunt multiplicanda
          praeter necessitudinem.
        • Philip Newton
          ... Is Homer using the definite article instead of a relative pronoun? Or is he using a relative pronoun, which is one the way to becoming a definite article
          Message 4 of 12 , Nov 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            On 11/1/07, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
            > As I wrote the use of the definite article instead of a relative pronoun
            > is found in Homer & some dialects.

            Is Homer using the definite article instead of a relative pronoun? Or
            is he using a relative pronoun, which is one the way to becoming a
            definite article but hasn't completed the process yet, so it's still
            available for its original use?

            IIRC, the Greek definite article was originally a relative pronoun.

            > εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν ὁ Θεὸς σὲ ἔδωκεν
            > into the+ACC place the+ACC the+NOM God you gave
            > into the place which God gave you

            That sounds like Thessaloniki Greek :) In northern Greece, they merged
            dative into the accusative rather than into the genitive as in the
            standard language.

            My favourite example (which, alas, I didn't hear personally but was
            told about) was a woman who wanted to get off a bus and asked the bus
            driver to Άνοιξέ με από πίσω!

            That is, in the local dialect, she said, "open up for me at the back",
            but in the standard language, it would be "open me up from behind".
            (Her interpretation would use Άνοιξέ μου in the standard language,
            i.e. with the genitive form standing in for dative.)

            Cheers,
            --
            Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
          • Henrik Theiling
            Hi! ... Yes, indeed -- now that you say it! So that s why the examples felt natural. :-) ... The German relative pronoun is very similar to the article. ...
            Message 5 of 12 , Nov 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi!

              R A Brown writes:
              >...
              >> Altogether, some structure of TAKE look quite like Chinese to me,
              >> e.g. the relative clauses that look just like any other attribute
              >> (like adjectives)
              >
              > Yes, but there are good _Greek_ precedents for that. In Classical
              > Greek more often than note a _participle_ phrase is preferred, and
              > this must be attributive. Thus rather than "the house that Jack built"
              > one could quite well have "the by Jack built house". I believe such
              > constructions also in in literary German.

              Yes, indeed -- now that you say it! So that's why the examples felt
              natural. :-)

              > As I wrote the use of the definite article instead of a relative
              > pronoun is found in Homer & some dialects.

              The German relative pronoun is very similar to the article.

              > Arguably such clause are
              > adjectival and attributive. Certain this construction is found in
              > medieval Greek, e.g.
              > τὰ βουίδα τὰ ἐλάβετε
              > the oxen the you-took, i.e. the oxen [which] you took

              Exactly like German:
              die Ochsen, die Du namst

              >
              > εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν ὁ Θεὸς σὲ ἔδωκεν
              > into the+ACC place the+ACC the+NOM God you gave
              > into the place which God gave you

              Again, like German, except there is no article in front of God.
              Adding the article in parens, it would be:

              an den Ort, den (der) Gott Dir gab

              The fronted version needs quite a bit of formal effort that spoken
              language would normally not do. But it is possible with participles:

              an den Dir von Gott gegebenen Ort

              This sounds quite baroque, though.

              **Henrik
            • Philip Newton
              ... [snip] ... Funny how I ve never thought about that -- that is, the fact that die and den look exactly like the appropriate form of the definite
              Message 6 of 12 , Nov 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                On 11/1/07, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> wrote:
                > Exactly like German:
                > die Ochsen, die Du namst
                [snip]
                > an den Ort, den (der) Gott Dir gab

                Funny how I've never thought about that -- that is, the fact that
                "die" and "den" look exactly like the appropriate form of the definite
                article.

                Yet for me as a native speaker, they feel like completely different
                words -- I interpret them as relative pronouns, not as definite
                articles, even though they look and sound completely the same.

                Fascinating stuff, this language business.

                So, very plausible for TAKE.

                Cheers,
                --
                Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
              • R A Brown
                ... Yes, but it is an occasionally use in Homer & not the norm. ... No. ... No. the definite article was originally a _demonstrative_ pronoun. In Homer it is
                Message 7 of 12 , Nov 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Philip Newton wrote:
                  > On 11/1/07, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >>As I wrote the use of the definite article instead of a relative pronoun
                  >>is found in Homer & some dialects.
                  >
                  >
                  > Is Homer using the definite article instead of a relative pronoun?

                  Yes, but it is an occasionally use in Homer & not the norm.

                  >Or
                  > is he using a relative pronoun, which is one the way to becoming a
                  > definite article but hasn't completed the process yet, so it's still
                  > available for its original use?

                  No.

                  > IIRC, the Greek definite article was originally a relative pronoun.

                  No. the definite article was originally a _demonstrative_ pronoun. In
                  Homer it is normally used as a demonstrative or as a personal pronoun, e.g.
                  τὴν δ' ἐγὼ οὐ λύσω - I will not free her
                  τοῦ δὲ κλύε Φοίβος Ἀπόλλων - Phoebus Apollo heard him
                  (Remember ancient δὲ is "but" - not the modern δε(ν) :)

                  In Homer it used before participles and adjectives when these are used
                  as nouns, just as in classical Attic Greek. But with noun it is more
                  often a demonstrative in apposition to the noun, e.g.
                  ἡ δ' ἀέκουσ' ἅμα τοῖσι γυνὴ κίεν
                  she but unwilling with them woman went =
                  But she, the woman, went with then unwillingly

                  The relative pronoun was derived from a different source. The Homeric
                  use of the article was followed by later tragic and lyric poets. In
                  Herodotus we find that he generally used the definite article rather
                  than the relative pronoun in the oblique cases. Some dialects used the
                  definite article as a relative also.
                  >
                  >>εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν ὁ Θεὸς σὲ ἔδωκεν
                  >>into the+ACC place the+ACC the+NOM God you gave
                  >>into the place which God gave you
                  >
                  > That sounds like Thessaloniki Greek :) In northern Greece, they merged
                  > dative into the accusative rather than into the genitive as in the
                  > standard language.

                  I know - but I don't know the origin the quote above, except that it's
                  medieval. I don't know how the accusative/genitive divide went in the
                  Middle Ages.

                  --
                  Ray
                  ==================================
                  http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                  ==================================
                  Entia non sunt multiplicanda
                  praeter necessitudinem.
                • Benct Philip Jonsson
                  ... One wonders if that is because you re also a native speaker of another language where the article, demonstrative and relative are clearly distinguished. I
                  Message 8 of 12 , Nov 3, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 2007-11-02 Philip Newton wrote:
                    > On 11/1/07, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> wrote:
                    > > > Exactly like German: die Ochsen, die Du namst
                    > [snip]
                    > > > an den Ort, den (der) Gott Dir gab
                    >
                    > Funny how I've never thought about that -- that is, the
                    > fact that "die" and "den" look exactly like the
                    > appropriate form of the definite article.
                    >
                    > Yet for me as a native speaker, they feel like completely
                    > different words -- I interpret them as relative pronouns,
                    > not as definite articles, even though they look and sound
                    > completely the same.
                    >
                    > Fascinating stuff, this language business.
                    >
                    > So, very plausible for TAKE.
                    >

                    One wonders if that is because you're also a native speaker
                    of another language where the article, demonstrative and
                    relative are clearly distinguished. I that can influence
                    one's judgment. For me who -- ahem -- used to be a native
                    speaker of German they are clearly the same, and I may be
                    influenced by the fact that in Swedish the relativizer is
                    the indeclinable particle _som_. I think few native speakers
                    who were not influenced by grammatical theory influenced by
                    other languages even think of it as a pronoun.

                    /BP 8^)>
                    --
                    Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    No man forgets his original trade: the rights of
                    nations and of kings sink into questions of grammar,
                    if grammarians discuss them.
                    -Dr. Samuel Johnson (1707 - 1784)
                  • Andreas Johansson
                    ... Do people not influenced by grammatical theory think of *anything* as a pronoun? Andreas
                    Message 9 of 12 , Nov 3, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Quoting Benct Philip Jonsson <conlang@...>:

                      > On 2007-11-02 Philip Newton wrote:
                      > > On 11/1/07, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> wrote:
                      > > > > Exactly like German: die Ochsen, die Du namst
                      > > [snip]
                      > > > > an den Ort, den (der) Gott Dir gab
                      > >
                      > > Funny how I've never thought about that -- that is, the
                      > > fact that "die" and "den" look exactly like the
                      > > appropriate form of the definite article.
                      > >
                      > > Yet for me as a native speaker, they feel like completely
                      > > different words -- I interpret them as relative pronouns,
                      > > not as definite articles, even though they look and sound
                      > > completely the same.
                      > >
                      > > Fascinating stuff, this language business.
                      > >
                      > > So, very plausible for TAKE.
                      > >
                      >
                      > One wonders if that is because you're also a native speaker
                      > of another language where the article, demonstrative and
                      > relative are clearly distinguished. I that can influence
                      > one's judgment. For me who -- ahem -- used to be a native
                      > speaker of German they are clearly the same, and I may be
                      > influenced by the fact that in Swedish the relativizer is
                      > the indeclinable particle _som_. I think few native speakers
                      > who were not influenced by grammatical theory influenced by
                      > other languages even think of it as a pronoun.

                      Do people not influenced by grammatical theory think of *anything* as a pronoun?

                      Andreas
                    • Douglas Koller
                      From: Henrik Theiling ... Did someone say baroque?! ... The Géarthnuns relative pronoun was originally, at least in the nominative,
                      Message 10 of 12 , Nov 3, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        From: Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>

                        > This sounds quite baroque, though.

                        Did someone say baroque?!

                        > R A Brown writes:

                        > > As I wrote the use of the definite article instead of a relative
                        > > pronoun is found in Homer & some dialects.

                        > The German relative pronoun is very similar to the article.

                        The G��arthnuns relative pronoun was originally, at least in the nominative, identical to the definite article, as German was one of the languages I was studying in my high school daze. It further developed somewhat over the years, becoming a kind of hybrid between a noun and the article, and then nominal polarity came onto the scene, but the connection to the article is still readily apparent (examples in the nom. sing.):

                        def.art./aff. def.art./neg. rel.pro./aff. rel.pro./neg.

                        1st decl. ch�� v�� ch��b v��kh
                        2nd decl. chau vau chaur vaum
                        3rd decl. ch��i v��i ch��it v��idh
                        4th decl. cha va chan vap
                        5th decl. ch�� v�� ch��k v��d
                        6th decl. ch�� v�� ch��l v��f
                        7th decl. che ve cheth veg

                        > > Arguably such clause are
                        > > adjectival and attributive. Certain this construction is found in
                        > > medieval Greek, e.g.
                        > > ����� ������������ ����� ���������������
                        > > the oxen the you-took, i.e. the oxen [which] you took

                        > Exactly like German:
                        > die Ochsen, die Du namst

                        Here the further developments become evident:

                        ch��k zheteraubs��p, ch��b��ch ����ek l�� hakuzh (sho)
                        the oxen/nom.-pl, which/acc.-pl. you/nom. past take (sho)

                        > > ������� ������� ���������� ������� ��� ��������� ����� �������������
                        > > into the+ACC place the+ACC the+NOM God you gave
                        > > into the place which God gave you

                        > Again, like German, except there is no article in front of God.
                        > Adding the article in parens, it would be:
                        >
                        > an den Ort, den (der) Gott Dir gab

                        cha d��nsav, chanat che Av��aths l�� ����kek gamez (sho)
                        the place/loc., which/acc. the God/nom. past you/dat. give (sho)

                        > The fronted version needs quite a bit of formal effort that spoken
                        > language would normally not do. But it is possible with participles:

                        I love this!

                        > an den Dir von Gott gegebenen Ort

                        cha d��nsav h��i ����kek che Av��athsen gamezt��l��nav
                        the place/loc. H��I you/dat. the God/instr. given/loc.

                        ("gamezt��l��nav", kindred spirit to the perfect passive particle, is also possible)

                        > This sounds quite baroque, though.

                        Music to Kou ears.

                        Kou
                      • Philip Newton
                        ... That s more or less what I was going to say. I don t think of it as a pronoun -- I don t give it a name at all. It just feels like a different word . Even
                        Message 11 of 12 , Nov 4, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 11/3/07, Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> wrote:
                          > Quoting Benct Philip Jonsson <conlang@...>:
                          >
                          > > On 2007-11-02 Philip Newton wrote:
                          > > > On 11/1/07, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> wrote:
                          > > > > > Exactly like German: die Ochsen, die Du namst
                          > > > [snip]
                          > > > > > an den Ort, den (der) Gott Dir gab
                          > > >
                          > > > Funny how I've never thought about that -- that is, the
                          > > > fact that "die" and "den" look exactly like the
                          > > > appropriate form of the definite article.
                          > > >
                          > > > Yet for me as a native speaker, they feel like completely
                          > > > different words -- I interpret them as relative pronouns,
                          > > > not as definite articles, even though they look and sound
                          > > > completely the same.
                          > > >
                          > > > Fascinating stuff, this language business.
                          > > >
                          > > > So, very plausible for TAKE.
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > > One wonders if that is because you're also a native speaker
                          > > of another language where the article, demonstrative and
                          > > relative are clearly distinguished. I that can influence
                          > > one's judgment. For me who -- ahem -- used to be a native
                          > > speaker of German they are clearly the same, and I may be
                          > > influenced by the fact that in Swedish the relativizer is
                          > > the indeclinable particle _som_. I think few native speakers
                          > > who were not influenced by grammatical theory influenced by
                          > > other languages even think of it as a pronoun.
                          >
                          > Do people not influenced by grammatical theory think of *anything* as a pronoun?

                          That's more or less what I was going to say.

                          I don't think of it as a pronoun -- I don't give it a name at all. It
                          just "feels like a different word".

                          Even in nearly minimal pairs, such as (to make something up off the
                          top of my head) "Unser nächster Spracher ist der Mann, der sieht"
                          (rel.pron.) vs. "Unser nächster Sprecher ist der Mann, der Sehende"
                          (article).

                          Cheers,
                          --
                          Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.