At'át'a conveys all that meaning? WTF? How?Astraios wrote:Yet while Lakota is succinct in Ȟ'uŋúŋt'e and At'át'a, English isn't at all: "You and I are exhausted from working" and "She relaxed so as to flop on top of him to be cuddled".
On succinctness
Re: On succinctness
Re: On succinctness
I suspect part of it is a very specific definition on the verb. But I don't know Lakota, so ...Eandil wrote:At'át'a conveys all that meaning? WTF? How?Astraios wrote:Yet while Lakota is succinct in Ȟ'uŋúŋt'e and At'át'a, English isn't at all: "You and I are exhausted from working" and "She relaxed so as to flop on top of him to be cuddled".
George Corley
Producer and Moderating Host, Conlangery Podcast
Producer and Moderating Host, Conlangery Podcast
Re: On succinctness
Like this:
a-t'Á~RED
APPL.[upon]-be.dead~RED
The reduplication of t'Á to t'at'á has a couple of meanings, but here it's body part is floppy and asleep. So literally it translates as "X's [body part] is floppy and asleep upon Y", but the meaning is what I said - to relax onto somebody like a child does when it wants to be cuddled.
a-t'Á~RED
APPL.[upon]-be.dead~RED
The reduplication of t'Á to t'at'á has a couple of meanings, but here it's body part is floppy and asleep. So literally it translates as "X's [body part] is floppy and asleep upon Y", but the meaning is what I said - to relax onto somebody like a child does when it wants to be cuddled.
Re: On succinctness
Inuktitut has similar examples. In this language, "I watched TV/a movie" would be Tarralijarataaqpunga while Tulaptuguk can be translated as We two have moved from thin ice to stable land. There's also Kikpapuq which means He walks towards the shore, and he was already close by.Astraios wrote: While English is succinct in, for example, "I watched TV", Lakota isn't: Wičhítenaškaŋškaŋ kiŋ awáŋyaŋg maŋké. Yet while Lakota is succinct in Ȟ'uŋúŋt'e and At'át'a, English isn't at all: "You and I are exhausted from working" and "She relaxed so as to flop on top of him to be cuddled".
Now what are you going to do?
Last edited by ---- on Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: On succinctness
How and why did you learn Lakota? You seem to be very knowledgeable of it.Astraios wrote:Like this:
a-t'Á~RED
APPL.[upon]-be.dead~RED
The reduplication of t'Á to t'at'á has a couple of meanings, but here it's body part is floppy and asleep. So literally it translates as "X's [body part] is floppy and asleep upon Y", but the meaning is what I said - to relax onto somebody like a child does when it wants to be cuddled.
Re: On succinctness
Using the Lakota Language Forum (online), and because I wanted to.
Re: On succinctness
and because I wanted to.Astraios wrote:Using the Lakota Language Forum (online), and because I wanted to.
and because I wanted to.
and because I wanted to.
and because I wanted to.
A-fucking-* answer.
næn:älʉː
Re: On succinctness
NiceAstraios wrote:Using the Lakota Language Forum (online), and because I wanted to.
Re: On succinctness
Oh yeah also !Xóõ has tons of those. èh ń !n̥àqĩ-!n̥àqĩ means "He makes a loud alveolar click during the rubbing of a festering sore in order to aid the removal of a thorn". I'm not sure if there is a word for TV at all.
Re: On succinctness
Well, why not. xD It's not difficult, really, it's just different.Nannalu wrote:A-fucking-* answer.
So am I still a pagan sinner for learning it, or is it more awesome than you thought?Eandil wrote:Nice
Re: On succinctness
?Nannalu wrote:A-fucking-* answer.
Do British schools use * instead of + or something?
George Corley
Producer and Moderating Host, Conlangery Podcast
Producer and Moderating Host, Conlangery Podcast
Re: On succinctness
I think this is why so many people have such difficulty learning languages, they put it in their head that it's some crazy moonspeak so they don't try as hard, because they 'know they can't do it'Astraios wrote:Well, why not. xD It's not difficult, really, it's just different.Nannalu wrote:A-fucking-* answer.
Re: On succinctness
I didn't go to school in Britain but yes they do.Ollock wrote:?Nannalu wrote:A-fucking-* answer.
Do British schools use * instead of + or something?
næn:älʉː
-
- Avisaru
- Posts: 704
- Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:41 am
- Location: NY, USA
Re: On succinctness
English has 200 words for watching TV. Lakota has 200 words for working hard all day and going home to cuddle with your wife.Astraios wrote:While English is succinct in, for example, "I watched TV", Lakota isn't: Wičhítenaškaŋškaŋ kiŋ awáŋyaŋg maŋké. Yet while Lakota is succinct in Ȟ'uŋúŋt'e and At'át'a, English isn't at all: "You and I are exhausted from working" and "She relaxed so as to flop on top of him to be cuddled".
Re: On succinctness
... which probably isn't so strange when you think about the diffrent origin of the two languages. Cute.
If I stop posting out of the blue it probably is because my computer and the board won't cooperate and let me log in.!
Re: On succinctness
Possibly. I think it's a grade used in GCSEs in England, at least; the qualifications we have here just go A-B-C, or 1-6, without +s, and I'm not sure about the A-levels in England. IIRC, a fail is "U" rather than "F" in various english qualifications... Here I'm not even sure, I think a 7 was a fail in the system where 1-6 were passes, and a D or E was a fail in the system where A-C were passes. And while we didn't have +s, I think there was an invisible sub-grade of A-C that only the teachers could see and didn't show up on our certificates...Ollock wrote:?Nannalu wrote:A-fucking-* answer.
Do British schools use * instead of + or something?
As for universities, it goes 1-2.1-2.2-3 ("first", "two-one", "two-two", "third"), with 1 being the highest; there's also Ordinary Pass and Fail for the lowest grades. Some universities like mine also gave out 1*, a "starred first" or "first with distinction" officially, but I didn't get that (you had to get a first grade – over 70/100 – in 80% of the modules you took over your degree, which I didn't; I merely got an average of over 70/100 overall). Because most universities don't hand that grade out it doesn't make much difference to me – people won't know that I didn't get the top grade.
Re: On succinctness
hold on, the meaning of the reduplication isn't REDUPLICATION, it must be something else... fix your morphemic gloss, man. we know that it's reduplication from the morphemic breakdown above.Astraios wrote: a-t'Á~RED
APPL.[upon]-be.dead~RED
Re: On succinctness
A teleological argument!JeremyHussell wrote:Those are some ways English and Chinese have achieved succinctness, not reasons they've become succinct in the first place.Astraios wrote:English and Chinese are succinct because they're both pretty isolating and don't mark very much morphologically at all, not because they're widely spoken...
Why, then, did Mandarin and English in particular need to "achieve" succinctness, moreso than other languages? Keeping in mind of course that these "ways [they] have achieved succinctness" are the result of thousands of years of phonological, morphological and syntactic change, while English at least was confined to England until the late 16th century--by which point it was largely intelligible with today's form. How did the evolution of English anticipate its sudden, recent global dominance?
...there are none.JeremyHussell wrote:Has anyone ever read anything about correlations between language features and how widely spoken the languages are? I feel like I'm about to get into an argument based primarily on lack of evidence, which I'd like to avoid if possible.
All the most widely-spoken languages belong to language families with much more obscure members which they are far more similar to than other widely-spoken languages. For example: English is much more like West Frisian than Mandarin. Mandarin is much more like Dungan than English. Whatever chance similarities you might find between English and Mandarin 1) pale before the strong, glaring similarities between English and West Frisian, and Manadrin and Dungan, and 2) necessarily exist as well between English and Dungan, and between Mandarin and West Frisian--which completely destroys the idea of "correlations between language features and how widely spoken the langauges are[.]"
Re: On succinctness
Heh, I already knew non-Indo-European languages are cool! But I have to admit that thing surprised me. One I find fascinating is Pirahã, for example.Astraios wrote:So am I still a pagan sinner for learning it, or is it more awesome than you thought?Eandil wrote:Nice
But you're still guilty of heresy.
Re: On succinctness
I didn't go to school in Britain but yes they do.[/quote] No, we don't. A* is one above A+.Nannalu wrote:Do British schools use * instead of + or something?
I know, I know. I was showing what root it is, because the meanings of the reduplication are more than one, so it wouldn't really be accurate to say 'dead' reduplicated means 'body part is asleep'. Or something.finlay wrote:hold on, the meaning of the reduplication isn't REDUPLICATION, it must be something else... fix your morphemic gloss, man. we know that it's reduplication from the morphemic breakdown above.
Re: On succinctness
And what're you gonna do about it, bitch?Eandil wrote:Heh, I already knew non-Indo-European languages are cool! But I have to admit that thing surprised me. One I find fascinating is Pirahã, for example.
But you're still guilty of heresy.
I think so too. There doesn't even need to be any 'trying' in learning a language; it's just like learning to talk when you were a baby, you just do it.Theta wrote:I think this is why so many people have such difficulty learning languages, they put it in their head that it's some crazy moonspeak so they don't try as hard, because they 'know they can't do it'
Re: On succinctness
I, and Eandil, are probably more interested in what you are going to do when you are standing infront of the gates of heaven, after 6,000+ years in purgatory, and suddenly realize that you can't enter its premise.Astraios wrote:And what're you gonna do about it, bitch?
.
Payback's a bitch, right?
If I stop posting out of the blue it probably is because my computer and the board won't cooperate and let me log in.!
Re: On succinctness
Oh, don't worry about me, I'll stay on Earth as a ghost and learn all the languages. And since I'll be a ghost, I can timetravel, so I'll go back in time and learn all the languages. I'll be just fine.
Re: On succinctness
I'm pretty sure that's the standard way to gloss it. Maybe RED.X?finlay wrote:hold on, the meaning of the reduplication isn't REDUPLICATION, it must be something else... fix your morphemic gloss, man. we know that it's reduplication from the morphemic breakdown above.Astraios wrote: a-t'Á~RED
APPL.[upon]-be.dead~RED
George Corley
Producer and Moderating Host, Conlangery Podcast
Producer and Moderating Host, Conlangery Podcast
Re: On succinctness
Precisely. I'll pray for Astraios' soul hypocritically and then I'll laugh when he can't enter heaven muahahaha.Shrdlu wrote:I, and Eandil, are probably more interested in what you are going to do when you are standing infront of the gates of heaven, after 6,000+ years in purgatory, and suddenly realize that you can't enter its premise.Astraios wrote:And what're you gonna do about it, bitch?
.
Payback's a bitch, right?
@Astraios: Because, whatever language is spoken in Heaven, it will mark tense.