Re: Articles, determiners, quantifiers, whatever...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Remi Villatel" <maxilys@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 2:34 AM
Subject: Re: Articles, determiners, quantifiers, whatever...


> Hi everybdoy,
>
> First, I want to apoligize because it was very harsh to call some
conlangers
> "unimaginative". I was very fustrated by my research... Besides, a
conlanger
> is always imaginative otherise they wouldn't imagine a conlang.
> ==================
> Sally Caves wrote:
>
> > Try Teonaht's split nominative definite article?  I'm not sure how
> > "imaginative" it is, but the article carries weight in determining
whether
> [---CUT---]
>
> il teonaht ry ravvo. il preole fy an.
Hsvenda, Hremi!  You even got the compound with preole (not in the lexicon,
I noticed!)  As you know: the Teonaht-English lexicon is still under
construction, and omissive of a lot of stuff you're better off finding in
the grammar.  And material that's in my written notebooks.  Which nobody
else has access to.  :)

> (I'm no sure about my conjugation...)
T. is a cinch for conjugation, there isn't any, usually, on the verb.
Because I've babbled about it enough, or because you obviously have
consulted my pages, :) :) there are tense and aspect prefixes for the
pronoun.  But "Il preole fy an" would probably be better expressed by
"preoht fy."  But I'll take any compliment where I can get it!  :)

In the meantime, though, you haven't demonstrated the use of my articles in
the ways I was describing (you cut off my text):  Better: Le Remi
zemplim-ilz omlo nehsa, ma nrinan-lo vera etsan celil kalalyan ingenyoht.
"The (volitional) Remi example-an (object) does (volitional)-he seek, but
finds (non-volitional)-he not same (referring to zemplim) in-the languages
invented."

> Yes, it's imaginative enough. But I was looking for more.
...
> Maybe will I rip off this idea [of Matt Pearson's] in a future conlang...
> But that's still not enough!
...
> (Gevey has been in my bookmarks for a long time. I got caught by the
script.)
> I wouldn't say I've understood everything but I like the case
declensions...
> Another idea to rip off.  ;-)  But that's not enough either.
...
> That's a pity you didn't say more about these articles which turn into
tense
> markers. The idea sounded promising. Any way, Kamakawi isn't what I was
> looking for, even if more about its articles is explained. That's not
enough...

Now Remi, why look for a system of categorization in another person's
conlang?  Why not just invent your own and put it in a description of
Shaquelingua?  There it will be "enough" for you.

> I said that that isn't enough because like on all the sites I visited,
only
> "a" and "the" are explained in most cases.
>
> I've found "all" in Teonaht lexicon, "all" and "every/each" in Gevey
lexicon
> but no explanation on how to use them. That was what I was looking for: a
> very large explanation with absolutely everything that can be used as
article.

I suggest that the problem here is in your use of the word "article."  I
think of "all" and "every/each" as modifiers (an admittedly vague term),
possibly determiners (another fairly comprehensive term).  But the word
"article" has more traditional and specific connotations in descriptions of
the modern European languages, upon which Teonaht was originally based.  If
you are including "all" and "every/each" in your list of what you're looking
for, then I get a much better picture of your concept of "article."  Under
"pronouns" I have a fairly big list of words like "etsa" in Teonaht (same or
most recent thing mentioned), etsa...ouar (the first and second thing
mentioned), taiso--or taso (every/each), mimim ("some of"), aiba (this), oba
(that), ista (that awful), and I explain how they can be used as
"adjectives" (or determiners).  Etsa vaiua, "this same bird."  Poto is an
adjective:  poto randon, "all kings."  What you are looking for is a conlang
description in which all determiners (i.e., adjective-like particles that
determine the situation, place, number, gender, what-have-you of a noun) are
all put together under one rubric.  Most of us separate them.  I put numbers
in a separate category (not loaded yet).  But in my discussion of nouns,
timarttys, "two ears," is described as an exception to the usual plural
particle in its application to pairs of things.  I put plural particles,
which I'm sure could function as determiners, with the nouns, too.  So I'm
moved to ask, what exactly is the point of your post?  To let us know that
you haven't found a conlang description that conforms to your idea of
lexical categorization?  And that you need one to formulate your own
taxonomy?  To let us know that we SHOULD be thinking of our "articles" in
terms of a wider category, and revise our descriptions thusly? An
interesting suggestion; I'll consider it.  If none of the above, why not
just write your own explanation for "everything that can be used as an
article" and put it on the website for your own conlang?  I'm sure we would
love to look at it.  Essentially, then, anything that can "determine" a noun
in a closed list (short of words like "flowery," "shadowed," "unctious,"
"unhallowed," "benighted," "free," or any other endless parade of
descriptors.

For Teonaht I would list (in a category called Nouns and Determiners) the
definite and indefinite articles with their status as agent, experiencer,
and object including some of, a few of, a lot of, etc; further determiners
like "this," "that," "that yonder," "that awful" with their status as agent,
experiencer and object and their distinct uses as pronouns or determiners;
"all," "each," "same," "other" with their status as free-standing pronouns
and determiners; the possessive pronouns, prefixed or infixed; the prefixed
plural particles... what am I leaving out?  A lot of what I put under
prepositions and adverbs:  Li beto cel, "the inside boy" (the boy on the
inside); vul-, "with respect to (a noun)."  But I'm not sure that this is
any more helpful, really, than classifying some of these under other
categories.  What's needed is the page on Syntax and Grammar.  Not finessed
yet, although I have it written out.

I'm delighted at the interest you take in everybody else's conlangs, Remi.
That's refreshing!!  And it's always a hoot to see my Teonaht written back
at me!  :)  So I'd love to see something of yours. Such as the snippet you
give below.

Sally

> In Shaquelingua, the quantifiers contain a lot of things: simple case
> marking, unspecified quantity, indefinite number (if in one word,
including
> zero), indefinite article (sg./dual/pl.), definite/demonstrative article
> (sg./dl./pl.), generality article (untranslatable), indefinite quantity,
> indefinite partitive (a part of), interrogative article... They can also
> mean "lack of", "contrary of", "too much", "too many", "not enough" (in
> quantity/number)... and, last, there are possessive quantifiers too.
>
> I call each item of the list an "aspect" and these aspects can be combined
> according to rules. (The HTML page of the previous version is over 30
> screens high --15" screen-- with lots of tables, examples... and space!) I
> simplified everything but it's still a huge nightmare and I was looking
for
> ideas on how to organize it.
I see.

> Now, I guess I'm all by my own to face the hideous monster.  ;-)  Don't
> expect to see me until monday or tuesday...
Until then!

Sally hterme.

Reply