LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CONLANG Archives


CONLANG Archives

CONLANG Archives


CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CONLANG Home

CONLANG Home

CONLANG  September 1999, Week 3

CONLANG September 1999, Week 3

Subject:

Re : Re: Tlvn, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius

From:

"From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:12:08 EDT

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (102 lines)

Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 14/09/99 20:12:55  , Tom a =E9crit :
>=20
>  We're not talking about semantic relations here, but syntax.

I can't tell the difference. get out of the "syntax vs. semantic" safety=20
bunker.
it's pretty hot and smelly inside.

>  Nouns and verbs are abstract grammatical categories that only
>  exist if there is reason to posit they exist in the syntax of a language.

no. wrong. XXL-wrong.

>  No one (except maybe solipsists) denies that there really are things
>  out there that fit into semantic equivalents of those abstract
>  categories -- but those are semantic categories, not grammatical
>  categories.
> =20
????????
so THAT is linguistics ? can you tell syntax from grammar from
semantics from strawberry jelly ? over here europeans can't.
but they only have a few 1000 years of age.

>  So, when we're talking about syntax, we can't talk about "disguising"
>  the existence of a category -- the category itself either exists or it=20
doesn'
> t.
>  (whether or not it's reasonable to have that category is a different
>  question).   If a language (like Yupik Eskimo) likes to incorporate
>  stems whose semantic meanings represent physical objects into
>  an abstract category called "verbs", there's nothing stopping it from
>  doing that.  It's not disguised;   that's a confusion of semantics and
>  syntactics.

no. that's called compound, construct, incorporation or integration
over here. but you need consider semantics for that.=20
and you obviously don't. you speak and you don't care about meaning.
fortunately this is over. only "native americanists" still dream awake like=20
that.

  For example, in Oneida, you can incorporate the noun
>  itself directly into the verb:
> =20
that's called "applicative" over here, in japan and somewhere else too.

>  lanV,stayV,'sthos  "he [or she] plants corn"
>  (where my <V,> here is [V], I think)
> =20
>  la-         3rd person singular affix
>  yV,-      to plant
>  -s          present tense
>  nV,st-    incorporated form of o-nV,ste?, 'corn'
> =20

you mean she sticks a corn shoot/seed into the ground to make it
grow and you expect me to believe there is no verb implied
to make noun "corn" into a predicate "to plant (corn)" or conversely
because otherwise i'm mixing "grammar" and your whatever
english-speaker's prejudice ? i tell you what : you're maybe not aware of it=20
but
you feel like that because in english you shelter with shelter, shield with
shield, dog as a dog, stone with stone, plant plants etc. so that=20
you're not even able anymore to see the "silent" verbs making these predicat=
es
from nouns. wake up, boy !
 =20
>  Why are you assuming I agree with Comrie?

i do from what i read.

  All I meant to
>  do was to show you that the world doesn't usually fit into our
>  neat little categorizations as often as we'd like it to. When you
>  make a claim about linguistic typology, one needs to be
>  able to back it up with facts, closely analyzed.

you don't analyse anything. you take things their face value.
fact is that "to plant" is a verb and "corn" is a noun whatever
indianists' priviledge is at stake and however it is expressed - be it
a pro-noun or stuff. that "corn"'s semantic field obviously identifies
to "to plant" among certain cultures in such a tight way that it is
not even necessary for the ones to utter "to plant" or "corn" for the
others is no excuse to ignore it. ignorance is no excuse to whomever.

> =20
>  And please -- don't dismiss Comrie unless you've read what
>  he has to say. :)

are you to say he's/you're right unless someone dies out of bore reading
that genius's enlighed/ning prosa ?

then please don't use latin words unless you've read virgil, don't speak
english unless you've learned grammar in cambridge, don't eat unless you've
had lunch =E0 la tour-d'argent, don't think unless you had my permission.
but BTW, do you allow me to write this in english although i never read a=20
single
book in your mother tongue ?

YOU could design a language like Degaspregos. could Comrie do that ?

mathias