Subject | From | Date | Time |
Except when monster raving loony verbs and some of their fused n-th descendants mess things up. |
Except when monster raving loony verbs and some of their fused n-th descendants mess things up. |
> > Verbs come in two varieties: vanilla, known as "verbs", and monster > raving loony, known as "complemented verbs". Most weird things in > Taruven syntax can be blamed on some specialized and bleached member of |
Verbs come in two varieties: vanilla, known as "verbs", and monster raving loony, known as "complemented verbs". Most weird things in Taruven syntax can be blamed on some specialized and bleached member of |
So that's another option: maybe the original grammarians of some other language took e.g. Logan's lexical selection rules perspective in creating a workable analysis of their language, got away with the small selection of parts of speech, and NnTA has copied this. The precise selection is still strange, though! Is there a natural language in which the noun-verb boundary is fuzzy but adjectives are clearly separate? That's the monster raving loony option, using "monster raving loony" in the broad sense of 'unifying the least similar two of three things'. In particular, if you can zero-convert between nouns and verbs freely in NnTA, it's quite a surprise to me that you can never do things like "the poor" or "to empty". |
> Then read "A grammar of Tariana" and double the amount of features you > have ;) Tariana is the very definition of a freaky monster raving loony > natlang. Unfortunately the grammar haven't been reprinted (=expensive!) |
Then read "A grammar of Tariana" and double the amount of features you have ;) Tariana is the very definition of a freaky monster raving loony natlang. Unfortunately the grammar haven't been reprinted (=expensive!) |
>> >> MRL = Monster Raving Loony; languages which have one form for S and >> another for both A and P. |
> >MRL = Monster Raving Loony; languages which have one form for S and >another for both A and P. |
MRL = Monster Raving Loony; languages which have one form for S and another for both A and P. |
> case 2 while "normal" transitives get cases 1 and 3. If anything, > this reminds of the monster raving loony system in having a special > intransitive case! |
No, I don't think it's any of the usual nat-systems. All of those have the property that the normal core case(s) in intransitives is / are among the normal core cases used in transitives, but at least numerically, your data here suggest that "normal" intransitives get case 2 while "normal" transitives get cases 1 and 3. If anything, this reminds of the monster raving loony system in having a special intransitive case! |
From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> I think I have found yet another route, potentially natlang-attested, by which one could accomplish Monster Raving Loony Alignment. Salish languages typically disallow two 3rd-person nominal arguments adjoined |
From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> |
From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment |
From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> |
From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> |
From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment |
From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> |
From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment |
From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> |
From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> Subject: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment |
subject~non-subject distinction is the most basic case distinction would seem to run afoul on split-S, tripartite, and monster raving loony case systems, where no single case may be used with all verbs. |
>> A!=P!=I Tripartite >> A=P!=I Monster Raving Loony >> A!=P=I Ergative >http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/r.html (which is where I >assume you got the label "Monster Raving Loony" from). > |
> > You will also not find "Monster Raving Loony" in linguistic > literature. Wikipedia calls it "transitive". |
You will also not find "Monster Raving Loony" in linguistic literature. Wikipedia calls it "transitive". |
> A!=P!=I Tripartite > A=P!=I Monster Raving Loony > A!=P=I Ergative |
A!=P!=I Tripartite A=P!=I Monster Raving Loony A!=P=I Ergative |
> A!=P!=I Tripartite > A=P!=I Monster Raving Loony > A!=P=I Ergative http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/r.html (which is where I assume you got the label "Monster Raving Loony" from). |
Glad to know that their are less loony names for the loonier categories, tho'. >>A!=P!=I Tripartite >>A=P!=I Monster Raving Loony >>A!=P=I Ergative |
>A!=P!=I Tripartite >A=P!=I Monster Raving Loony >A!=P=I Ergative |
> A!=P!=I Tripartite > A=P!=I Monster Raving Loony > A!=P=I Ergative And it seems to use the staider term "transitive" for "monster raving loony". |
> A!=P!=I Tripartite > A=P!=I Monster Raving Loony > A!=P=I Ergative |
A!=P!=I Tripartite A=P!=I Monster Raving Loony A!=P=I Ergative |
A!=P!=I Tripartite A=P!=I Monster Raving Loony A!=P=I Ergative |
TTBOMK, both "monster raving loony" and "clairvoyant" derive from http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/r.html , rather than being |
> > > > Monster Raving Loony probably --- obviously not a formal term. > > 1 2 1 Ergative > 1 2 2 Monster Raving Loony > 1 2 3 Tripartite |
> > > > Monster Raving Loony probably --- obviously not a formal term. > > 1 2 1 Ergative > 1 2 2 Monster Raving Loony > 1 2 3 Tripartite |
> > Monster Raving Loony probably --- obviously not a formal term. 1 2 1 Ergative 1 2 2 Monster Raving Loony 1 2 3 Tripartite |
Monster Raving Loony probably --- obviously not a formal term. They treat transitive subject and object alike (using a transitive case), and |
>>One appendix to the Ranto discusses the case marking systems in various >>languages, and he mentions what he calls "the monster raving loony candidate >>(some Iranian sightings)", but he does not identify the specific language. |
> One appendix to the Ranto discusses the case marking systems in various > languages, and he mentions what he calls "the monster raving loony candidate > (some Iranian sightings)", but he does not identify the specific language. |
five of the possible groupings exist: SAP (ie, no distinction-all the same case, or no cases at all), SA|P (accusative), S|AP (monster raving loony), S|A|P (all three distinguished), and SP|A (ergative). |
One appendix to the Ranto discusses the case marking systems in various languages, and he mentions what he calls "the monster raving loony candidate (some Iranian sightings)", but he does not identify the specific language. |
Along the lines of improbably yet possible, I wrote about an idea which was mentioned on this list before as a "Monster Raving Loony" language (am I quoting that right?). This is a language that groups A and P to the exclusion of S. A summary of this |
it's not too bad but still possibly confusing. Of course, there are Monster Raving Loony langs which don't provide any helpful distinguishing of S and O at all, and there are many langs which |
<< This pattern is found in some Iranian languages - an archive search for "monster raving loony" ought yield some info on them, submitted, IIRC, chiefly by the Lord of the Instrumentality. One thing I'd like to ask (since I haven't looked up the loony thread) is if valency-reduction systems were every discussed with the loony system. It's neither a passive nor an antipassive, it seems, |
> This pattern has been, somewhat informally, been christened > "monster-raving-loony", or "MRL" for short, which term has been > used in various discussions on this list, perhaps most frequently |
> This pattern has been, somewhat informally, been christened > "monster-raving-loony", or "MRL" for short, which term has been used in various > discussions on this list, perhaps most frequently and consistently by yours |
This pattern has been, somewhat informally, been christened "monster-raving-loony", or "MRL" for short, which term has been used in various discussions on this list, perhaps most frequently and consistently by yours This pattern is found in some Iranian languages - an archive search for "monster raving loony" ought yield some info on them, submitted, IIRC, chiefly by the Lord of the Instrumentality. |
Last week, I read the Monster Raving Loony thread, and was intrigued enough to search the archives to find out the meaning of the term, |
From: Joe <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Monster Raving Loony (was: Re: Ergativity) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> |
From: Paul Bennett <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Monster Raving Loony (was: Re: Ergativity) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> > > > [...] > > > Monster Raving Loony {A, P} {S} > > > [...] |
From: Carsten Becker <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Monster Raving Loony (was: Re: Ergativity) > > [...] > > Monster Raving Loony {A, P} {S} > > [...] |
Ah, the "monster raving loony candidate (some Iranian sightings)" which marks transitive subject and object with the same case? |
Are the various Monster Raving Loony parties issuing a list? (Nice going, sigmonster!) |
things up. For that reason, such languages are called, at least on here, "Monster Raving Loony" languages, or "MRL" for short. Languages which are "tripartite" have a separate case for each of the three roles. This is perhaps a little excessive, but not loony. |
> > Ergative {A} {S, P} > > Monster Raving Loony {A, P} {S} > |
> Ergative {A} {S, P} > Monster Raving Loony {A, P} {S} |
> Ergative {A} {S, P} > Monster Raving Loony {A, P} {S} > Tripartite {A} {P} {S} |
>> Ergative {A} {S, P} >> Monster Raving Loony {A, P} {S} >> Tripartite {A} {P} {S} |
> Ergative {A} {S, P} > Monster Raving Loony {A, P} {S} > Tripartite {A} {P} {S} |
Ergative {A} {S, P} Monster Raving Loony {A, P} {S} Tripartite {A} {P} {S} |
> there has forgotten too :P) what are tripartite, clairvoyant, and MRL > (Monster Raving Looney?) type languages? Monster Raving Loony (MRL): Treating A and P the same, but marking S differently. |
> > It shall, of course, have to be Monster Raving Loony (ie, have one case > for |
> It shall, of course, have to be Monster Raving Loony (ie, have one case for > transitive subject and object, and one for intransitive subject). |
Almost all nouns in the nominative case (or Monster Raving Loony equivalent) begin with a vowel, as do the matching adjectives. However, |
It shall, of course, have to be Monster Raving Loony (ie, have one case for transitive subject and object, and one for intransitive subject). |
language that would be ergative in the present, accusative in the past and monster raving loony in the future. Formally, these cases would be mapped ergative-accusative-intransitive and absolutive-nominative-transitive, and the |
> Mark J. Reed scripsit: > > Okay, I'm familiar with the [Monster Raving Loony] party, but what > > does the term refer to linguistically? |
> > > > I'm no IEist, but if some IE langs could develop Monster Raving Loony > systems, |
> > I'm no IEist, but if some IE langs could develop Monster Raving Loony systems, > |
> I'm no IEist, but if some IE langs could develop Monster Raving Loony systems, |
> > I'm no IEist, but if some IE langs could develop Monster Raving Loony systems, |
I'm no IEist, but if some IE langs could develop Monster Raving Loony systems, and others turn split-ergative, I figure one turning tripartite isn't out of P except by context and semantics; can't recall what the more serious term is. Perhaps there isn't one - there does not seem to be one for Monster Raving Loony languages.) |
sense whatsoever to you, don't worry; this system is sometimes known as "Monster Raving Loony". Nonetheless, it's found in some Iranian languages. |
abs-erg > > > in the present and Monster Raving Loony in the future, along with some bizarre |
abs-erg > > in the present and Monster Raving Loony in the future, along with some bizarre |
> > I once made a sketch of a conlang which was, IIRC nom-acc in the past, abs-erg > > in the present and Monster Raving Loony in the future, along with some bizarre > > mappings between different case and tense endings; ergative, accusative and |
> I once made a sketch of a conlang which was, IIRC nom-acc in the past, abs-erg > in the present and Monster Raving Loony in the future, along with some bizarre > mappings between different case and tense endings; ergative, accusative and |
I once made a sketch of a conlang which was, IIRC nom-acc in the past, abs-erg in the present and Monster Raving Loony in the future, along with some bizarre mappings between different case and tense endings; ergative, accusative and |
I too would have been prone to dismiss a system such as this as "impossible", but after hearing of the Monster Raving Loony language (it collapses your AGE and PAT as one case, and your SUB and OBJ as another), I'm forced to accept |
> > (Of course, there is at least one counterexample to this, the "monster > raving loony language" in Iran. But it proves the rule: there's only *one* > counterexample.) |
(Of course, there is at least one counterexample to this, the "monster raving loony language" in Iran. But it proves the rule: there's only *one* counterexample.) |
> > In fact, as I mentioned in the thread about Monster Raving Loony > Languages (re: verbs? on July 17), the past tense in Old Iranian was |
In fact, as I mentioned in the thread about Monster Raving Loony Languages (re: verbs? on July 17), the past tense in Old Iranian was |
> > > > E.g. Georgian's consonant clusters, those three > > > > OSV languages, Berber's syllabic stops, the "monster raving loony > > > > language", etc. |
>PS A "monster raving loony language" is one that marks intransitive subject >different from both transitive subject and transitive object, but the later |
> > > E.g. Georgian's consonant clusters, those three > > > OSV languages, Berber's syllabic stops, the "monster raving loony > > > language", etc. |
From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: OT: Monster Raving Loony (was Re: verbs?) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> > Incidentally, given the international nature of this list, some > members may not recognize JBR's use of the phrase "monster raving > loony candidate" as a reference to the Official Monster Raving Loony > Party, who have since 1983 satirised the British political system by |
"Thomas R. Wier" wrote: > > As long as you have it include monster raving loony languages ... > > PS A "monster raving loony language" is one that marks intransitive subject > > different from both transitive subject and transitive object, but the later |
From: Tim May <[log in to unmask]> Subject: OT: Monster Raving Loony (was Re: verbs?) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> > > > > > PS A "monster raving loony language" is one that marks > > > intransitive subject different from both transitive subject and > Below's an old post from Tim May. The link at the bottom's where > the term "monster raving loony" comes from. > Incidentally, given the international nature of this list, some members may not recognize JBR's use of the phrase "monster raving loony candidate" as a reference to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, who have since 1983 satirised the British political system by http://politics.guardian.co.uk/otherparties/story/0,9061,494156,00.html http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party |
> > E.g. Georgian's consonant clusters, those three > > OSV languages, Berber's syllabic stops, the "monster raving loony > > language", etc. |
> E.g. Georgian's consonant clusters, those three > OSV languages, Berber's syllabic stops, the "monster raving loony > language", etc. |
> > > > As long as you have it include monster raving loony languages ... > > PS A "monster raving loony language" is one that marks intransitive > subject Below's an old post from Tim May. The link at the bottom's where the term "monster raving loony" comes from. Ah, this must be what Justin Rye is referring to when he mentions "some Iranian sightings" of "the monster raving loony candidate". |
> > > > As long as you have it include monster raving loony languages ... > > PS A "monster raving loony language" is one that marks intransitive subject > > different from both transitive subject and transitive object, but the later |
> > As long as you have it include monster raving loony languages ... > PS A "monster raving loony language" is one that marks intransitive subject > different from both transitive subject and transitive object, but the later |
> that it has that feature. E.g. Georgian's consonant clusters, those three > OSV languages, Berber's syllabic stops, the "monster raving loony > language", etc. |
> > As long as you have it include monster raving loony languages ... > > > PS A "monster raving loony language" is one that marks intransitive subject > different from both transitive subject and transitive object, but the later that it has that feature. E.g. Georgian's consonant clusters, those three OSV languages, Berber's syllabic stops, the "monster raving loony language", etc. |
As long as you have it include monster raving loony languages ... PS A "monster raving loony language" is one that marks intransitive subject different from both transitive subject and transitive object, but the later |