Re: The Language Code, take 2 (or 3)
| From: | Dirk Elzinga <dirk_elzinga@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, June 11, 2003, 20:39 |
|---|
On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 09:47 PM, And Rosta wrote:
> Hey, Dirk -- this is dead ace stuff.
Thanks!
>> T type
>> f fictional
>> l logical
>> x auxiliary
>> p personal
>> n natural
>> o other
>
> I would prefer 'e'/'engineered' to 'logical'.
I knew you would, and I think that I might agree. See my reply to your
reply to Jan.
> Maybe also a parameter for associated culture, real or fictional?
I dunno. The associated culture is, strictly speaking, extralinguistic.
However, there is a Writing section, which could also be argued to be
extralinguistic. Right now I'm inclined not to include it.
>> P phonology
>> t tonal
>> c contour tones
>> r register
>> # number of tones
>> l level tones
>> ! downstep/downdrift
>> # number of tones
>
> You're the phonologist, but I'd have thought that stuff like whether
> tone is the property of the word or the syllable would be more
> important/fundamental than, say, whether there is downstep.
The Phonology section encodes surface properties of tones rather than
the domains over which they have scope. I first came up with the Code
about 7 years ago when I was in the throes of a very surfacy analysis
of Shoshoni phonology, so I plead the enthusiasm of youth (and not
having thought it through very carefully). After thinking about this, I
would change it to the following:
P Phonology
t tonal
d tonal domain
m mora
s syllable
f foot/word
c contour tones
...
>> M morphology
>> a agglutinating (+/-)
>> i isolating (+/-)
>> f inflecting (+/-)
>> h head-marking (+/-)
>> d dependent-marking (+/-)
>> t# number of distinct tenses
>> a# number of distinct aspects
>> m# number of distinct moods
>> t/a# number of distinct tense/aspect combinations (where a
>> meaningful distinction between tense and aspect
>> cannot be
>> made) (also t/m, a/m, etc)
>> c# number of distinct cases
>> g# number of genders or noun classes
>> n# number of number distinctions
>
> Does this mean (i) number of X in the grammar, (ii) number of X encoded
> morphologically, or (iii) number of X encoded inflectionally? Since
> it's
> in the Morphology section it must mean (ii) or (iii), but (iii) would
> make sense only for Mf+. So maybe (ii) is meant; but that's much less
> interesting.
I did intend (ii). However, the number marking parameter is (i) (a
decision which was arrived at during a brief discussion that Rob Nierse
and I had), so for the sake of consistency, all of the Morphology
categories should likewise be (i).
> For syntax, I urge a parameter for head-First/head-Last, e.g. English
> would
> be Sf++, Livagain Sf+++++.
As a replacement for the b(s,v,o) parameter, or in addition to it? I
would prefer it as a replacement, but basic word order is one of the
classic typological parameters and is immediately recognizable.
>> English: Tn Pt*p++24,9(c)v(c) Wntar-- Mi++f+dt2a3c2n2 Sbsvoargn
>> Lc++d+1000000+
>
> Why "(c)v(c)"? That's an unusual characterization of the English
> syllable.
> Or does c and v mean "one or more Cs/Vs"? I guess it must.
That's what I intended for the English example; in that case, the c's
really encode onsets and codas rather than individual consonants. But
the Shoshoni and Tepa examples encode numbers of segments, and the coda
consonants of Shoshoni can only be homorganic with a following onset. I
can't think of any good way to encode this kind of syllable structure
information without making the Code unwieldy. Any suggestions?
Dirk
--
Dirk Elzinga
Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu
"I believe that phonology is superior to music. It is more variable and
its pecuniary possibilities are far greater." - Erik Satie
Reply