LL-L "Grammar" 2008.07.17 (06) [E]

Thu Jul 17 23:56:43 UTC 2008

=======================================================================

 L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226

 http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.php

 Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org - lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.net

 Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html

 Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html

 Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]

 Administration: lowlands.list at gmail.com or sassisch at yahoo.com

 You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
 To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
 text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
 sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.

 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West) Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)

=======================================================================

 ========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 17 July 2008 - Volume 06
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
 ========================================================================

From: Kevin & Cheryl Caldwell <kevin.caldwell1963 at verizon.net>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2008.07.17 (02) [E]

Ah, but you can also say the following and still be understood (though some
may find these a bit ambiguous):

Reinhard the book to Jonny gives.

The book to Jonny Reinhard gives.

To Jonny the book does Reinhard give.

To Jonny Reinhard gives the book.

A lot of the intelligibility relies on voice inflection and gesturing while
talking (or other visual clues). Otherwise no one would have understood Yoda
in the Star Wars movies.

Kevin Caldwell
----------

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2008.07.16 (01) [E]

> From: jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2008.07.14 (03) [E]
>
> Well- I think for the reason of efficiency SL has to be reduced to a
> certain, shortened level of elements that are really important. In
> the

That could hardly be further from the truth, Jonny. Words in sign
languages are generally very highly inflected and therefore tend to
express a lot of meaning in a single sign. In BSL, for example, the sign
for "ask" inflects to give "I-ask-you", "you-ask-me", "I-ask-the-child"
and so on.

On top of this, we have two hands and it's quite usual to sign two words
at the same time, so that such things as "it was two-nil for us", "he
was driving and on his phone at the same time" and so on are made in the
space of one sign.

Although BSL doesn't distinguish gender as English does, it has first,
second, third and fourth person pronouns as opposed to the three in
English, it distinguishes pronouns between children and adults, has two
distinct types of simple sentence according to the form of the verb and
so on.

> past you already had 'outet' yourself as an advocate for simplifying
> languages, so I think many of your theories have to be seen as a
> result of your personal experiences. (BTW: I always see exactly the
> opposite occurring in your postings!)

I didn't say I advocated simplifying languages.

> But- isn't this, more or less, valid for all languages? If I'd have to
> deal with a very complex, intricate matter I always should prefer a
> written script to any spoken word. The possibilities then are wider; a
> written text, correctly using all facilities of grammar, implies more
> accuracy. And it can shorten the way to the object considerably.

I should think it depends on the skill of the writer! While people
generally have a high level of competence in their native language when
they speak (though they're not so good at listening, I often find!),
most people find it a lot harder to say what they mean in writing.

> As you might remember, caused by your contributions I've dealt a
> little bit with the unbelievable and striking possibilities of SL, but
> large and by it 'just' will remain a replacement for spoken languages-
> with less potentiality in comparison of people who are on the same
> educational level, one group using SL, the other one spoken words. Or
> don't you think so?

I don't see what point you're trying to make.

> > Expressiveness in natural
> > languages doesn't arise from the logicality of the grammar, but from
> the
> > use of metaphor, and I'd say that can be used in any language.
> Idioms and metaphors are the most difficult parts for a learner of a
> foreign language, and they are often longwinded.

We weren't talking about learners, we were talking about whether some
languages are less capable of expression than others.

But what do you mean? Idiom and metaphor are ways of saying things
succintly, they're not long-winded.

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2008.07.16 (03) [E]

> From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2008.07.16 (01) [E]
>
> Clever grammar not need. I write this like, you understand good. More
> word just make hard read or hear.
>
Grammar clever want want want. That yuck write, ethics wise become not
wait wait wait. Word lot interest excite :)

Don't you think the understandability of your sentence depends on our
mutual ability in English grammar? I don't see why, if I spoke a
sufficiently "foreign" language, I shouldn't be equally confident that
your first sentence means "If you're clever you don't need grammar," or
"If you're clever at grammar you'll never want for anything," or
whatever you can make of it without the precise semantics of the "little
words".

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Grammar

> Quite so, Paul.

> "You give book me"

> Or simpler still: "You give book I"

Is any of this really simpler grammar? I think it's English grammar that
we as English speakers tend to be able to supply the missing pieces for,
but if we couldn't supply the missing pieces because we don't know any
English-like languages, then "we do for" (same process applied :)

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/

•

==============================END===================================

 * Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.

 * Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.

 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.

 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l")

   are to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at

   http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080717/cf3f25db/attachment.htm>