<div dir="ltr"><div>Very much agreed. We need to keep language-specific descriptive categories apart from comparative concepts, and not assume that comparative concepts need be "real" but rather need be well enough defined tools that are crucial to consistent systematic cross-linguistic comparison. If language-specific descriptivists uncritically adopt comparative concepts in their descriptions we run into having translation grammars from "typologese" and circular problems of only finding what we thought to look for.</div><div><br></div>/Hedvig</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>____________________________________<br>Sharing is caring, if you stumble across something you think I might find interesting then send it my way. I do the same.<br><br>Please forgive me for any mistakes of orthography (especially Swedish and French diacritics), I try to answer as fast as possible and sometimes that results in less than optimal key board output.<br></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-07-07 1:14 GMT+10:00 Martin Haspelmath <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:haspelmath@eva.mpg.de" target="_blank">haspelmath@eva.mpg.de</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>I would say that both Grev Corbett and
Dan Everett are right:<br>
<br>
Dan is right that similar categories across languages are often
not "the same". The Tagalog ang-Nominal is similar to a Subject in
English, but it's not the same, and the German Future tense is
similar to the French Future tense, but they are not "the same".<br>
<br>
Grev is right that different terms can obscure the similarities,
and since we want to understand the similarities, we should see
beyond the accidents of local traditions.<br>
<br>
Dan has in mind the level of descriptive categories (which are
different across languages), and Grev has the in mind level of
comparative concepts (which are a prerequisite for
cross-linguistic generalizations).<br>
<br>
An interesting question is whether comparative concepts can/should
be "standardized" (perhaps so), and whether one should urge
grammar writers to use these standard comparative terms for the
language-specific counterparts. I'm less sure about the latter,
because I wouldn't want to send the message that there are only as
many possible categories as typologists have set up comparative
concepts.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
P.S. And of course Bernhard Hurch is right as well: In a diverse
world, different styles should be acceptable. But to be honest,
globalized science is not a diverse world – it's supposed to be
ruthlessly efficient, like globalized business. (In this way, and
quite ironically, globalized language typology is part of the kind
of process that is drastically reducing linguistic diversity.)<br>
<br>
On 06.07.15 08:29, Everett, Daniel wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Wrt the larger issue, Grev, about things being "the same" I
am not so sanguine. Many people think there is a passive
construction that is universal but I think that is mistaken. I
am more concerned about over homogenization of
typological/descriptive terms than LaTeX. But I am sure you are
too. The problem is when people begin thinking that there are
"same contructions" - this can become self-fulfilling. Not
always perhaps. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Dan<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone</div>
<div><br>
On Jul 6, 2015, at 09:23, "<a href="mailto:g.corbett@surrey.ac.uk" target="_blank">g.corbett@surrey.ac.uk</a>"
<<a href="mailto:g.corbett@surrey.ac.uk" target="_blank">g.corbett@surrey.ac.uk</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>I guess there is a small answer and a larger answer.
<div><br>
<div>small: changing commas to full stops for
journal A, and then back to commas for journal B isn’t a
great use of people’s time. Better we diversify our
thinking rather than our reference formatting. Share the
tools but diversify the products.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>larger: we don’t always realise which things
are the same and which are different, and that’s a waste
too. For instance, there are Africanists who believe that
‘pluractionals' are special to the languages of Africa.
But they are what others call ‘verbal number’ and you can
find that all over.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And then there’s the worst case scenario:</div>
<div><a href="http://www.cse.lehigh.edu/%7Egtan/bug/localCopies/marsOrbiter" target="_blank">http://www.cse.lehigh.edu/~gtan/bug/localCopies/marsOrbiter</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Very best, Grev</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 6 Jul 2015, at 13:30, Hurch, Bernhard
(<a href="mailto:bernhard.hurch@uni-graz.at" target="_blank">bernhard.hurch@uni-graz.at</a>)
<<a href="mailto:bernhard.hurch@uni-graz.at" target="_blank">bernhard.hurch@uni-graz.at</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>Can anybody tell me why everything
must be standardized, unified, vereinheitlicht?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Can’t people live with
diversification / in a diversified world? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Aren’t different styles the
(necessary) result of different traditions,
different discourse types and different views of
the world?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I seem not to know what modern
typology is about. Traditional typology
presumably wasn’t like that. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bernhard</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>Am 06.07.2015 um 12:38 schrieb
Martin Haspelmath <<a href="mailto:haspelmath@eva.mpg.de" target="_blank">haspelmath@eva.mpg.de</a>>:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>On 04.07.15
08:37, Kilu von Prince wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Dear all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I agree that acceptance of
articles in LaTeX format should be
more widespread than it is at the
moment. I may add that the style
guides of many linguistics journals
could be significantly improved if
they incorporated more of the
established best-practices in
typesetting that are automatically
implemented by default LaTeX styles.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Moreover, it would be better if linguistics
journals agreed on a single style guide, see
<a href="http://www.frank-m-richter.de/freescienceblog/2015/03/18/how-to-make-linguistics-publication-more-efficient-use-discipline-wide-style-rules/" target="_blank">http://www.frank-m-richter.de/freescienceblog/2015/03/18/how-to-make-linguistics-publication-more-efficient-use-discipline-wide-style-rules/</a><br>
<br>
These issues should ideally be discussed by
a committee of linguistics editors, such as
the LSA's CeLxJ (<a href="http://celxj.org/" target="_blank">http://celxj.org/</a>).<br>
<br>
There will be a meeting of European
linguistics editors just before the next SLE
meeting in Leiden (see
<a href="http://sle2015.eu/programme" target="_blank">http://sle2015.eu/programme</a>,
"pre-conference mini-workshop"), which will
primarily discuss other issues, but where we
may decide to found such a committee of the
SLE.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Also, to share a related
anecdote, it is sometimes in fact the
editors rather than the publisher who
insist on a submission in .doc format.
I once submitted an articles to a
Benjamins journal. When the editors
requested a .doc version, I asked them
to speak with their publisher if they
couldn't work with a LaTeX or PDF
file. Then I learned that it was the
editors themselves who needed the .doc
file for their workflow during the
revisions process. I'd like to appeal
to editors to have mercy on their
LaTeX-using authors and try to develop
a workflow that is compatible with
PDFs. Converting LaTeX to .doc is
time-consuming and depressing.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Kind regards,</div>
<div>Kilu</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 4,
2015 at 1:35 PM, Guillaume Jacques <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:rgyalrongskad@gmail.com" target="_blank">rgyalrongskad@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Don,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It is obvious to
anyone who has learned LaTeX
that word-processors like "word"
or "open office" are completely
inadapted to the typesetting of
linguistics dissertations or
articles. LaTeX is superior in
particular for handling aligned
glossed examples (package gb4e),
complex figures (tikz),
Stammbäume, cross-references,
bibliography, complex scripts
and of course math formulas. I
actually now require from all my
new MA and PhD students to write
their dissertations in LaTeX (in
general, three days are enough
to master the most important
commands).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Fortunately, the
number of linguistics journal
and of publishers accepting
LaTeX is now growing year after
year. At the present moment,
most if not all linguistics
journals published by the
following major publishers
accept LaTeX submissions (only
those I have personnally tested;
the list is not exhaustive):<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mouton de Gruyter</div>
<div>Benjamins</div>
<div>Brill</div>
<div>Elsevier</div>
<div>MIT Press</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I rarely have to
convert my articles into word
format anymore.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Publishers that are
still lagging behind with LaTeX
include (we should collectively
give them some pressure to catch
up with the rest of the world):</div>
<div>Cambridge University
Press (for instance, Journal of
the IPA)</div>
<div>Chicago University
Press (IJAL)</div>
<div>(perhaps also Wiley)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Some journasl do not
use LaTeX files, but will
convert them for you (from my
personal experience,
Anthropological Linguistics and
Journal of Chinese Linguistics)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you submit to a
collective volume for Mouton de
Gruyter or Benjamins, they
should be able to handle a LaTeX
submission even if most of the
volume is in word, but the
editors of the volume may have
to insist a little bit.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Guillaume</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2015-07-04
11:22 GMT+02:00 Don
Killian <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:donald.killian@helsinki.fi" target="_blank">donald.killian@helsinki.fi</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dear all,<br>
<br>
After fighting with
Microsoft Word for the
past few weeks, I was
wondering if there is
any way we can find
additional standards for
article and chapter
submission?<br>
<br>
It seems that a majority
of editors still have a
fairly strict
requirement of Microsoft
Word and Times New
Roman, even if the
publisher itself is more
open to other formats.
Times New Roman is more
flexible, but I have not
had very much luck with
alternatives to Word
(such as Open Office or
pdfs made from LaTeX).<br>
<br>
This is a problem for
more than one reason.
The biggest problem I
can see (in addition to
the fact that both Word
as well as Times New
Roman are proprietary!)
is that the
technological
requirements do not
actually support the
formatting requirements
we suggest. Neither Word
nor Times New Roman
support the IPA in its
entirety.<br>
<br>
While these problems do
not affect all linguists
(such as those who do
not have certain sounds
in their languages they
work on), it definitely
affects plenty of
others.<br>
<br>
For instance, there is
no way to change glyph
selection in Word, and
<a> changes to
<ɑ> when
italicized. It is
relatively common to
italicize words when you
mix languages in text.
But if you are
discussing a language
which has both a and ɑ,
this is problematic.
Furthermore, Word has no
way of rendering the MH
or HM tonal contours
properly, in any font.
Those symbols are only
supported in Charis SIL
and Doulos SIL fonts,
and Word renders them
incorrectly.<br>
<br>
There are plenty of
other difficulties (e.g.
making a vowel chart),
so these are just some
examples.<br>
<br>
I realize the main
reason for using
Word/TNR is simplicity
and what people are used
to, but I do find it
problematic that our
technology requirements
do not support or make
it easy to deal with
common problems in our
field.<br>
<br>
Is there any way to
change this? LaTeX does
support almost
everything I have ever
needed, but I admit it
is not always very easy
to learn or use. I would
be happy to hear
alternative views or
suggestions.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Don<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>Lingtyp mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a></span><br>
<span><a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Lingtyp mailing list
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>