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

Re: Plural, Minimal Number

Expand Messages
  • Roman Rausch
    ... be used ... indicating that ... It s often easier to get ideas than jugde whether they re good or not. In Talmit I have a paucal marked by _-jo_, a
    Message 1 of 20 , Jul 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      > Among the last few things I've been trying to decide about TIAL (Third IAL)
      > is whether it will have an optional noun plural or not, how that would be
      > marked (affix, reduplication, etc.), and whether full reduplication might
      be used
      > for something else. I had a non-standard idea: a prefix on numbers
      indicating that
      > the number is a _minimal_ value, e.g. min-2 = 2 or more = typical plural.
      It's often > easier to get ideas than jugde whether they're good or not.

      In Talmit I have a paucal marked by _-jo_, a greater plural marked by _-mi_;
      and the idea of a minimal/maximal number is expressed by adding _-t_, so:
      _tal_ 'word', _taljo_ 'some words, few words, a couple of words', _taljot_
      'a minimal amount of words', _talmi_ 'many words', _talmit_ 'maximal amount
      of words (in some context)' or 'all the words' (collective plural).
      Reduplicating those as a prefix is an intensifier: _jotaljo_ 'very few
      words', _mitalmi_ 'very many words', _mihtalmit_ 'all the words there are'
      (somewhat poetic).

      The idea about prefixing numbers is actually very interesting, I think it
      could be a way to express both an exact number and whether it is too small
      or too large in the context, e.g. in my language: _un_ '5', _*untaljo_ '5
      words, but few in the context; just 5 words', _*untalmi_ '5 words, but many
      in the context'. Hm...

      And reduplication is awesome, who doesn't love reduplication? Hence _taltal_
      'a lot of various words'.
    • Eric Christopherson
      ... St at imcets does.
      Message 2 of 20 , Jul 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        On Jul 1, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Dana Nutter wrote:
        > FWIW: I'm still toying with Deini's orthography. This time it's <ǰ>
        > in favor of <ɉ> for /ʤ/ keeping things more consistent by using a
        > hacek, and probably <c> in favor of <ħ> for /x/, pushing /ʧ/ to <č>.
        > I think "electri" would look much better than "eleħtri" anyway though
        > I know of no natlang using <c> for /x/.

        St'at'imcets does.
      • Jeffrey S. Jones
        On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 08:23:35 -0500, Adam Walker ... Feel free to use it :) (you and anyone else). The fact that you think it appropriate
        Message 3 of 20 , Jul 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 08:23:35 -0500, Adam Walker <carraxan@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Well I like your idea enough that I think I will steal...erm...borrow
          > it for one of my exolangs! Adam

          Feel free to use it :) (you and anyone else). The fact that you think it
          appropriate for an exolang suggests that it shouldn't go into an auxlang like
          TIAL. In fact, I may just skip having grammaticalized plural marking.

          --
          Jeff

          > On 6/30/10, Jeffrey S. Jones <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > I had a non-standard idea: a prefix on numbers indicating that the
          > > number is a _minimal_ value, e.g. min-2 = 2 or more = typical plural.
          > > It's often easier to get ideas than jugde whether they're good or not.
        • Lee
          Adam, quick! Tell Jeffrey all the features in your exolang! ;) Lee ... From: Jeffrey S. Jones Subject: Re: Plural, Minimal Number To:
          Message 4 of 20 , Jul 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Adam, quick! Tell Jeffrey all the features in your exolang! ;)

            Lee

            --- On Thu, 7/1/10, Jeffrey S. Jones <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:

            From: Jeffrey S. Jones <qiihoskeh@...>
            Subject: Re: Plural, Minimal Number
            To: CONLANG@...
            Date: Thursday, July 1, 2010, 10:58 PM

            On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 08:23:35 -0500, Adam Walker <carraxan@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Well I like your idea enough that I think I will steal...erm...borrow
            > it for one of my exolangs! Adam

            Feel free to use it :)  (you and anyone else). The fact that you think it
            appropriate for an exolang suggests that it shouldn't go into an auxlang like
            TIAL. In fact, I may just skip having grammaticalized plural marking.

            --
            Jeff

            > On 6/30/10, Jeffrey S. Jones <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > I had a non-standard idea: a prefix on numbers indicating that the
            > > number is a _minimal_ value, e.g. min-2 = 2 or more = typical plural.
            > > It's often easier to get ideas than jugde whether they're good or not.
          • Adam Walker
            Which one? The isolating one with switch reference marking? The one with the kitchen sink phonology and a right to left abugida inspired by Hindi? The one with
            Message 5 of 20 , Jul 1, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Which one? The isolating one with switch reference marking? The one
              with the kitchen sink phonology and a right to left abugida inspired
              by Hindi? The one with 7 tenses and 4th person pronouns? The one with
              11 tones and no consonants? The one with no transitive verbs? Adam

              On 7/1/10, Lee <waywardwretch@...> wrote:
              > Adam, quick! Tell Jeffrey all the features in your exolang! ;)
              >
              > Lee
              >
              > --- On Thu, 7/1/10, Jeffrey S. Jones <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:
              >
              > From: Jeffrey S. Jones <qiihoskeh@...>
              > Subject: Re: Plural, Minimal Number
              > To: CONLANG@...
              > Date: Thursday, July 1, 2010, 10:58 PM
              >
              > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 08:23:35 -0500, Adam Walker <carraxan@...>
              > wrote:
              >>
              >> Well I like your idea enough that I think I will steal...erm...borrow
              >> it for one of my exolangs! Adam
              >
              > Feel free to use it :)  (you and anyone else). The fact that you think it
              > appropriate for an exolang suggests that it shouldn't go into an auxlang
              > like
              > TIAL. In fact, I may just skip having grammaticalized plural marking.
              >
              > --
              > Jeff
              >
              >> On 6/30/10, Jeffrey S. Jones <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:
              >> >
              >> > I had a non-standard idea: a prefix on numbers indicating that the
              >> > number is a _minimal_ value, e.g. min-2 = 2 or more = typical plural.
              >> > It's often easier to get ideas than jugde whether they're good or not.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Dana Nutter
              ... I should have been clearer and stated no popular european language. Deini is essentially European, mainly Germanic but I don t mind drawing from other
              Message 6 of 20 , Jul 2, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:42 PM, Eric Christopherson <rakko@...> wrote:
                > On Jul 1, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Dana Nutter wrote:
                >> FWIW: I'm still toying with Deini's orthography.  This time it's <ǰ>
                >> in favor of  <ɉ> for /ʤ/ keeping things more consistent by using a
                >> hacek, and probably <c> in favor of <ħ> for /x/, pushing /ʧ/ to <č>.
                >> I think "electri" would look much better than "eleħtri" anyway though
                >> I know of no natlang using <c> for /x/.
                >
                > St'at'imcets does.

                I should have been clearer and stated no popular european language.
                Deini is essentially European, mainly Germanic but I don't mind
                drawing from other influences, or even having a few unique features.
                I think I'm still going to go back to <c> for /x/ because it does a
                better job of preserving the etymologies. It's also makes typography
                a bit easier with <č> being much more available than <ħ>. The
                affricates /ʧ ʤ/ are fairly uncommon in Deini. So I'd rather have
                them with diacritics than a more common sound like /x/.
              • Jeffrey S. Jones
                On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:56:12 -0500, Adam Walker ... Thank you, Adam. I ve confirmed that none of those features occur in TIAL. I wonder
                Message 7 of 20 , Jul 2, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:56:12 -0500, Adam Walker <carraxan@...>
                  wrote:

                  >Which one? The isolating one with switch reference marking? The one
                  >with the kitchen sink phonology and a right to left abugida inspired
                  >by Hindi? The one with 7 tenses and 4th person pronouns? The one with
                  >11 tones and no consonants? The one with no transitive verbs? Adam

                  Thank you, Adam.
                  I've confirmed that none of those features occur in TIAL. I wonder though,
                  how many of them could be placed into the same exolang ....

                  --
                  Jeff

                  >On 7/1/10, Leewardretch@...> wrote:
                  >> Adam, quick! Tell Jeffrey all the features in your exolang! ;)
                  >>
                  >> Lee
                  >>
                  >> --- On Thu, 7/1/10, Jeffrey S. Jones <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:
                  >>
                  >> From: Jeffrey S. Jones <qiihoskeh@...>
                  >> Subject: Re: Plural, Minimal Number
                  >> To: CONLANG@...
                  >> Date: Thursday, July 1, 2010, 10:58 PM
                  >>
                  >> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 08:23:35 -0500, Adam Walker <carraxan@...>
                  >> wrote:
                  >>>
                  >>> Well I like your idea enough that I think I will steal...erm...borrow
                  >>> it for one of my exolangs! Adam
                  >>
                  >> Feel free to use it :)  (you and anyone else). The fact that you think it
                  >> appropriate for an exolang suggests that it shouldn't go into an auxlang
                  >> like
                  >> TIAL. In fact, I may just skip having grammaticalized plural marking.
                  >>
                  >> --
                  >> Jeff
                  >>
                  >>> On 6/30/10, Jeffrey S. Jones <qiihoskeh@...> wrote:
                  >>> >
                  >>> > I had a non-standard idea: a prefix on numbers indicating that the
                  >>> > number is a _minimal_ value, e.g. min-2 = 2 or more = typical plural.
                  >>> > It's often easier to get ideas than jugde whether they're good or not.
                  >>
                  >>
                • Jeffrey S. Jones
                  On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 13:41:16 -0400, Dana Nutter ... I ve decided to go with bonco X to mean at least 2 or 3 X; it will be optional,
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jul 7, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 13:41:16 -0400, Dana Nutter <deinx.nxtxr@...>
                    wrote:

                    >On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Larry Sulky <larrysulky@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >>> Among the last few things I've been trying to decide about TIAL (Third
                    >>> IAL) is whether it will have an optional noun plural or not, how that would
                    >>> be marked (affix, reduplication, etc.), and whether full reduplication might
                    >>> be used for something else.
                    >>>
                    >>> I had a non-standard idea: a prefix on numbers indicating that the
                    >>> number is a _minimal_ value, e.g. min-2 = 2 or more = typical plural. It's
                    >>> often easier to get ideas than jugde whether they're good or not.
                    >
                    >> I find a morpheme meaning "1 or more" or even "at least some; not zero" to
                    >> be more useful. It indicates imprecision in the number without guaranteeing
                    >> that it's certainly not 1. Makes it easy to avoid phrases like "one or more"
                    >> or "do not leave your bag(s)  unattended".  --larry
                    >
                    >SASXSEK nouns are numerically unmarked. When necessary the the
                    >adjective/numeral "meni" (="more than 1") can be used to show
                    >plurality and of course "ieni" (="one") for singularity. There are
                    >derivatations that can be made from "men" such as "menisi" (="a lot"),
                    >"menimi" (="a few/several"). I suppose I could have created a
                    >"greater than" morpheme and attached it to one as a way of making a
                    >plural too, that way there could be variations like "greater than 5"
                    >should someone find that useful.

                    I've decided to go with bonco X to mean at least 2 or 3 X; it will be optional,
                    but never used with numbers, so I don't think it counts as a grammatical plural
                    (unlike a morphological plural).

                    >For Deini I did something a little different. Nouns do have plurals
                    >but the plural forms are only used in the absence of a numeral,
                    >otherwise the singular form is used.
                    >
                    >jabəl = apple
                    >jabəlyɉ = apples
                    >ro jabəl = six apples
                    >
                    >FWIW: I'm still toying with Deini's orthography. This time it's <Ç°>
                    >in favor of <ɉ> for /ʤ/ keeping things more consistent by using a
                    >hacek, and probably <c> in favor of <ħ> for /x/, pushing /ʧ/ to <�>.
                    >I think "electri" would look much better than "eleħtri" anyway though
                    >I know of no natlang using <c> for /x/.

                    Internal consistency is one reason why 2 languages with similar phonologies
                    can have different orthographies or romanizations (besides just whim).
                    Neographies seem to be a different matter.

                    --
                    Jeff
                  • <deinx nxtxr>
                    ... This is mostly a matter of my own personal choice, but part of my choice is to give it a bit of a natlang feel to where it actually seems to fit in
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jul 8, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 7/8/10 12:03 AM, Jeffrey S. Jones wrote:

                      >> FWIW: I'm still toying with Deini's orthography. This time
                      >> it's<ǰ> in favor of<ɉ> for /ʤ/ keeping things more consistent
                      >> by using a hacek, and probably<c> in favor of<ħ> for /x/,
                      >> pushing /ʧ/ to<č>. I think "electri" would look much better than
                      >> "eleħtri" anyway though I know of no natlang using<c> for /x/.
                      >
                      > Internal consistency is one reason why 2 languages with similar
                      > phonologies can have different orthographies or romanizations
                      > (besides just whim). Neographies seem to be a different matter.

                      This is mostly a matter of my own personal choice, but part of my choice
                      is to give it a bit of a natlang feel to where it actually seems to fit
                      in somewhere amongst the natlangs it's drawing upon.

                      It look like I've finally found an orthography that I'm pretty happy
                      with after making those changes above. The only reservations I still
                      have are for <ǰ>, and that's not because I don't like it but because
                      it's a character that's not present in some fonts. <ǧ> also is lacking
                      coverage in a few fonts but seems to have better support than <ǰ>. At
                      this point, I'm just tired of changing it and the hacek keeps it
                      consistent with <č> <š> <ž> rather than what I had before which was some
                      haceks and some strokethroughs.

                      Now if only I could get the pronouns to where I'm happy with them. Just
                      changed 1S.NOM to "jai" instead of "žo".
                    • Jeffrey S. Jones
                      On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:33:38 -0400, ... consistent ... That s another reason then. e.g. Wenedyk looks like a weird Polish dialect until the Latin
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jul 8, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:33:38 -0400, <deinx nxtxr>
                        <deinx.nxtxr@...> wrote:

                        >On 7/8/10 12:03 AM, Jeffrey S. Jones wrote:
                        >
                        >>> FWIW: I'm still toying with Deini's orthography. This time
                        >>> it's<ǰ> in favor of<ɉ> for /ʤ/ keeping things more
                        consistent
                        >>> by using a hacek, and probably<c> in favor of<ħ> for /x/,
                        >>> pushing /ʧ/ to<�>. I think "electri" would look much better than
                        >>> "eleħtri" anyway though I know of no natlang using<c> for /x/.
                        >>
                        >> Internal consistency is one reason why 2 languages with similar
                        >> phonologies can have different orthographies or romanizations
                        >> (besides just whim). Neographies seem to be a different matter.
                        >
                        >This is mostly a matter of my own personal choice, but part of my choice
                        >is to give it a bit of a natlang feel to where it actually seems to fit
                        >in somewhere amongst the natlangs it's drawing upon.

                        That's another reason then. e.g. Wenedyk looks like a weird Polish dialect until
                        the Latin words are recognized.

                        >It look like I've finally found an orthography that I'm pretty happy
                        >with after making those changes above. The only reservations I still
                        >have are for <Ç°>, and that's not because I don't like it but because
                        >it's a character that's not present in some fonts. <ǧ> also is lacking
                        >coverage in a few fonts but seems to have better support than <Ç°>. At
                        >this point, I'm just tired of changing it and the hacek keeps it
                        >consistent with <�> <š> <ž> rather than what I had before which
                        > was some haceks and some strokethroughs.

                        Both are lacking on my computer except for special fonts I've downloaded,
                        such as Thryomanes or Doulos SIL. So I tend to stick with ASCII, Latin-1, or
                        Latin-A. The Ampkohlaš romanization has <Ä�> <Å¡> <ž>, but uses
                        <ŋ> for [ŋ], not n-hacek.

                        >Now if only I could get the pronouns to where I'm happy with them. Just
                        >changed 1S.NOM to "jai" instead of "žo".

                        :)

                        --
                        Jeff
                      • <deinx nxtxr>
                        ... I already have a system that won t fit into Latin-1, 2 or 3 alone. I do stick with ASCII for my auxlangs but this is a personal language so I m avoiding
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jul 8, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 7/8/10 1:40 PM, Jeffrey S. Jones wrote:

                          >> It look like I've finally found an orthography that I'm pretty happy
                          >> with after making those changes above. The only reservations I still
                          >> have are for<Ç°>, and that's not because I don't like it but because
                          >> it's a character that's not present in some fonts.<ǧ> also is lacking
                          >> coverage in a few fonts but seems to have better support than<Ç°>. At
                          >> this point, I'm just tired of changing it and the hacek keeps it
                          >> consistent with<č> <š> <ž> rather than what I had before which
                          >> was some haceks and some strokethroughs.
                          >
                          > Both are lacking on my computer except for special fonts I've downloaded,
                          > such as Thryomanes or Doulos SIL. So I tend to stick with ASCII, Latin-1, or
                          > Latin-A. The Ampkohlaš romanization has<č> <Å¡> <ž>, but uses
                          > <ŋ> for [ŋ], not n-hacek.

                          I already have a system that won't fit into Latin-1, 2 or 3 alone. I do
                          stick with ASCII for my auxlangs but this is a personal language so I'm
                          avoiding digraphs because I don't care much for them. Unicode has
                          enough support on my personal equipment that I'm not deterred too much
                          from using it for this language, especially since I've already made one
                          compromise by deprecating the native script. The problem I'm having
                          isn't encoding just lack of font support for these particular characters.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.