Page 4 of 10

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-10, 20:34
by księżycowy
Either section or subsection (for the lengthier sections) I'd say.

Unlike the other text, he doesn't have lessons (per se), but rather grammar topics.

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-10, 22:00
by dEhiN
So I would say sub-sections for the first section, since the writing system system part seems to stretch from page 5 to page 17.

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 7:33
by vijayjohn
I might even say sub-subsections.

Then how about we make our next assignment section 1A of Chapter 1 from Foxvog, i.e. p. 5 and the top of p. 6?

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 7:51
by Antea
So you have changed the textbook ? Now you’re following the new one, and we don’t have to continue with the other one. Is that correct? Because I would like to catch up next week if finally I have some free time :ohwell:

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 8:26
by vijayjohn
No, they're just asking whether we should use this other textbook instead (and speculating about how that would work). Both of them support the idea, and I'm okay with it, too, but my understanding is that we're okay with sticking with Zólyomi for now if you prefer. I honestly am pretty indifferent either way because I'm very familiar with all the linguistic terminology being used. In fact:
księżycowy wrote:My God.....this guy likes to ramble on and be super technical. Geez. Just give the the basics and build from there.

That's probably because he's writing for an audience with a fairly strong background in linguistics. This is just how literature in linguistics is written because linguists already know what "split ergativity" and "phonemes" and all that jazz is.

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 9:19
by Antea
Whatever text you choose would be ok for me. Just to know which one you're using.

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 9:41
by Antea
I was watching this video about a team thar it’s working in a Sumerian translator (it’s in Russian). But I don’t understand really well how the translator is supposed to work, because they say that every symbol could represent a concept, and then they use numbers? :hmm:

https://youtu.be/hQk1A2BqTQQ

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 9:57
by księżycowy
vijayjohn wrote: I honestly am pretty indifferent either way because I'm very familiar with all the linguistic terminology being used.

I can't speak for any one else in the group, but I ain't no linguist.

In fact:
[...]
That's probably because he's writing for an audience with a fairly strong background in linguistics. This is just how literature in linguistics is written because linguists already know what "split ergativity" and "phonemes" and all that jazz is.

Good for them.

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 12:19
by Eril
I prefer an actual textbook with lessons instead of a grammar book. Sure, also Foxvog provides some exercises, but the text seems less didactic, at least from first impression without reading much.

Only thing I didn't like about Zólyomi's textbook so far is that he claims to use IPA, but doesn't, at least not consistently.
The IPA sign for the glottal stop in table 2.1 is wrong (should be ʔ), and also the one for the velar nasal (should be ŋ) - the ɳ he uses instead would be a retroflex nasal (you may know it from e.g. Sanskrit), which got me a bit confused - in the text later he uses ŋ, so it was probably a typo in the table.
But it was interesting to get to know about the actual phonology - in the introductory university course I took a while ago, I'm certain that we were not told that the stops differed between aspirated and non-aspirated instead of voiceless and voiced.

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 18:45
by vijayjohn
Maybe he changed these things in a later edition? But I think ' is pretty common among linguists as a symbol that's interchangeable with [ʔ].
księżycowy wrote:I can't speak for any one else in the group, but I ain't no linguist.

I understand that. I was just expressing my own opinion. I can always skip through Foxvog's definitions of linguistic concepts anyway since he always conveniently separates them from the rest of his text. :)

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 18:48
by księżycowy
I've been finding it hard to juggle all of these study groups (I've got a taste of what you must go through, Vijay!), and I'm sorry to say this is the short man on the totem pole.

Though I'll still read your progress.

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 18:54
by vijayjohn
Sorry to hear that, księżycowy! (Btw yeah, I'm kind of struggling to keep up with all these groups myself... :lol: which is why I haven't posted anything in some of them for this week).

So...it looks to me like sticking with Zólyomi may be the best approach at this point to satisfy everyone. Is that okay with everyone for now? (I assume it's okay with you, księżycowy, since AFAIU you're saying you just want to watch from the sidelines at this point :P).

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 18:57
by księżycowy
Absolutely fine by me. :)

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 20:05
by dEhiN
Eril wrote:I prefer an actual textbook with lessons instead of a grammar book. Sure, also Foxvog provides some exercises, but the text seems less didactic, at least from first impression without reading much.

For you, do either of Zólyomi or Foxvog come across as an actual textbook with lessons? I agree that Foxvog seems less didactic.

Eril wrote:Only thing I didn't like about Zólyomi's textbook so far is that he claims to use IPA, but doesn't, at least not consistently.
The IPA sign for the glottal stop in table 2.1 is wrong (should be ʔ), and also the one for the velar nasal (should be ŋ) - the ɳ he uses instead would be a retroflex nasal (you may know it from e.g. Sanskrit), which got me a bit confused - in the text later he uses ŋ, so it was probably a typo in the table.

My understanding is that Zólyomi's text is a collation of his lecture notes made into an online textbook, or pdf. As such, I noticed several syntactic errors in the first lesson, though I didn't take note of any of them. I considered doing so and contact Zólyomi on Academia.edu, but couldn't be bothered with the effort that would take.

vijayjohn wrote:So...it looks to me like sticking with Zólyomi may be the best approach at this point to satisfy everyone. Is that okay with everyone for now? (I assume it's okay with you, księżycowy, since AFAIU you're saying you just want to watch from the sidelines at this point :P).

How did you get that impression? I guess I got the impression that we're still undecided as a group. I was going to propose a vote, even if that means stalling for another week. If we do a vote, księżycowy's vote would be for Foxvog, mine would be for Foxvog as well since he uses cuneiform, and Vijay, I assume your vote is indifferent? So, we have:

Foxvog 2
Zólyomi 0
Indifferent 1

What about the other two?

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 20:07
by księżycowy
I still get a vote? :shock:

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 20:09
by Eril
dEhiN wrote:
Eril wrote:I prefer an actual textbook with lessons instead of a grammar book. Sure, also Foxvog provides some exercises, but the text seems less didactic, at least from first impression without reading much.

For you, do either of Zólyomi or Foxvog come across as an actual textbook with lessons? I agree that Foxvog seems less didactic.
Zólyomi comes across as actual textbook - exercises and, while not exactly vocab lists, at least vocab recommendations.
Sorry for being unclear, I thought my words had implied this position of mine.

vijayjohn wrote:Maybe he changed these things in a later edition? But I think ' is pretty common among linguists as a symbol that's interchangeable with [ʔ].
Possible. Yes, ' is common, but he explicitly wrote that he'd use IPA and then didn't.
But well, as was pointed out it is based on lecture notes, and furthermore, it's available for free, so not wanting to complain too much.

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 20:15
by Eril
dEhiN wrote:mine would be for Foxvog as well since he uses cuneiform

Wait - that also sounds like a good argument to me, but he doesn't seem to use cuneiform except for in the first chapter where he explains how it works.
We are referring to the same book, "Introduction to Sumerian Grammar"? https://cdli.ucla.edu/?q=cuneiform-digi ... -preprints

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 21:04
by vijayjohn
Yeah, Hayes uses cuneiform a lot more than Foxvog and (like Zólyomi) is organized into lessons but uses some technical terminology. But I wonder, given that some of us already do know this terminology, could this study group be helpful for helping those who don't overcome that hurdle (if/when necessary)?
dEhiN wrote:My understanding is that Zólyomi's text is a collation of his lecture notes made into an online textbook, or pdf. As such, I noticed several syntactic errors in the first lesson, though I didn't take note of any of them. I considered doing so and contact Zólyomi on Academia.edu, but couldn't be bothered with the effort that would take.

I think it's possible that he edited these out in a later edition, too.
How did you get that impression?

Because only you and księżycowy specifically indicated a preference for Foxvog whereas I'm indifferent, Antea just wants us to pick something from what I understand so she knows what to use, and Eril indicated a preference for Zólyomi. EDIT: I mean, the simplest solution would seem to be not changing things. :hmm:
Vijay, I assume your vote is indifferent?

Correct. I would even be okay with Hayes instead of either option.

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 21:20
by księżycowy
If cuneiform is preferred, it's Haynes all the way for me.

Re: Sumerian Study Group

Posted: 2018-11-11, 21:23
by vijayjohn
You mean Hayes, right? :P