[base ref: http://linguistlist.org/]

1. a link to the Electronic Metastructure for Endangered Languages Data

My reaction to that chain of blocks of signs—that’s how linguists refer to words, you know, sometimes they just say c.o.b.o.s. for short. Cobos. Words.–was the imagination of one half of a dialog taking place contemporarily in the Pacific Northwest. I would like you to hear and experiance it the way I did. So read it out, in a high rasp of a voice with wide tonal and pathic fluctuation brought on rapidly. Go.

Hey guys, I say we get together, and write some software, maybe put some of those old computers together for it to spin around on, and put language of the indians on there. I mean, the Native Americans You Have To Say Now, did you know they’re right on the edge about to lose their language forever? I mean, we owe them at least that, don’t we?

Nobody likes the good ol’ indigenous more than good ol’ you, but how much good will a tea party like that do?

Actually, I don’t even know if that’s what they or anybody does even remotely. But I don’t mind assuming that’s the case.

2. a link to Linguist List Plus

You know, it’s the little things. It really is. I mean, yeah, I was thinking Linguist List sounded cool, but I really wasn’t sure, you know. I’m busy. I don’t got time for that. But the ‘Plus’ got me. It’s like they were sending me a message that they were going to do just a little bit more to provide me with the value that one would rightfully expect from a Linguists Club. In the end, that’s what makes the difference. They don’t want me to end up finding some other group of Linguists, so? So they add just a little tiny bit more. It doesn’t take much. It really doesn’t.

One more quick snip-quote so that you’ll come to know why, if I’m so Bridgettely enchanted with the enhanced LL, I’m here now and not over there looking at all the linging berries and longenlarries.

An annual subscription to Blackwell’s Linguist List Plus is excellent value at just $67/£40

Oh, don’t get me wrong; I’m not arguing that that’s not, indeed, an excellent value. I just need it to be a little more excellenty. Like maybe just “excellent plus,” that might do it, I don’t know, I’d have to see.

[I don’t know why I care; this should be totally unnecessary. But it can be tricky through voiceless media–no other “inflection grammar,” as I call it, even comes close–so I’ll just come right out and tell you, forbid you, not to construe this, and by metonomy there and schenexdtoe back, the rest of the site, by extension, a maker-funner. It’s already fun enough. Madder than fat? I just rememebered: I frequently disagree with Noam Chomsky’s ideas, or, not with them so much as their half-bakedness, and yet! (again!) I think he’s superactionhero badax and he will always be a hero of mine for even being able to become a superhero in the field of linguistics. It’s not a discipline that has historically turned out a high rate of ass whuppers over the years. They’re not eve the kind of people that other people know exist. And it was in that kind of hostile environment that Noam became a feared (and laughed at sometimes) man.]

[[Of course, immediately after writting the above and taking my leave of it, I run into this:]]

Here’s what Edward Sapir (considered by many the greatest American linguist of the last century) said:

So, I was wrong. There have been Linguists who’ve known the sweet sound of a superlative spoken of her or himself. And what do they do? They turn right around and pour it on another–a “nother” one, or a “nother” thing, lo que sea:

Language is the most massive and inclusive art we know, a mountainous and
anonymous work of unconscious generations.

And the biggest scam, as well!

For as long as I can remember–and probably ten years longer–I have, yes, I admit it, allowed myself to get a little bothered when I hear people say “try and do better” instead of “try to do better.” I’m really not a noun Nazi, I promise! It’s just that that one is one of the few occasions when it’s not about knowing the rule. It just makes sense one way and none at all any other ways, and you don’t have to be smart to know that because it follows the standard English pattern of forming the infinitive of a verb by sticking ‘to’ in front of it. You don’t have to know what ‘infinitive’ means or even what a verb is to know that ‘to’ is the word “to use.”

That was a bit of a rantita. What I was really trying to get at is that it’s nice now to know what to call that silly substituion.

hendiadys
The substitution of conjunction for subordination in expressing a compound notion.

Okay, back to the ranting–or maybe it’s time for the raving, I’m never sure of the exact proportions…

The other thing like that–meaning simply illogical –that always gets me (this one more than the other, in fact) is the good ol’ classic “I could care less.” Ah, tried and true, it’s never out of fashion. Except that it’s not true at all. I estimate approximately 98.2% of the people whip out that phrase in contexts in which they mean to say the exact opposite thing. It’s just so obvious that it bears no more discussion.

Yet!

On the total other hand., There’s another common phrase that takes a liberty considered non-standard in this country, and it doesn’t take even a kindergartner’s education to spot it, but in this case I like it and will sooner look for another construction than correct the “mistake.” What is it?

It’s called ‘dystmesis’ (so, obviously it’s a form of tmesis, whatever the fuck in hell that is if not the third to last ingredient in my dandruff shampoo). See, what happens is, the compound is separated at an inappropriate or unlikely position. Seriously. It does. I’ve seen it happen. You have too. There are a lot of exclamation variants that probably qualify on the technicality–those that belong to the “un-freaking-believable” category–but the big teddy granddaddy of them all, the one whose smoothness I’ve been thinking of? Sure you’re ready? Ready-ready? K::=>>

a whole ‘nother story

A bulleted list (dots, not squares or angle brackets–nothing like that) of “The Main Ideas of Word Grammar” included the following enry:

It uses word-word dependencies - e.g. a noun is the subject of a verb. (From John Anderson and other users of Dependency Grammmar, via Daughter Dependency Grammar; a reaction against Systemic Grammar where word-word dependencies are mediated by the features of the mother phrase.)

I kind of aww and giggle and think it’s cute that grammar guys and gals, divided among rival factions, quarrel in very reserved, highly abstracted ways.

I’m also, to be quite honest with you, quite intrigued by this whole human-taxonomy sex thing. I’d never heard of it before, but apparently it’s not something one dabbles in when not ready to take seriously the responsibilities of raising a family. I mean, I can’t quite sort out who the father-in-law of that one Swedish guy who, I heard, was the one who started it all but how is what I want to know–I mean, what kind of line did he use? must’ve been some kind of jedi mind trick or something–but anyway, it was alright in the beginning, you know, at first, but it became a very co-dependent (and disfunctional, more likely than not!) relationship. That’s what I was told, anyway. But I’m still missing a Grandma in there. A couple sisters fell under her at some point, but I think most of them have gone their separate ways now and formed other groups. Guess words tend to do that, I don’t know, something in their culture or something, you know, it’s more accepted, not like it is here. But they do seem like a fertile bunch, don’t they?