Jim Grossmann wrote:
> Steg put up a post asking for feedback on the Aluric page.
>
> Say, Tony, that's your project, isn't it?
Well, actually, yes. In fact, Steg didn't post the message, his only =
contained a quote of my earlier one.
> Overall, I'm very impressed. On the web, I've seen lesser
>descriptions of natural languages. Like the breadth (language, =
culture,
>texts, tutorials). Generally, I confine my own projects to reference
>grammars, but your effort to do more is commendable.
Thanks! As I have shared on the list in the past, Aluric is more than =
just a language project for me, so I want to share not only the =
linguistic pieces but the culture, etc. My goal is to produce a web =
site that you would expect to find for a natlang/natculture.
> Some comments on the reference grammar:
Ah, now comes the problem! Not being a professional linguist I must =
confess there are liable to be MANY such issues as the following:
>1. Your sounds could be more succinctly with terms such as linguists =
and
>speech researchers use. For example, "the rasping sound like ch in
>Scottish loch or German Buch" is a voiceless velar fricative. I'm not =
sure
>exactly what the "hh" sound is, but would bet good money you're talking
>about a voiceless uvular fricative. Terms like "smooth" and =
"clipped" are
>not clear for me. Ditto with "modified" vowels. Maybe it's just me, =
but
>you might want to think about such terms.
I am open to such terms, but not necessarily up on them. Basically, I =
used what I knew based on "Teach Yourself" books. I realize this is not =
a particularly scientific source, but it's actually not bad for the =
layman.
>2. Punctuation.
>
> "Pause is similar to Comma in English, but actually used to =
indicate
>a pause either for effect or breath."
>
> This makes the comma more useful for the transcription of =
speech
>than for thought originally set down in prose. Is this what you want?
That does seem to be what I'm using it for, but I will evaluate the =
existing texts and see.
> "Open/Close quotation marks are used around spoken words."
>
> Words that have quotation marks around them are written, not =
spoken.
>Surely you mean "verbatim quotations" or "direct quotations."
That is what I meant.
>3. Noun gender: If neuter denotes things with atomic structure, =
and
>ideaic and spiritual genders denote non-physical entities, then what =
about
>physical things that lack atomic structure? e.g. sub-atomic =
particles,
>light, kinetic energy, space, time, etc.
That is where the debate rages on. By and large, anything not having =
physical substance is in the ideaic gender. Spiritual is used only for =
God and other such purely spiritual concepts. In many ways, it's an =
honorific form.
>Also, do you have any nouns that take more than one gender? Does =
"doctor"
>always take neuter gender? How about "baby?"
Doctor does always take the neuter gender. Baby (=EDten) is neuter, but =
there are masculine and feminine forms (=EDtene & =EDten=E1 =
respectively). I could be messing the explanation here, though, because =
I suspect you might say words like "doctor" can be either gender, =
depending on the person in question, since you would use masculine =
pronouns if the doctor is a man or feminine pronouns is a woman. There =
is a word for this. Is it "common gender"? I forget.
>4. Cases: Love your case system.
Thanks!
>5. Personal Pronouns: Also loved these.
>6. "General" pronouns: These actually comprise a mixture of a =
number
>of kinds of pronouns (reciprocal, indefinite, interrogative, =
demonstrative,
>relative). However, since you've only got a handful of them and can
>describe them all on one table, may I suggest "miscellaneous pronouns"?
>
>Also, you're going to have to prove that a "pronoun" that means "here" =
and
>"there" is actually a pronoun in your language. Can it occupy the =
same
>slots as other pronouns? For example, in Aluric, can a someone give a
>building or beauty to "here?" After all, one can give a building to
>someone, or give beauty to something.
I do need to do more clarification of these, so I will currently resist =
the urge to just change them to "miscellaneous". I think the system can =
be codified better than it is.
As for "v=E1", the place pronoun, that's a good question. What is the =
word "y" in French called? (As in "il y a" or "on y pense"). "V=E1" =
is a similar word. Native grammarians call it a pronoun, so that's =
where I've put it. (Isn't it wonderful to use that as an explanation?)
Actually, I'm open to better classification of the whole lot here, so =
please do make suggestions, remembering that I am not a trained =
linguist.
>Re: "It should be noted that most of the general pronouns can also be =
used
>adjectivally."
>
>You need to list the adjectives. For example, does adjectival =
"someone"
>mean "some...or other" (said of a person) or "personal"? Does =
adjectival
>"one another" mean "mutually?" Also, clarify adjectival "here" and
>"there." I assume you are referring to a way to form phrases =
equivalent
>to "the table here," or "the beer there," but I think you should spell =
it
>out.
I think this is another instance where I'll have to review the existing =
texts and figure out what I really meant by that. It does sound pretty =
strange in isolation like this.
>7. Verb Tenses: How do you translate present tense? Since =
English
>simple present is often used to indicate habitual action, you may want =
to
>translate your present tense with English present progressive.
Possibly. Again, I'm going on other layman's language texts that I have =
seen that refer to a simple present as "I go, I am going, I do go". The =
Aluric simple present can represent any of these. Habitual action can =
be more specificly indicated by using the infix -=E9l- in the verb. =
(Not to be confused with -el- of the past tense).
>"is going" may not be the best way to translate a future tense. When =
we
>say "He is going to go," we are making a statement about a present =
state of
>affairs, e.g. "He intends to go," "It is inevitable that he will go," =
etc.
>
>The future in English is formed with "will," but where this auxiliary =
will
>not fit into translations of Aluric verb paradigms, why not use an =
adverbial
>like "in the future"? e.g. Future: kely=E1n=E2 - to do in the =
future
I can do that, but does that actually represent to other people what it =
does to me? If I remember correctly there is a future infinitive in =
Latin. How would one translate that into English and retain the =
inferences of future-ness?
>Similarly, for past perfect infinitives, why not adverbials like =
"before a
>past event"?
>kelyelsv=E2 - to have done (before a past event).
Likewise with this. If, for example, Latin had an infinitive that =
corresponded to its past perfect tense (vocaveram - I had called), how =
would one translate it?
>Your future perfect beautifully illustrates the fact that English =
"going to"
>isn't quite a true future tense. kely=F9nsv=F9n - "to have been =
going to do
>to" does not mean the same thing as "to have done so in the future."
Very true. Again, I'd like to hear others' observations on what your =
translations mean. If they mean what I think they do, I can use them =
(if there's no copyright... ;-)
>As for your illustration of the verb forms (infinitives first), you =
might
>want to mention that your discussion of finite forms will have to wait =
until
>you introduce your mood/person suffixes.
You lost me. I'll need a more laymanish explanation of where your =
pointing.
>WHERE IS YOUR PRETERITE? You've got a future tense and present =
tense, but
>no way of marking occurrence once in the past; no equivalent to =
"-ed."
>If you're using, e.g. present perfect as an all-around past form, you =
need
>to say so.
No, you make the past by using the infix -el-. I think that must be =
indicated in there somewhere, but if not I'll definitely add it. Should =
be right about where the future -=E1n- is explained. Works the same as =
-=E1sv-, and can in fact combine with it to form a past-perfect.
>You'll need to clarify your participles. Are they used as complements =
for
>auxiliaries, or are they always adjectival? Could you illustrate the
>adjectival use of "having done for oneself" and all your othe =
participle
>forms?
They are always adjectival. There are no auxilliaries in Aluric.
As for the example, let's see. How about:
Dhe thr=E1zhel=E1yn ens zh=EB v=EDlsh=E1sv=F9z=F9ly=EBn=E1xn=E1 =
s=E1lek=E1xn=E1.
He was proud of the book he had written for himself (or for his own =
purposes).
Literally:
He was-being-proud because-of the having-written-for-himself(instr.) =
book(instr.).
>RE: "Also, there exist "gerundive" forms, using -=F3zn=E1y=EBn or =
-=F3n=E1z=EBs as the
>ending. These are intended to be used when the infinitive needs to be =
in a
>case other than the nominative within a sentence, but in practice they =
are
>little used and the infinitive is simply considered indeclinable. =
There is
>no observable difference between the two forms, although the former =
seems to
>be preferred."
>
>I don't recall your illustrating the use of the infinitive as a gerund
>(hence its ability to take a case marker). Also, "there is no =
observable
>difference between the two forms" does not make literal sense. Do =
you
>mean "the two forms are interchangeable?"
Yes and no. In practice, I personally use the former, but the second =
one "feels" different. Can't explain it yet, but I'll give that more =
thought. As for not illustrating the infinitive as a gerund, I'm sure =
you're right. I'll look into it.
>RE: "Within each "time" there are three tenses, an indicative, a
>conditional, and a continuous/imperative"
>
>Indicative, conditional, and imperative are moods, not tenses.
>"Continuous" is an aspect.
I'll change the wording. Moods is the term I was looking for.
>RE: In the present time, it functions almost exclusively as an
>imperative tense. In all other times, it is more of a continuous tense,
>expressing what is covered by the Spanish or French imperfect tense,
>implying continuousness in the action.
>
>So how do you mark continuous action in the present?
Normally, the present indicative. If you really want to imply serious =
continuousness (is that a word?), use the infix -=E1z- which equates =
very roughly to the Esperanto -ad- suffix.
>LOVE your mood/person suffixes.
Thanks!
>Your so-called "past" tense is present perfective. Perfective aspect
>doesn't always imply that the action has ceased in the present. You =
may
>need to come up with a new name for this aspect, unless some linguist =
on the
>list already knows one.
Then I think I'm missing a definition of a True Past Tense. Can someone =
supply one?
>Please keep us posted on further additions to the reference grammar.
Will do. The two biggest problems that interfere with this project are =
work (which I'm sure everyone understands) and the fact that I'm not a =
professional linguist and so don't catch how to explain all the nuances. =
The truth is, Aluric is in many ways a living language in frequent use =
in my life, and I am not so much "developing" the grammar as =
"identifying" it, in a similar way to a linguist studying a natlang, or =
probably better to someone who speaks an undocumented language as well =
as a widely used documented one, and is endeavoring to write about their =
native, undocumented language in the more popular one. And, all of that =
without linguistic training.
The other issue is, of course, that the pieces that are important to me =
are the use of the language, i.e. the texts. The grammar and vocabulary =
are necessary to document mainly so that people may someday appreciate =
the texts and the cultural information.
I will, however, take all of the above suggestions (and any additional =
ones) seriously and see what I can do to improve the grammar section of =
the web site.
Thanks again for the time you put into this, which was obviously quite =
significant!
Tony Harris
Community College of Vermont
tony.harris@ccvtest.ccv.vsc.edu