[Lingtyp] Contents of Lingtyp digest. PUT=LET GO: An areal feature?

Edmond Cane ecane2000 at yahoo.com
Sat Jan 5 13:46:58 UTC 2019


 Dear all

Albanian seems to besimilar to Romance languages – almost identical to Italian examples

1. Lë     dikë                  tëshkojë 

Let        someone          (to) go



2. Më                lër                                rehat
   (me)               leave2nd, Sing              in peace            (Leave me alone)




3. Lë     librin                 mbitavolinë

Leave   the book           onthe table

 

 “lë”  isstill not the “primary” verb for situations like in 2) or 3) – the direct verbequivalent to “to put” is

 

4. Vë                librin                 mbi tavolinë

Put                   thebook           on the table



Edmond Cane

Lecturer, AlbanianLanguage

Beijing InternationalStudies University

 


    On Saturday, January 5, 2019, 1:05:22 AM GMT+8, lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org> wrote:  
 
 Send Lingtyp mailing list submissions to
    lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
    lingtyp-owner at listserv.linguistlist.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Lingtyp digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: PUT=LET GO: An areal feature? (E. Bashir)
  2. Re: PUT=LET GO: An areal feature? (in Tahitian)
      (Jacques Vernaudon)
  3. Re: Verbs of success with dative subject (Hannu Tommola)
  4. Re: Co-expression of future and past (Don Killian)
  5. Re: Verbs of success with dative subject (Spike Gildea)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 17:20:41 +0000 (UTC)
From: "E. Bashir" <ebashir at yahoo.com>
To: Joo Ian <ian.joo at outlook.com>,
    "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
    <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Cc: Meichun Liu <meichunliu0107 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] PUT=LET GO: An areal feature?
Message-ID: <1158537526.5713059.1546536041883 at mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Interestingly, in some languages I work on, e.g. Urdu (spoken in Pakistan and northern India), the word for 'to put, keep' (rakhnaa) is a semantic causative of the verb meaning 'to remain, stay' (rahnaa).  Thus it has a meaning opposite to that of the word for 'let go, abandon' (choRnaa).
Elena BashirThe University of Chicago

      From: Joo Ian <ian.joo at outlook.com>
 To: "lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org" <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org> 
Cc: Meichun Liu <meichunliu0107 at gmail.com>
 Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 4:03 AM
 Subject: [Lingtyp] PUT=LET GO: An areal feature?
  
 Dear all,

I wonder if you know any language where the primary morpheme meaning 'to put' and the one meaning 'to let go (to seize holding something)' are the same.
At this point I only know four: Mandarin (fàng), Korean (noh), Mongolian (tav), and White Hmong (tso).
They are all spoken in East Asia (with White Hmong spreading out to SE Asia), so I wonder if this feature is unique to this area.

Regards,
Ian JOO (주이안)
http://ianjoo.academia.edu
_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20190103/26cccb33/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 12:59:03 -1000 (TAHT)
From: Jacques Vernaudon <jacques.vernaudon at upf.pf>
To: lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] PUT=LET GO: An areal feature? (in Tahitian)
Message-ID: <1826477844.8685294.1546556343881.JavaMail.zimbra at upf.pf>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Dear Ian,
In tahitian, TU'U means both 'to put' and 'to let go'.
Best,
Jacques

cf. dictionnaire de l'Académie tahitienne : http://www.farevanaa.pf/dictionnaire.php
TU'U
v.t. 1°) Donner. 'Ua rave ihora 'oia i te pāne, ha'amaita'i atura i te Atua, vāvahi ihora, tu'u atura ia rātou ra = Il prit du pain, rendit grâce, le rompit et le leur donna (Luk 22/19). Cf. HŌ (5), HŌRO'A. 2°) Poser. 'A tu'u i te faraoa i ni'a i te 'aira'a mā'a = Pose le pain sur la table. 3°) Mettre. 'A tu'u i te moni i roto i te 'āfata = Mets l'argent dans la caisse. 4°) Apposer (signature). 'Ua tu'u 'oe i tō ‘oe rima i raro a'e i taua parau ra = Tu as apposé ta signature sur ce document. Cf. TU'URIMA. 5°) Transmettre. E ha'apa'o ho'i te mau Phārisea 'e te 'Āti Iuda ato'a ra i te peu i tu'ua mai e te feiā tahito = En effet, les Pharisiens et tous les Juifs observent les coutumes qui ont été transmises par les anciens (Mar 7/3). ...i te fa'a'orera'a i te parau a te Atua i tā 'outou parau i tu'uhia mai i ha'amauhia e 'outou na = ...annulant la parole de Dieu par des traditions que vous avez établies vous-mêmes (Mar 7/13). 6°) Livrer quelqu'un. Nā tō ‘oe iho fenua 'e nā te mau tahu'a rarahi ra 'oe i tu'u mai iā'u nei = Ce sont les gens de ton pays et les grands prêtres qui t'ont livré à moi (Ioa. 18/35). 7°) Lâcher, libérer, céder, laisser filer (cordage). 'A tu'u iāna 'ia haere noa ana = Laisse-le partir. 'A tu'u i tenā tipi ! = Lâche ce couteau ! 'Aore roa rā mātou i tu'u = Mais nous n'avons pas cédé (Gal. 2/5). 8°) Faire partir quelqu'un. 'Ua tu'u atura te mau taea'e ia Paulo rāua 'o Sila i reira ra i Berea i te ru'i = Et aussitôt les frères firent partir de nuit Paul et Silas à Bérée (Ohi. 17/10). 'Ua tu'u atura te mau taea'e ia Paulo i reira ra e fa'ahua haere 'oia nā tai = Et aussitôt les frères firent semblant de faire partir Paul par mer (Ohi. 17/14). , v.i. Partir sur un bateau. 'Ua parau atu 'oia ia rātou : " E fano tātou i terā pae roto " ; tu'u atura rātou = Il leur dit : "Cinglons de l'autre côté du lac" ; et ils partirent (Luk. 8/22). Haere atura mātou i ni'a i te hō’ē pahī 'Aderamitio, 'ua tu'u atura = Nous montâmes sur un navire d'Adramitique et nous part◊mes (Ohi. 27/2).



----- Mail original -----
De: "lingtyp-request" <lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org>
À: "lingtyp" <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Envoyé: Vendredi 4 Janvier 2019 02:00:02
Objet: Lingtyp Digest, Vol 52, Issue 6

Send Lingtyp mailing list submissions to
        lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        lingtyp-request at listserv.linguistlist.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        lingtyp-owner at listserv.linguistlist.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Lingtyp digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: PUT=LET GO: An areal feature? (Ludwig Paul)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:51:03 +0100
From: Ludwig Paul 
To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] PUT=LET GO: An areal feature?
Message-ID:
        <20190103155103.Horde.0THeOWB9E126VnfIwSqty2k at webmail.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>
        
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes

Dear Ian,

Persian has gozAshtan (with long A) "put; let (do), allow".

Best,
Ludwig

Zitat von Joo Ian :

> Dear Frans and Harmut,
>
> I think the European verbs of ‘put/leave’ are a bit different. They  
> cannot describe the action of letting go of something you’re holding  
> on without moving it. However the ‘put-let go’ verbs I mentioned can  
> do so.
>
>
>  1.  Fang4 ta1 de shou3 ‘To let go of his/her hand’ (Mandarin)
>  2.  Son-ul noh-ta 'to let go of the hand’ (Korean)
>  3.  гараа тавих ‘to let go of the hand’ (Mongolian)
>  4.  tso tes ‘to let go of the hand’ (White Hmong)
>
> For German, for example, Hand lassen cannot express ‘to let go of  
> the hand’, it has to be Hand loslassen.
> A semi-exception would be Italian lasciare which can mean ‘to let  
> go’ and ‘to leave (something somewhere)’.
>
>
>  1.  Lasciare la mano ‘To let go of the hand’
>  2.  Lasciare il libro sul tavolo ‘To leave the book on the table’
>
> But lasciare is still not the “primary” (or the most basic, most  
> frequent) verb for ‘to put’ as I have clarified in my first mail.  
> The primary verb is mettere. I don’t know much about Greek but αφήνω  
> (after some dictinoary search) seems more like Italian lasciare as  
> well.
>
> Regards,
> Ian
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hartmut Haberland 
> Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 9:40:23 PM
> To: Frans Plank; Joo Ian
> Cc: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> Subject: SV: [Lingtyp] PUT=LET GO: An areal feature?
>
> Exactly, Frans (also MGreek αφήνω ’let, let go’, German lassen).
>
> Sie können ihren Mantel hier lassen
> could be translated by ‘You can leave your coat here’ but also ‘You  
> can put your coat her’ because putting it there implies leaving it  
> there and vice versa.
> Maybe the whole issue is an artefact of our use of English as a  
> metalanguage: ‘to put’ has an extremely wide range of possible  
> meanings.
> Hartmut Haberland
> Professor emeritus
> [RUC]
>
> Roskilde University
> Department of Communication and Arts
> Universitetsvej 1
> DK-4000 Roskilde
> Telephone: +45 46742841
>
>
> Fra: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> På vegne af  
> Frans Plank
> Sendt: 3. januar 2019 14:34
> Til: Joo Ian 
> Cc: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org; Meichun Liu 
> Emne: Re: [Lingtyp] PUT=LET GO: An areal feature?
>
> What about English, German, all the rest?
>
> She put the book on the table
> Sie legte/stellte/setzte/hängte das Buch/Glas/Kaninchen/Bild in den  
> Kühlschrank
>
> Don’t all these placing verbs imply that you let go?
> The synthetic causatives of the corresponding inchoative verbs (with  
> the local dative rather than the directional accusative occurring  
> with the same prepositions) would work, too, and perhaps even better:
>
> Sie ließ das Buch … liegen/stehen/sitzen/hängen [after she put it there]
>
> This is German:  I can gloss it for you if you want.  But you  
> probably don’t, because this is not exactly what you’re after :-)
>
> Season’s Greetings all the same!
> Frans
> On 3. Jan 2019, at 13:08, Marcel Erdal  
> > wrote:
>
> Old Turkic (Mongolia, Xinjiang) kod- 'to put down, place' and 'to  
> abandon, give up, leave alone, desert' (e.g. in G. Clauson's  
> dictionary).
> Marcel
>
> Am Do., 3. Jan. 2019 um 12:02 Uhr schrieb Joo Ian  
> >:
> Dear all,
> I wonder if you know any language where the primary morpheme meaning  
> 'to put' and the one meaning 'to let go (to seize holding  
> something)' are the same.
> At this point I only know four: Mandarin (fàng), Korean (noh),  
> Mongolian (tav), and White Hmong (tso).
> They are all spoken in East Asia (with White Hmong spreading out to  
> SE Asia), so I wonder if this feature is unique to this area.
> Regards,
> Ian JOO (주이안)
> http://ianjoo.academia.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.orgLingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.orgLingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org>
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp





------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp


------------------------------

End of Lingtyp Digest, Vol 52, Issue 6
**************************************


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2019 08:42:46 +0200
From: Hannu Tommola <hannu.tommola at uta.fi>
To: Jussi Ylikoski <jussi.ylikoski at oulu.fi>
Cc: Ludwig Paul <ludwig.paul at uni-hamburg.de>, "lingtyp at
    listserv.linguistlist.org" <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>, "E.
    Bashir" <ebashir at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Verbs of success with dative subject
Message-ID:
    <20190104084246.Horde.wgizcHVvSAKV9yklixin4vL at webmail1.uta.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed";
    DelSp="Yes"

  Hi,

Hasn't anybody mentioned Finnish?

There are the alternatives with a canonical (a) and a non-canonical
(b) subject:

'we/Jussi succeeded in everything'

(a) me/Jussi     onnistuimme/onnistui        kaike-ssa
     1PL/Jussi    succeed.PST.1PL/3SG     all-INES

(b) mei-lle/Jussi-lle   onnistui                      kaikki
     1PL/Jussi-ALL    succeed.PST.3SG     all

In the corresponding construction with a verbal complement the
non-canonicial subject is in the genitive:

'we succeeded in doing it'

(a) me onnistu-i-mme         teke-mä-än se-n
     1PL succeed-PST-1PL  do-3INF-ILL it-GEN(ACC)

(b) meidä-n  onnistu-i         teh-dä    se
     we-GEN succeed-PST  do-INF   it

Happy new year and success to all,

Hannu

Quoting Jussi Ylikoski <jussi.ylikoski at oulu.fi>:

>  
>
>    Dear all,
>
>     
>
>    Here is a non-IE example from North Saami (Uralic), disregarding
> the probable influence from its Scandinavian neighbors. ILL stands
> for the illative, the case for Direction and Recipient, which could
> be (and earlier has been) labeled "dative" as well:
>
>     
>
>    Midjiide/Johanii   lihkostuvai     buot.
>
>    1PL.ILL/Johan.ILL  succeed.PST.3SG all
>
>    'We/Johan succeeded in everything.'
>
>    (cf. Norwegian /Alt lykkes for oss/Johan/.)
>
>     
>
>    Unlike in Scandinavian, a dummy subject usually does not occur:
>
>     
>
>    Midjiide/Johanii   ii      lihkostuvvan     oažžut  oktavuođa   duinna.
>
>    1PL.ILL/Johan.ILL  NEG.3SG succeed.PST.PTCP get.INF contact.ACC 2SG.ACC
>
>    'We/Johan didn't succeed in contacting you.'
>
>    (cf. Norwegian /Det lyktes ikke for oss/Johan å ta kontakt med deg/.)
>
>     
>
>    Best regards,
>
>     
>
>    Jussi
  Hannu Tommola
Professor emer. of Russian Language (Translation Theory and Practice)
School of Language, Translation and Literary Studies
FIN-33014 University of Tampere, Finland
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20190104/41cb2562/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 11:47:43 +0200
From: Don Killian <donald.killian at helsinki.fi>
Cc: Lauren Reed <lauren.reed at anu.edu.au>,
    lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Co-expression of future and past
Message-ID: <449cce3a-91fa-baa5-8af1-5fb65837fddf at helsinki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

Dear Lauren,

Apologies for the delay, but I thought to point out two things that 
might be of interest.

First, According to Aviles (2008), Dar Daju Daju is a language which has 
present and non-present forms of verbs. The default interpretation is 
generally past tense, but if an irrealis particle ki is added to the 
clause, it gives a future interpretation.

In Balantak, you actually find a present vs non-present distinction in 
demonstratives (van den Berg & Busenitz 2012). Non-perceived 
demonstratives refer to something out of view, and non-present forms add 
a component indicating that the referent is no longer in the location, 
or not yet in the location. Something slightly similar occurs in the 
demonstrative system of Sakao (Guy 1974).

Best,

Don

Aviles, Arthur J. 2008. The phonology and morphology of the Dar Daju 
Daju language. MA thesis, University of North Dakota.

van den Berg, René and Robert Busenitz. 2012. A grammar of Balantak. SIL 
International.

Guy, J.B.M. 1974. A Grammar of the Northern Dialect of Sakao. Canberra, 
Pacific Linguistics Series B.

On 11.12.2018 1:37, Lauren Reed wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> My colleague Alan Rumsey and I are working on a small sign language in 
> Western Highlands, Papua New Guinea. The language has a marker which 
> appears to express either remote future or remote past. This 
> co-expression is attributed by users to the fact that both far future 
> and far past events occur many sleep-wake cycles from now.
> 
> I am interested in hearing of any other examples you may be aware of 
> where languages overtly mark both future and past with the same marker 
> (whether this be remote or not).
> 
> Best regards
> Lauren
> 
> *---*
> *Lauren Reed*
> *Australian National University
> *
> *laurenwreed.com <http://laurenwreed.com>*
> *+61 438 583 808*
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> 


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 16:22:40 +0000
From: Spike Gildea <spike at uoregon.edu>
To: Ilja Seržant <ilja.serzants at uni-leipzig.de>
Cc: "Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org"
    <Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Verbs of success with dative subject
Message-ID: <A4340724-DFA1-4FA7-922C-2FE85583350B at uoregon.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

First, I thank everyone for sharing  examples of dative subjects with predicates of success. Alongside the expected examples in Indo-European languages of the Slavic, Romance, Germanic, and Indic families, examples were proposed from Causasian languages in general (with Akhvakh as an example), North Saami and Finnish (Uralic), Hebrew (Semitic), and Japhug (Tibeto-Burman) — while there are at least examples outside of IE, this is not a particularly robust cross-linguistic attestation of the phenomenon. I originally posted the query because I am aware of no examples in the non-canonical case-marking languages of South America, and it is interesting that nobody has mentioned examples from the language families of North America or Austronesia
that are known for semantic alignment.

Second, with regard to Ilja’s query, there is a long tradition of disputing the use of the term “subject” for apparent primary arguments that do not bear the canonical case-marking of subjects in a given language, in particular for analyses of "dative subjects". Much of Jóhanna’s own work (particularly Eythorsson & Barðdal 2005, Barðdal & Eyth̩órsson 2012) participates in this dispute, in that she has consistently used a range of syntactic tests to distinguish dative subjects from non-subject dative experiencers, such as order, raising, reflexivization (both long-distance and clause-bound), control infinitives, and conjunction reduction. The disputes arise from the fact that these syntactic tests do not give consistent results, even in closely related Germanic languages like Icelandic, where all such tests show that the only distinction between nominative subjects and non-canonical subjects is case-marking and verb agreement, and German (which is more akin to the range of other European languages), where only a subset of the tests syntactically align potential dative subjects with nominative subjects. It is true that different theoretical perspectives interpret this phenomenon differently, and in particular, some prefer to privilege the term “subject” as a theoretical label that should not be assigned on the basis of some (non-specific) subset of “subject tests”.

In this query, I was hoping to finesse the (ultimately necessary) question of “what is a non-canonical subject in theory?” and its operational correlate “which criteria should count most in identifying them?” That is, I hoped just to use the term “dative subject” as a shorthand by which colleagues might recognize constructions in individual languages that show a combination of properties that would then constitute potentially interesting cases for follow-up. I could re-formulate the query in more precise terms as follows: we are looking for indications of languages for which (i) predicates of success mark the “succeeder” as a dative (or other non-canonical case that could be used to mark recipients or benefactives), and (ii) the syntactic properties associated with this dative “succeeder” are distinct from clear “indirect object” dative arguments in that they share one or more syntactic properties with canonical subjects.

Best,
Spike

References
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2012. ‘Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies’: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3): 363–393.
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2005. Oblique Subjects: A Common Germanic Inheritance. Language 81(4): 824–881.


On Jan 3, 2019, at 11:34 PM, Ilja Seržant <ilja.serzants at uni-leipzig.de<mailto:ilja.serzants at uni-leipzig.de>> wrote:


Dear all,

I apologize for a side remark. But do we call any kind of argumental and non-argumental animate (experiencer) dative NP a non-canonical subject? :-) Does it really make sense to use the notion of subject that way? Woudn't be a term like "dative experiencer" or "dative/recipient-like experiencer" be more adequate for a cross-linguistic comparison?

Best,

Ilja

Am 21.12.2018 um 17:00 schrieb Spike Gildea:
Dear colleagues,

I forward a query from my colleague, Jóhanna Barðdal, who is looking for examples of predicates of "success” with non canonical subject marking, in particular those that take a dative subject.

We are working on Indo-European verbs/predicates with the meanings 'succeed', 'be successful', 'make progress', 'turn out well', 'go well'. The last one in the sense "he is doing well in his dance class" or even "he is doing well in life”.

Thank you in advance for indications of other places in the world where we might find such predicates taking a dative subject!

Best,
Spike



_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp


--
Ilja A. Seržant, postdoc
Project "Grammatical Universals"
Universität Leipzig (IPF 141199)
Nikolaistraße 6-10
04109 Leipzig

URL: http://home.uni-leipzig.de/serzant/

Tel.: + 49 341 97 37713
Room 5.22

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20190104/a89d8830/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp


------------------------------

End of Lingtyp Digest, Vol 52, Issue 7
**************************************
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20190105/78dd4794/attachment.htm>


More information about the Lingtyp mailing list