Re: Austric Gleanings

--- In Nostratica@..., "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

> --- In Nostratica@..., "Gerry" <waluk@...> wrote:
> > --- In Nostratica@..., "Richard Wordingham"
> > <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> > > --- In Nostratica@..., "Gerry" <waluk@...> wrote:
> > > > --- In Nostratica@..., "Richard Wordingham"
> > > > <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I will be looking at roots.
>
> I've now launched the first broadside at Austronesian. We'll see

if

> anyone's interested.

I'll try to read it. Likely it might be way too technical for
my "gate-keeper" status.

> > You are the one who mentioned "syntactic parallels". I was
> > simply following form (the *gate-keeper* that I am). Likely I
> should
> > have said syntactic similarities. Actually in all the languages

I'm

> > familiar with, there is some type of exclamation for "good

morning".

> > Is there a human language that doesn't express this type of
> greeting?
>
> I think I misused the phrase 'syntactic parallel', or at least

pushed

> it to its outer limit.
>
> Not all languages have expressions with the same literal meaning as
> 'good morning'. Welsh does, German does, but Thai doesn't - one
> phrase does for every time of day. I've been racking my brain to
> remember whether French has a literal equivalent. 'Bon matin' just
> doesn't feel right.

Let's look at the "sense" in which 'good morning' is meant. Perhaps
in French 'bonjour' is more appropriate but 'bon matin' is also
acceptable. It depends on how formal the greeting is (or how
specific the vocabulary is for a particular language). Languages are
similarities but they also have differences. The same with species
of hominids. Homo sapiens is both similar as well as different from
Homo neanderthalensis.

> > The accusative case and infinitive part of speech doesn't occur

in

> > all languages.
>
> The 'accusative and infinitive' is a form of indirect speech. The
> most striking thing about it is that it is very similar to a

causative

> expression. There is a limited parallel in English.
>
> Causative: I made him open the box.
> Acc & Inf parallel: I saw him open the box.
>
> Latin & Greek take it one step further.
> English: I said that he opened the box.
> Latin (lit. trans.): I said him (to) open the box.
>
> The Latin syntactic analogue of 'I said that ...' was very little

used

> in classical Latin, though Greek made far freer use of it, and

modern

> Romance languages now use the Latin analogue.

Latin and Greek are excellent reference sources. Yet no public high
school in the U.S. offers either language. Many private schools have
eliminated Greek and have replaced Latin with one of the sciences.

> > > Farsi has a structure CV(CC), while
> > > Standard Thai has C(C)V(C). Proto-Slavonic seemed to be

heading

> > for
> > > (CC)CV, but only got as far as (CCC)VC. Incidentally, '(CC)'

is

> to
> > be
> > > read as 'no, 1 or 2 consonants', not as '0 or 2 consonants'.
> >
> > Quick question: can a CV(C) also be represented as (C)V(C)? Any
> > rule for use of parentheses?
>
> The parentheses mean optional. Lack of parentheses means

compulsory.

> So, for example, 'ba', 'bad', 'bist' are all examples of the

structure

> CV(CC), but 'ast' is not. Thus, anything that can be described as
> CV(C) may be described as (C)V(C), but so (C)V(C) includes

examples,

> such as 'au', which does not comply the structure CV(C).

OK. I'll try to remember that: parentheses = optional; lack of
parentheses = compulsory.

> > >In discussing Indo-European, it
> > > is very useful to include R for resonant - /l/, /r/, /w/, /y/,
> /m/,
> > > /n/ - in the code. This is a very useful notation, sometimes

used

> > > with R restricted to a smaller set. For example, it is much

more

> > > informative to say that Proto-Slavonic had a syllable structure
> > > (CCC)V(R) or that Standard Thai has C(R)V(C). For an example

of

> > this
> > > notation in action, you could read Witzel's

paper 'Autochthonous

> > > Aryans' ( http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-

3.htm

> ),
> > > where he points how one can identify non-Indo-European words in
> > Vedic
> > > Sanskrit.
> >
> > Wow. Now it gets very confusing. Witzel's paper, BTW, is very
> > informative.
>
> The notation isn't confusing. To use the Thai example of C(R)V(C),

it

> tells you that it can't have word like English 'lift' (Thai for
> 'elevator' is /lif/ or /lip/) or 'Sprite', but suggest

that 'classic'

> *might* be easy to borrow. It's actually used in a lot of

commercial

> names, but for no good reason they pronounce it /kla:sik/.

Similarly,

> the Farsi syllable structure of CV(CC) tells you that Persians will
> have problems saying 'Scotland'. What these simple formulae don't
> tell you is what else isn't allowed or how foreign combinations

will

> be treated. For example, in Thai 'Sprite' becomes /saprai/, while

in

> Farsi 'Scotland' becomes /iska:tland/.

Didn't know Persians will have problems with Scotland. I have a lot
to learn.

> When it does get confusing is when you force the notation to carry

all

> the phonological constraints. The treatment of semivowels and
> diphthongs may be tweaked to give an apparently simple

formulation.

> So, to stop -ait in Thai, I could insist that [ai] = vowel [a] +
> consonant [y], and so say that C(R)V(C) prevents -ait. That

approach

> can be confusing though elegant.

I do hope I become proficient enough to find elegance is that which
is confusing.

Gerry