On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Paul Kenneth Roser wrote:It does exist in some natlangs. Sanskrit would use different cases: instrumental + passive verb -- thus essentially ergative construction -- for active, ablative for passive causation.Just out of curiosity...a small portable water container is called...?Oh...the metal kind. In that case, it'd be a bucket. Pail, in my "dialect", is more of an archaic word, or something used in nursery rhymes (and, no, I can't spell ;) )Since we're playing this game, what do people call that metal thing you cook bacon & eggs in on the stove?Pan. "Skillet" is only used when the person you're talking to isn't sure what you mean...or, you can specify "frying pan." I've heard some of my grandparents use "griddle," but that sounds terrible old-fashioned and "hick" to me.Also, on a completely non-related topic, I was wondering about something (like this is new). When I was translating a piece I liked (which I'll give at the bottom of the email), I ran across an interesting feature of my language which I hadn't realized was there. When translating "because", I tried to use my standard form, "a'de'" ...however, the moment I wrote it down, I stopped, thinking to myself, "You can't do that in Ley Arah!" After a few moments' thought, I realized that "a'de'" carried the connotation of active causality (?) -- i.e., "because of this action which is happening/happened/will happen", and the sentence, in English, was about a state of being, not an action. Thus, it felt extremely wrong to use the "active" form of "because"....so I invented a new word to express the passivity of "because of this state [of being] which was/is/will be".
Question One: Has anyone else invented/come across a similar construction in their languages?
I believe one could distinguish "caused by" and "because of" in English. Not so? I would definitely include the distinction in my langs, now that I'm aware of it :-)=@
Question Two: Has anyone else had features of their languages just jump out at them unexpectedly, like that did to me?
All the time. I even find that computer-generated vocabulary can be subjected to internal reconstruction, running into similarities between words that I would take as a sign of etymological relationship if I'd seen them in a natlang. I used to believe that Wanic root structure was (S)(C)(R)V(W)(v)(R)(v)(F)C(W)(V), where:
S = sibilant C = consonant R = sonorant V = vowel (full vowel) W = semivowel (includes liquids) v = reduced vowel F = fricative
Rather complicated. Patterns were showing that the original root form must have been (C)V(R)C. I found several cases where roots of reasonably related meaning shared the same (C)V(R)C core, so that the rest looked like affixes and infixes. And this was in randomly computer-generated vocabulary! Scary, eh?
It also frequently happens that I don't quite grasp the ramifications of rules or possible nuances of grammar in my own langs...
This thing with tense (or rather aspect) on nominal forms is intriguing... In Funus it has been possible to derive nominals from perfective verb forms, but nominals that are perfective in themselves? IMTAT!
Okay, last thing: The piece I was translating (if anyone else wants to take a stab at it)"First they came for the Jews, And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me."
In Funus:
({'}=[?], {g}=[N], {q}=[g]} -- this usage of {q} and {g} is the reverse of earlier transcriptions!)
nedet yora'ni't nereh Yidoy wadigsep huwisa'h debey hudisep Yaday geleb yora'ni't nereh Ye'e' Lubuw wadigsep huwisa'h debey hudisep Ye'e' Labuw geleb yora'ni't nere'h Reza'k Zozer wadigsep huwisa'h debey hudisep Reza'k Zuzar gefed yora'ni't nere'hu wadigsep qa'us lidla'z renet wisa'hu at:first they+have:come to:get Jews and+not:been me+speaking because me+not:be Jew Communist = together-owner trade unionist = belong:council-worker later they+have:come to:get+me and+not:been nobody staying to:come speak (for) me.
Copyright © 1997, Paul M. Hoffman,
Last updated: July 20, 1997