New CBB

Thakowsaizmu & the Gang:

I respect the traditional explanation, though cousins of mine who farm have pointed out the following two "criticisms" of this:

1) for them, pig-farming is the least intensive with regard to land use. Pigs will live virtually anywhere (1/4 acre or even less), as long as they have frequent access to water (not necessarily clean) and cooling mud (or just mud). Their hairless skins are not as labor intensive as sheep, and they certainly aren't as large as cows (though some pig breeds can grow quite massive).

2) If trichinosis was such a problem for Near Eastern folks to properly slaughter and prepare swine, why wasn't it a problem/taboo for other Ancient peoples? the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Iberians, Germanic/Celtic/Slavic tribesmen, and then the folks living in the Far East? These peoples have collectively attested to the edibility of pigs for millenia. What did they know that the Mesopotamian/Judean (and perhaps Egyptian as well) did not?!

Anyone who has not had their fill of pigs (in the Ancient World at least) can snuffle through this
http://emory.academia.edu/BillieJeanCol ... an_Context

It's about Greek, Roman, Hebraic, Akkadian, Egyptian as well as Hittite attitudes about oinkers.

Given the cultural need for lots of cleansing pools (mikva'ot(sp)) for physical and spiritual cleanness, pigs' water probably was a useful tool to rationalize the ban.



I have heard the theory that part of the Hebraic ban on pork, was part of us-vs-them, a cultural distinguisher (one of the ways archaeologists know a Canaanite settlement vs a Hebrew settlement, is if you find pig bones there)


ps: thank you for the links; will give them a look-over.

But it does require much more manpower. And that was also not an option.

As to the us vs. them, I do not think pork was one of those, though there are plenty of other Hebraic laws that definitely were.

_________________
♀♥♀
Dotjen
Kotanese

If I have a language with two distinct definite articles, what kind of distinctions could the different articles encode? Irrealis vs Realis, maybe?

_________________
Banami bhjaddhos rafi mau cy vyaja cecerror.
Fools do not see the sun nor sail the seas
-Azenti Proverb

Most likely, the case, noun-class or gender (perhaps including animacy), and/or grammatical number.
The case might be "nominative vs others"; the gender might be "masc vs fem" or "animate vs inanimate"; the number might be "singular vs plural".

Also, the same spatial deixis that demonstratives encode. A three-way system might be either proximal, medial, and distal; or it might be near the speaker, near the addressee, and not near either. If you only have a two-way system, proximal vs distal is probably the one you want.

Evidentiality is also attested in some natlang(s) or other if I remember correctly; for instance, visible vs invisible. That's not really realis vs irrealis, but I guess it's related.

I think some other deixis than spatial might be encoded; perhaps temporal deixis.

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

Well...what I mean is, I have two seperate definite articles, each one of which is declined seperately. For example, they both decline for case and number. In other words, they aren't two forms of one archi-article (by analogy with "archi-phoneme"), but two completely seperate articles which both happen to be definite.

It's kinda like how genders work in Indo-Euro langs, but it's not exactly the same...both articles can be used with any word, but they each have a distinct meaning...dammit, it's nearly impossible to describe this...

_________________
Banami bhjaddhos rafi mau cy vyaja cecerror.
Fools do not see the sun nor sail the seas
-Azenti Proverb

can you demonstrate, then?

No, sadly enough, this language is still only in the planning stages.

_________________
Banami bhjaddhos rafi mau cy vyaja cecerror.
Fools do not see the sun nor sail the seas
-Azenti Proverb

well, demonstrating might help you with it, then...providing tangible examples.

(it worked with Arasamean)


tis a thought.

The problem is I'm not even sure HOW to.

Well, let me try. First of all, one (we'll call this one the first article) is a clitic (think English) and the other (we'll call this one the second article) is a suffix (think Scandinavian langs). Assuming they work on a proximal/distal relationship like Xing suggested:

1ST.ART ball be-3.SG -- "There is the ball (that is near to us)
ball-2ND.ART be-3SG -- "There is the ball (that is not near to us)

1ST.ART.ACC ball see-1.SG -- "I see the ball (that is near to us)
ball-2ND.ART.ACC see-1SG -- "I see the ball (that is far from us)

_________________
Banami bhjaddhos rafi mau cy vyaja cecerror.
Fools do not see the sun nor sail the seas
-Azenti Proverb

In a language where verb phrases are dependent marking and noun phrases are head marking, would a word that acted as the head of a noun phrase and the dependent of a verb phrase be marked as both, or would one more likely take precedence over the other?

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.

My Alpic has 3 different sets of definite articles for animate, inanimate, and collective nouns.

_________________
Mekoshan
Alpic

Chagen -

In my Gavik, an ,
There were going to be three separate articles. The masculine nouns would take the descendant of the old definite article ʿο /ʰo/. The feminine nouns would take a descendant of εγγυς /e.ŋys/ “nearby”. The neuter nouns would take a descendant of distal deictic εκεινος /e.ke:.nos/ “that”. [On reflection, a bit chauvanistic ]

But as things went along, the old Greek first declension (m & f) nouns took the descendants of the old definite article ʿο/ʿη/τo. Second declension (m, n & a few f) took the new forms of ʿο/ʿη/τo as well:

hαυ DEF.MSG.NOM /hə/
hι DEF.F SG.NOM /hi:/
hο DEF.N SG.NOM /ho/ *Originally θo < τo
where the initial /θ/ underwent lenition due to heavy influence of the m & f forms.

The old Greek third declension nouns took on a hybrid of εγγυς and εκεινος:
Эϰэ DEF.MSG.NOM /ɛ:.kə/
Эϰι DEF.F SG.NOM /ɛ:.ki/
эɔɔο DEF.N SG.NOM / ɛ:ŋ.go/

If I had the chance to do it again, I’d probably go with inanimate/animate, or
Abstract/concrete distinction.

If I understand correctly, Agreement is when
Zō-feti-del da-dæ-'o
Zoo-goto-3PL(excl) 1-day-PL(completed)
...as they are referring to the same plural.

But is it also Agreement when they are on the same word?
Zō-feti-del-'o da-dæ
Zoo-goto-3PL(excl)-PL(completed) 1-day

What you are saying is that nouns take case marking and possibly a "possessed" marking (and other similar things), right? I think it's highly unlikely that one would take precedence over the other. I think it would be very likely to have, for example, the "possessed" marking be a prefix, and the case marking be a suffix. Then a possessor would be zero marked.

Excellent! Beyond the position of the possessive adfix, this is exactly what I have.
Thankyou.

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.

So... my language (here on out to be referred to as Sarikan) has this annoyance where it goes out of control with the conjugations and makes the verb that much longer than it needs to be.
Example: Zyataikisotihnithu:
<subjunctive(Zii {changed to y because there are no official "ia" sounds in Sarikan})><plural(at)><past(ai)>RUN(kisovojo)<animate(tih)><indefinite being(ni)><recent perfect(thu)>
Some things wanted to run not very long ago.
It's a pain in the neck, but I have no idea as to how to fix it. Any ideas?

_________________
ł Æ æ

Well, maybe make the verb run less than four syllables?

_________________
♀♥♀
Dotjen
Kotanese

well, aside from breaking up the word - Zyataikiso (zya)tihnithu?

Technically, in the verb it counts as two syllables due to syllable deletion to indicate that it isn't an infinitive, like spanish. I suppose I could make a change to the overall structure.of verbs to prevent this madness...

_________________
ł Æ æ