Print

Print


I asked one of my friends who happens to be blind and an amateur linguist.
 He says mostly his girlfriend reads linguistics books to him (my god!
 That's love!).  But he pointed out a few resources from Bookshare.  One
evidently needs to be a member of Bookshare, and I'm not, so I can't
comment or recommend it in any way, but anyway, he gave me some links:

https://www.bookshare.org/browse/book/94754?returnPath=L3NlYXJjaD9tb2R1bGVOYW1lPXB1YmxpYyZzZWFyY2g9U2VhcmNoJmtleXdvcmQ9bGluZ3Vpc3RpY3M%3D

https://www.bookshare.org/browse/book/96420?returnPath=L3NlYXJjaD9tb2R1bGVOYW1lPXB1YmxpYyZvZmZzZXQ9MjUmc2VhcmNoPVNlYXJjaCZrZXl3b3JkPWxpbmd1aXN0aWNz

https://www.bookshare.org/browse/book/88857?returnPath=L3NlYXJjaD9tb2R1bGVOYW1lPXB1YmxpYyZvZmZzZXQ9MjUmc2VhcmNoPVNlYXJjaCZrZXl3b3JkPWxpbmd1aXN0aWNz

https://www.bookshare.org/browse/book/189755?returnPath=L3NlYXJjaD9tb2R1bGVOYW1lPXB1YmxpYyZvZmZzZXQ9MjUmc2VhcmNoPVNlYXJjaCZrZXl3b3JkPWxpbmd1aXN0aWNz

https://www.bookshare.org/browse/book/552197?returnPath=L3NlYXJjaD9tb2R1bGVOYW1lPXB1YmxpYyZzZWFyY2g9U2VhcmNoJm9mZnNldD01MCZrZXl3b3JkPWxpbmd1aXN0aWNz

He also suggested resources such as this link:
http://www.learningally.org

I hope those are helpful.

--Patrick


On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> --- On Sun, 12/2/12, Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I would advise against that. The Deaf normally find that rather
> offensive. Deaf people do not use braille. Nichole could be stepping
> into a hornet's nest if she asks someone at Gallaudet about braille
> resources.
> =================================
>
> Uh-oh, my mistake...I thought Gallaudet was for the _blind_......
>
> Is there any college type institution for the blind?
>
> Anyway, Gleason's book, in any format, would be useful to Nicole, I'm
> sure. It does use IPA from time to time (since you're expected to learn
> it)-- how would a reader-app handle that?
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On 12/2/12, Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Hello NIcole-- You might inquire of these people--
> > http://www.gallaudet.edu/Linguistics/Faculty_-_Staff.html about
> resources
> > available in Braille or voice recordings. I'm thinking in particular of
> H.
> > A. Gleason's Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics, first published in
> > 1955 and so a little out of date by modern standards, but it's still the
> > best basic introduction to the field that I know of. Also, on the
> Gallaudet
> > home page, if you search for "Linguistics" you'll see that they have
> > available a handbook, though I don't know in what format.
> >
> > There's certainly no need for you to dive immediately into Chomsky and
> later
> > writers!! Some of that stuff is completely over my head, and I have a
> PhD in
> > the field...(smiley).
> >
> > Roger Mills
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Sun, 12/2/12, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
> [log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: a 4 tense system
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Date: Sunday, December 2, 2012, 2:32 AM
> >
> > What do the numbers mean? I'm confused.
> >
> > I just revised my tense list. I'll look up tense systems, and post
> something
> >
> > to the list. It will also go in the appendix.
> >
> > Why is the system called November 19? Since I'm working on a description
> of
> >
> > my Conlang, do you have a description of the language, with historical
> info,
> >
> > and vocabulary with translated sentences?
> >
> >
> > Emerging poet
> > Pen Name Mellissa Green
> > Budding novelist
> > tweet me
> >
> >
> >
> > GreenNovelist
> >
> > blog
> >
> >
> > www.theworldofyemora.wordpress.com
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "neo gu" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 1:48 AM
> > Subject: Re: a 4 tense system
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 21:52:22 -0800, Garth Wallace <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
> >><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>> Hi, I know I need to create a tense system. I don't understand the
> first
> >>> tense.
> >>
> >>The tense system that neo gu is descibing is a little unusual. The
> >>aorist is a kind of past tense.
> >>
> >>> Also, did my screen reader read corectly? It said November 19. Since
> >>> that tense refers to time, does that mean there are other tenses?
> >>
> >>I'm pretty sure that "Nov19" is the name of neo gu's project. Probably
> >>some sort of placeholder name.
> >>
> >>> Also,
> >>> what's the limit on tense numbering?
> >>
> >>If you mean how many tenses a language can have, I'm not sure there's
> >>any real limit. If you're referring to how he assigned numbers to his
> >>tenses, like saying that the "present tense" is #3, that just seems to
> >>be something neo gu has done because he thinks the "traditional" names
> >>could be misleading.
> >>
> >>> I'm thinking a three-tense system,
> >>> current, previous, and post. Current:
> >>> She is eating.
> >>> Previous:
> >>> She was eating.
> >>> Post:
> >>> She ate. I'm not sure what do do about future tenses. She will be
> >>> eating.
> >>
> >>You're actually talking about both tense and aspect there. They're
> >>frequently found together, and they both have to do with time. Here's
> >>how I'd describe your system:
> >>
> >>"She is eating." We would say that is present tense, progressive (or
> >>imperfective) aspect.
> >>
> >>"She was eating." We would call that past tense, progressive or
> >>imperfective aspect.
> >>
> >>"She ate." We would call that past tense, perfective aspect. English
> >>grammarians call this the "simple past" or preterite.
> >>
> >>Tense proper has to do with when the action described by the verb
> >>takes place. There are lots of different tense systems in natural
> >>languages. One very simple one is past/nonpast: verbs inflect only for
> >>whether the action happened in the past or not: English actually has
> >>this system (there is no "future tense" inflection of verbs, just a
> >>construction using the modal verb "will", which is optional). There
> >>are also, IIRC, languages with future/nonfuture systems, where the
> >>past and present are lumped together (because they can be definitively
> >>known), while the future is set apart (because any statement about the
> >>future can only be speculation). Or past/present/future systems, where
> >>verbs have distinct inflections for each. Some languages even divide
> >>up "past" or "future", so verbs may inflect differently for recent
> >>past and distant past. There are more too. And some languages don't
> >>have tense at all. There are lots of options.
> >>
> >>Aspect is harder to describe. It has to do with how you're looking at
> >>the action in time. The most basic division is between the perfective
> >>(looking at a single action as a complete unit, as in "She ate cake.")
> >>and the imperfective (looking at an ongoing action from inside, as in
> >>"She was eating cake."). The imperfective can be further divided: the
> >>progressive (a single ongoing action), the iterative (repeating an
> >>action, "She ate cake after cake"), and the habitual (a state of
> >>occasionally performing an action, "She ate cake often") are all
> >>examples of imperfective aspects. Then there is the perfect, which
> >>describes the state that results from an action: English uses "have"
> >>for this ("She has eaten the cake."). There are loads more. They
> >>sometimes get merged in funny ways, too. For example, in English we
> >>can express habitual aspect with the same verb form as the perfective
> >>("She ate cake" can mean that she ate it once in the past, or that
> >>eating cake is something she used to do). Latin used the same verb
> >>form for the perfective and the perfect, which is why the names of
> >>those aspects are confusingly similar.
> >>
> >>So neo gu's tense/aspect system breaks down like this:
> >>
> >>(1) expresses a past action, whether complete or ongoing. In other
> >>words, it's a simple past tense, unmarked for aspect.
> >>(2) expresses a present state resulting from a past action. It's a
> >>present perfect.
> >>(3) expresses a present action, whether complete or ongoing. It's a
> >>simple present tense, unmarked for aspect.
> >>(4) expresses a future action, whether complere or ongoing. It's a
> >>simple future, unmarked for aspect.
> >
> > Good explanations, except that complete presents (3) probably don't
> occur, I
> >
> > think.
> >
> >>These are not odd distinctions to make. What's unusual about neo gu's
> >>system is that either the present perfect or the simple present may be
> >>"off limits" depending on the verb. I'm not sure I understand the
> >>conditions, though.
> >
> > It depends not on the verb so much, but on what aspect is intended
> (although
> >
> > there are verbs such as "see" that I'm not sure about). Where there's no
> > resulting state (such as when the action's incomplete), the perfect
> can't be
> >
> > used and where there's no implied transition into the state, the present
> > can't be used. For example:
> >
> > "It is hot" expresses only the state of being hot, not how it got there,
> so
> >
> > (2) is used, not (3).
> > In "He is looking for a car", the resulting state isn't known, so (3) is
> > used, not (2).
> >
> > Is that clearer?
> >
>



-- 
Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
order from Finishing Line
Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
and
Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.