LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for Archive Search


Archive Search

Archive Search

CONLANG Home

CONLANG Home



Search For

Help for String

Help for Substring

 

Advanced Search

Help for Subject Contains

Help for Author's Address

Help for Since

Help for Until



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU ( 105 Matches )


More Hits

Subject

From

Date

Time

Re: Taruven: current state of morphology kaleissin <[log in to unmask]> 2017-09-06 12:58
Except when monster raving loony verbs and some of their fused n-th
descendants mess things up.
Re: Taruven: current state of morphology Kaleissin <[log in to unmask]> 2017-09-04 01:58
Except when monster raving loony verbs and some of their fused n-th
descendants mess things up.
Re: Taruven: current state of morphology Jyri Lehtinen <[log in to unmask]> 2017-09-03 11:41
>
> 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
Taruven: current state of morphology kaleissin <[log in to unmask]> 2017-09-02 09:04
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
Re: Grammatical con-terminology Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> 2015-10-11 10:00
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".
Conlang Photo Essay Jim Peredo <[log in to unmask]> 2015-06-04 17:10
> 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!)
Re: Naturalistic Grammars taliesin the storyteller <[log in to unmask]> 2015-06-02 02:57
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!)
Re: the Deep Structures of Language Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]> 2013-09-23 16:46
>>
>> MRL = Monster Raving Loony; languages which have one form for S and
>> another for both A and P.
Re: the Deep Structures of Language Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> 2013-09-23 04:49
>
>MRL = Monster Raving Loony; languages which have one form for S and
>another for both A and P.
Re: the Deep Structures of Language Ph. D. <[log in to unmask]> 2013-09-22 21:54
MRL = Monster Raving Loony; languages which have one form for S and
another for both A and P.
Re: A reinterpretation of the Tatari Faran case system H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]> 2013-05-25 19:00
> 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!
Re: A reinterpretation of the Tatari Faran case system Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> 2013-05-25 12:33
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!
Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> 2012-08-08 19:49
From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment
X-cc: Jared Rader <[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
Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> 2012-08-01 17:13
From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> 2012-08-01 08:13
From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment
Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> 2012-07-30 23:11
From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment David Peterson <[log in to unmask]> 2012-07-27 07:43
From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> 2012-07-27 00:12
From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment
Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment David Peterson <[log in to unmask]> 2012-07-26 19:41
From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> 2012-07-26 19:33
From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment
Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]> 2012-07-26 18:34
From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> 2012-07-26 17:50
From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment
Re: NATLANG: THEORY?: Aptote, monoptote, diptote, triptote, tetraptote, pentaptote Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]> 2009-07-29 04:14
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.
Re: Fifth morphosyntactic category? Paul Roser <[log in to unmask]> 2008-08-06 10:21
>> 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).
>
Re: 5th morphosyntactic category name? Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> 2008-08-05 16:32
>
> You will also not find "Monster Raving Loony" in linguistic
> literature. Wikipedia calls it "transitive".
Re: 5th morphosyntactic category name? Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]> 2008-08-05 15:49
You will also not find "Monster Raving Loony" in linguistic
literature. Wikipedia calls it "transitive".
Re: Fifth morphosyntactic category? Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> 2008-08-05 07:46
> A!=P!=I Tripartite
> A=P!=I Monster Raving Loony
> A!=P=I Ergative
Re: Fifth morphosyntactic category? David J. Peterson <[log in to unmask]> 2008-08-05 07:15
A!=P!=I Tripartite
A=P!=I Monster Raving Loony
A!=P=I Ergative
Re: Fifth morphosyntactic category? Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]> 2008-08-05 03:57
> 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).
Re: 5th morphosyntactic category name? Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> 2008-08-04 21:14
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
Re: 5th morphosyntactic category name? Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> 2008-08-04 20:12
>A!=P!=I Tripartite
>A=P!=I Monster Raving Loony
>A!=P=I Ergative
Re: 5th morphosyntactic category name? Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]> 2008-08-04 19:05
> 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".
Re: 5th morphosyntactic category name? Veoler <[log in to unmask]> 2008-08-04 18:53
> A!=P!=I Tripartite
> A=P!=I Monster Raving Loony
> A!=P=I Ergative
5th morphosyntactic category name? Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> 2008-08-04 18:31
A!=P!=I Tripartite
A=P!=I Monster Raving Loony
A!=P=I Ergative
Fifth morphosyntactic category? Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> 2008-08-04 18:30
A!=P!=I Tripartite
A=P!=I Monster Raving Loony
A!=P=I Ergative
Re: nom/accu pronouns erg/abs everything else Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]> 2007-05-14 13:33
TTBOMK, both "monster raving loony" and "clairvoyant" derive from
http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/r.html , rather than being
Re: nom/accu pronouns erg/abs everything else Jeff Rollin <[log in to unmask]> 2007-05-14 11:14
> >
> > Monster Raving Loony probably --- obviously not a formal term.
>
> 1 2 1 Ergative
> 1 2 2 Monster Raving Loony
> 1 2 3 Tripartite
Re: nom/accu pronouns erg/abs everything else Henrik Theiling <[log in to unmask]> 2007-05-14 11:03
> >
> > Monster Raving Loony probably --- obviously not a formal term.
>
> 1 2 1 Ergative
> 1 2 2 Monster Raving Loony
> 1 2 3 Tripartite
Re: nom/accu pronouns erg/abs everything else Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> 2007-05-14 10:52
>
> Monster Raving Loony probably --- obviously not a formal term.
1 2 1 Ergative
1 2 2 Monster Raving Loony
1 2 3 Tripartite
Re: nom/accu pronouns erg/abs everything else T. A. McLeay <[log in to unmask]> 2007-05-14 10:26
Monster Raving Loony probably --- obviously not a formal term. They
treat transitive subject and object alike (using a transitive case), and
Re: ergative/accusative R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> 2007-01-28 12:06
>>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.
Re: ergative/accusative [log in to unmask] 2007-01-28 05:55
> 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.
Re: ergative/accusative Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> 2007-01-28 03:35
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).
Re: ergative/accusative Damian Yerrick <[log in to unmask]> 2007-01-27 22:26
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.
Re: Unattested... but possible? David J. Peterson <[log in to unmask]> 2005-03-19 17:21
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
Word Order Indicating Tense (was: my grammar) Chris Bates <[log in to unmask]> 2004-12-30 11:52
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
Re: Ergativity Reference Done David Peterson <[log in to unmask]> 2004-11-23 20:26
<<
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,
Re: Ergativity Reference Done Thomas R. Wier <[log in to unmask]> 2004-11-22 22:24
> 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
Re: Ergativity Reference Done Rene Uittenbogaard <[log in to unmask]> 2004-11-22 21:11
> 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
Re: Ergativity Reference Done Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]> 2004-11-22 12:54
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.
Re: here is some stuff i want all of ya'll to look at even though you have better things to do. Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon) <[log in to unmask]> 2004-08-30 11:25
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,
Re: Monster Raving Loony (was: Re: Ergativity) Joe <[log in to unmask]> 2004-08-22 16:03
From: Joe <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Monster Raving Loony (was: Re: Ergativity)
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Re: Monster Raving Loony (was: Re: Ergativity) Paul Bennett <[log in to unmask]> 2004-08-22 15:45
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}
> > > [...]
Monster Raving Loony (was: Re: Ergativity) Carsten Becker <[log in to unmask]> 2004-08-22 14:50
From: Carsten Becker <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Monster Raving Loony (was: Re: Ergativity)
> > [...]
> > Monster Raving Loony {A, P} {S}
> > [...]
Re: THEORY Ideal system of writing Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]> 2004-08-13 05:41
Ah, the "monster raving loony candidate (some Iranian sightings)"
which marks transitive subject and object with the same case?
Re: For information only ! John Cowan <[log in to unmask]> 2004-06-13 18:33
Are the various Monster Raving Loony parties issuing a list?
(Nice going, sigmonster!)
Re: Def. of Case WAS: Cases, again Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> 2004-03-18 12:41
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.
Re: Ergativity Nik Taylor <[log in to unmask]> 2004-02-26 02:22
> > Ergative {A} {S, P}
> > Monster Raving Loony {A, P} {S}
>
Re: Ergativity Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]> 2004-02-25 18:40
> Ergative {A} {S, P}
> Monster Raving Loony {A, P} {S}
Re: Ergativity Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]> 2004-02-25 05:36
> Ergative {A} {S, P}
> Monster Raving Loony {A, P} {S}
> Tripartite {A} {P} {S}
Re: Ergativity John Quijada <[log in to unmask]> 2004-02-24 19:24
>> Ergative {A} {S, P}
>> Monster Raving Loony {A, P} {S}
>> Tripartite {A} {P} {S}
Re: Ergativity Joe <[log in to unmask]> 2004-02-24 12:28
> Ergative {A} {S, P}
> Monster Raving Loony {A, P} {S}
> Tripartite {A} {P} {S}
Re: Ergativity Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> 2004-02-24 11:41
Ergative {A} {S, P}
Monster Raving Loony {A, P} {S}
Tripartite {A} {P} {S}
Re: CONLANG Digest - 21 Feb 2004 to 22 Feb 2004 (#2004-52) Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]> 2004-02-24 10:57
> 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.
Re: A wacky language Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]> 2004-02-04 10:49
> > It shall, of course, have to be Monster Raving Loony (ie, have one case
> for
Re: A wacky language Tristan McLeay <[log in to unmask]> 2004-02-04 08:00
> It shall, of course, have to be Monster Raving Loony (ie, have one case for
> transitive subject and object, and one for intransitive subject).
Re: A wacky language Mike Ellis <[log in to unmask]> 2004-02-04 04:53
Almost all nouns in the nominative case (or Monster Raving Loony
equivalent) begin with a vowel, as do the matching adjectives. However,
Re: A wacky language Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]> 2004-02-04 04:12
It shall, of course, have to be Monster Raving Loony (ie, have one case for
transitive subject and object, and one for intransitive subject).
Re: Case question Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]> 2003-11-26 16:48
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
Re: Case question Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> 2003-11-26 15:36
> Mark J. Reed scripsit:
> > Okay, I'm familiar with the [Monster Raving Loony] party, but what
> > does the term refer to linguistically?
Re: Case question Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]> 2003-11-26 15:31
> >
> > I'm no IEist, but if some IE langs could develop Monster Raving Loony
> systems,
Re: Case question John Cowan <[log in to unmask]> 2003-11-26 14:35
> > I'm no IEist, but if some IE langs could develop Monster Raving Loony systems,
>
Re: Case question John Cowan <[log in to unmask]> 2003-11-26 13:57
> I'm no IEist, but if some IE langs could develop Monster Raving Loony systems,
Re: Case question Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> 2003-11-26 13:52
>
> I'm no IEist, but if some IE langs could develop Monster Raving Loony systems,
Re: Case question Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]> 2003-11-26 13:06
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.)
Re: Ergative and other questions Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]> 2003-11-17 14:12
sense whatsoever to you, don't worry; this system is sometimes known
as "Monster Raving Loony". Nonetheless, it's found in some Iranian languages.
Re: Invitation to The Head-Last Project Joe <[log in to unmask]> 2003-10-23 12:29
abs-erg
> > > in the present and Monster Raving Loony in the future, along with some
bizarre
Re: Invitation to The Head-Last Project Joe <[log in to unmask]> 2003-10-23 11:52
abs-erg
> > in the present and Monster Raving Loony in the future, along with some
bizarre
Re: Invitation to The Head-Last Project Paul Bennett <[log in to unmask]> 2003-10-23 10:20
> > 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
Re: Invitation to The Head-Last Project Tristan McLeay <[log in to unmask]> 2003-10-23 08:31
> 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
Re: Invitation to The Head-Last Project Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]> 2003-10-23 05:57
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
Re: Help in Determining Asha'ille Typology Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]> 2003-08-07 11:12
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
Re: Help in Determining Asha'ille Typology Joe <[log in to unmask]> 2003-08-07 11:02
>
> (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.)
Re: Help in Determining Asha'ille Typology JS Bangs <[log in to unmask]> 2003-08-06 20:37
(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.)
Re: Is this a passive? Joe <[log in to unmask]> 2003-07-23 04:43
>
> 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
Re: Is this a passive? Nik Taylor <[log in to unmask]> 2003-07-22 20:15
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
Re: verbs? Thomas R. Wier <[log in to unmask]> 2003-07-18 16:27
> > > > E.g. Georgian's consonant clusters, those three
> > > > OSV languages, Berber's syllabic stops, the "monster raving loony
> > > > language", etc.
Re: verbs? Peter Bleackley <[log in to unmask]> 2003-07-18 04:27
>PS A "monster raving loony language" is one that marks intransitive subject
>different from both transitive subject and transitive object, but the later
Re: verbs? JS Bangs <[log in to unmask]> 2003-07-18 00:28
> > > E.g. Georgian's consonant clusters, those three
> > > OSV languages, Berber's syllabic stops, the "monster raving loony
> > > language", etc.
Re: OT: Monster Raving Loony (was Re: verbs?) John Cowan <[log in to unmask]> 2003-07-17 22:08
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
Re: verbs? Nik Taylor <[log in to unmask]> 2003-07-17 19:44
"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
OT: Monster Raving Loony (was Re: verbs?) Tim May <[log in to unmask]> 2003-07-17 19:30
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
Re: verbs? Ian Spackman <[log in to unmask]> 2003-07-17 19:13
> > E.g. Georgian's consonant clusters, those three
> > OSV languages, Berber's syllabic stops, the "monster raving loony
> > language", etc.
Re: verbs? Thomas R. Wier <[log in to unmask]> 2003-07-17 18:33
> E.g. Georgian's consonant clusters, those three
> OSV languages, Berber's syllabic stops, the "monster raving loony
> language", etc.
Re: verbs? Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]> 2003-07-17 18:22
> >
> > 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".
Re: verbs? Apollo Hogan <[log in to unmask]> 2003-07-17 18:12
> >
> > 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
Re: verbs? Thomas R. Wier <[log in to unmask]> 2003-07-17 18:01
>
> 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
Re: verbs? Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> 2003-07-17 14:18
> 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.
Re: verbs? JS Bangs <[log in to unmask]> 2003-07-17 14:00
>
> 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.
Re: verbs? Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]> 2003-07-17 13:22
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



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager