conlang
Fri, 07 Jan 2005 09:31:15 -0800
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers. At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide! http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/GSaulB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> There are 25 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. Re: Language comparison From: Shaul Vardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2. Re: Language comparison From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3. Re: tonal language From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4. Re: THEORY: V2 word order (yet again) From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5. Re: Interjections From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 6. Re: wine script (was: You've got to be kidding me.) From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 7. Re: You've got to be kidding me. From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8. Re: Interjections From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 9. Re: my phonology From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10. Re: easy sounds From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11. Re: Interjections From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12. Re: Interjections From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 13. Re: my phonology From: Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 14. Re: Interjections From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 15. OT: YAGPT: velar vs. uvular (was: my phonology) From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 16. Re: Interjections From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 17. Re: Interjections From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 18. Re: Language comparison From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 19. Re: Christophe From: rob_nierse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 20. Re: my phonology From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 21. Re: my phonology From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 22. Re: Language comparison From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 23. Re: OT: YAGPT: velar vs. uvular (was: my phonology) From: Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 24. Re: OT: YAGPT: velar vs. uvular (was: my phonology) From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 25. Re: wine script (was: You've got to be kidding me.) From: "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 1 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:58:21 +0200 From: Shaul Vardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Language comparison > -----Original Message----- > From: Constructed Languages List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sai Emrys > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 8:53 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Language comparison > > > > > I meant "primitive" as in those used by modern-day African > tribes, and as some people would treat e.g. "Black English > Vernacular". > > In what sense are the languages used by modern-day African "tribes" "primitive", and which particular languages have you studied and/or are you referring to? Who treats Black English Vernacular as primitive and are they the kind of people we listen to on Conlang? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 00:55:28 -0800 From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Language comparison > > I meant "primitive" as in those used by modern-day African > > tribes, and as some people would treat e.g. "Black English > > Vernacular". > > > > > In what sense are the languages used by modern-day African "tribes" > "primitive", and which particular languages have you studied and/or are > you referring to? > > Who treats Black English Vernacular as primitive and are they the kind > of people we listen to on Conlang? > I was using the term ironically, as an example of what the "all languages are equal" stance would be defending. - Sai ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 11:25:29 +0100 From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: tonal language On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:53:46 -0800, H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 08:55:54AM -0300, Pablo Flores wrote: > > I mean for example, Japanese > > has Chinese-borrowed _seimei_ and _jinsei_ for "life" (slightly different > > meanings), where _sei_ (Unicode 0x751F) alone already means "life" > > (or "birth") -- but it has a gazillion homophones, so it gets _mei_ > > (Unicode 0x547D) "fate, destiny, life, appoint" or _jin_ (Unicode > > 0x4EBA) "person" as a kind of specifier. I understand many words > > in modern Mandarin are bimorphemic like this too, for the same > > reason. > > Yep, exactly. It also happens frequently in my L1, in words such is > _gina_ "child". Speakers like myself don't even know what the original > syllables stood for anymore, it's become an unanalysable unit. Or Mandarin zhi1zhu1 "spider" or hu2die2 "butterfly"? I've seen the individual characters glossed as "spider" and "butterfly", respectively, but do they ever occur separately, or with any other character than their "companion"? I can imagine that those are (at least synchronically) unanalysable, two-syllable words. (Not sure whether they can even be called bimorphemic nowadays.) Cheers, -- Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Watch the Reply-To! ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 11:31:48 +0100 From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: THEORY: V2 word order (yet again) On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 01:29:27 +1100, Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (Incidentally, if I was speaking a V2 language, would I've said: > As far as can I see, is this perfectly normal V2 word order... Quite likely. In German, I would have rendered it as "Soweit ich sehen kann, ist das eine ganz normale V2-Wortstellung"; contrast "Das ist eine Wortstellung" without the initial clause. *"Soweit ich sehen kann, das ist eine..." sounds very wrong to me. Interesting, because typically subject-verb inversion marks questions, and indeed an utterance beginning "Ist das eine ... Wortstellung" would be interpreted as a question, I'd say. But with the clause in front of it, it becomes a statement for me again. V2! Similarly for other clauses, e.g. "Wenn du von der Arbeit kommst, werde ich das Essen fertig haben" (By the time you come back from work, "will I" have dinner ready) or "Da das Wetter mir zu kalt war, blieb ich zu Hause" (Since the weather was too cold for my tastes, "staid I" at home). Cheers, -- Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Watch the Reply-To! ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 11:55:10 +0100 From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Interjections On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 18:49:13 -0500, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:14:04PM -0000, caeruleancentaur wrote: > > I'm wondering if different emotions call forth similar phonemes, e.g., is > > pain always "ow"? > > By no means. The Spanish and Italian for "ow" is [a'i], for instance. And French uses |aïe| (["[EMAIL PROTECTED]). On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 04:32:40 +0100, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (And my grandma uses /hm=?m=hm=/ for 'yes!' :-))) Reminds me of the English pair "uh-huh" and "huh-uh" that some people use for "yes" and "no", respectively. > And |ieh!| /i:/ and |bäh!| /bE/ or /bE:/ is German for 'yuck!'. What I find amusing is the contrast between German |ieh!| "yuck! ick!" and Japanese |ii| "good" :) "Sore wa ieh desu yo!" Cheers, -- Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Watch the Reply-To! ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 6 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 07:23:25 -0500 From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: wine script (was: You've got to be kidding me.) On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 17:06:03 -0500, J. 'Mach' Wust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 16:35:36 -0500, Carsten Becker ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... >>On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 16:42:15 -0000, Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>wrote: >... >>>Love the vine script, too, >> >>My script is not to be confused with the script at omniglot.com!! I've >>always referred to it as "Ornament script", "Wine script" (with W!!) or >>"Tahano Nuvenon". > >I like the wine script much better! > >http://www.beckerscarsten.de/conlang/ayeri/pics/alphabet_ayeri_ornaments.jpg > >A very beautiful design. I don't doubt it could easily be converted into a >swift writing script. Christian Thalmann has just asked if he may use my script for inspiration of further ideas. Maybe I'll try to come up with something simplified myself, I don't know. Carsten ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 7 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 07:21:37 -0500 From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: You've got to be kidding me. Manáyang! On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 22:31:50 -0000, Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Yes, it'd undergo heaviest shortening I guess. First, I must get rid >of case >> marking everything that isn't out of the way quick enough, Second ... > >Sounds like a plan. I hope you're not doing what every- >body else did and apply Gaelic sound changes to it to >make it a Sindarin wannabe. :oP Heh, yes I played a little with ideas about derivation recently. In no case I want my lang to get too near to Sindarin or Quenya. I'd like my possible daughterlangs to keep slightly Austronesian in sound. Ah well, maybe the one or the other variety might slip more into the direction of Old High German, though (h -> [C]/[X], t/d -> [T]/[D], ...). I just love that sound, too. >> >Love the vine script, too, >> >> My script is not to be confused with the script at omniglot.com!! I've >> always referred to it as "Ornament script", "Wine script" (with W!!) or >> "Tahano Nuvenon". > >Um... which script at Omniglot? I don't see a vine >script in the A-Z index. Also, your design looks more >like a vine than wine to me... though it would sure >make a beautiful label for a bottle of wine. *looks-it-up* Oh! You're right, "wine" refers to the beverage while "vine" refers to the plant. So then, it's the "Vine Script" of course! >Do you mind if I doodle with a botanical-looking >bendable script to see if I can simplify the symbols, >making it easier to write and parse? I'll credit you >with the idea, of course, if anything comes from it. OK, why not. It's a pain to write that script using normal texts. That's why there are two alphabets. The Box Script is thought to be more functional, so it isn't that appealing. I could have taken the Daléian script which is based on circles, but then I'd have to make up an explanation why the Ayeri use the Daléian script -- both people are living >3000km away from each other. Carsten ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 8 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 07:26:11 -0500 From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Interjections On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 18:49:13 -0500, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Plus, of course, interjections follow the basic phonology of their >languages - ISTR that the French equivalent of the stereotypical >"oof" (e.g. getting punched in the stomach) has either a [2] or a [9] in >it. Interjections may often follow the basic phonology of their languages, but there are many samples of conventional interjections that go beyond it. English, for instance, may have /?/ in several interjections, even though this sound is alien to the English phonology (e.g. in the negation interjection ['[EMAIL PROTECTED]@], or even ['?m)m_^?m)m_^], the same but with the mouth shut, which has much more unusual sounds). German, e.g. has /UI/ in interjections (e.g. [pfUI]), which is otherwise unknown in the German phonology. Italian has /2/ as an interjection, a sound which is alien to most dialects of that language (and to the standard, of course). Palestinian Arabic has an *ingressive* [R\] interjection, a sound which isn't phonemic in any language at all. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: j. 'mach' wust ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 9 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 07:41:21 -0500 From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: my phonology On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 03:57:41 +0100, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... >"J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ... >> To me it's not surpruising that a language with a velar-uvular contrast >> and with a alveolar-postalveolar contrast lacks palatal sounds. The >> palate would result exceedingly crowded. > >Hehe. But in English, the /T/-/s/-/S/ contrast also occurs in a >crowded area of the mouth. As Basque's /s_a/-/s_m/-/S/. It's normal that languages distinguish many tip of the tonge points of articulation (especially in fricatives), but it's unusual that there are more than two back of the tongue points of articulation. >I think /C/ >is so much different from /x/ that a contrast would be feasible. You might be cheated by your German ears. I believe that German /x/ often tends to be [X]. At least I think I can observe that I pronounce my German /x/ further back in the mouth than my German /k/. I have a very hard time to pronounce Spanish the voiced velar fricative [G] correctly since my German mouth prefers to pronounce a voiced uvular fricative [R]. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: j. 'mach' wust ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 10 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 14:32:51 +0100 From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: easy sounds Quoting Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > --- Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On 6 Jan 2005, at 1.24 pm, Elliott Lash wrote: > > > > > --- Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> # 1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <big snip> > > As for creating a language everyone can say--- > > <snip> > > It seems to me the way to build a conlang that > everyone can speak easily is to NOT specify exactly > how each letter is to sound and let each speaker find > their own comfortable way to pronounce it. That way > the conlang would have as many dialects and accents as > any widespread natlang, and yet they would all be > mutually intelligible. I'm not in the habit of agreeing with Gary on matters of phonology, but he's right here; an "easy for everyone" language should allow substantial variation of exact realizations. As a corollary, it should have a smallish phonemic inventory. > If one person reads "Di kopu ele ablo dua trecho im di > dentu, eh?" with an australian accent and another says > it with an Italian accent, and another with a German > accent, it doesn't matter. They will all understand > each other, and they will all find it easy to > pronounce. Not necessarily. It's amazing what an out-of-whack intonation can make to render a statement incomprehensible even if the segmental sounds are right. > (The example is from my language Mutande > Palu which, when I speak it, sounds a bit like > Swedish.) I find that hard to imagine. The word-forms trike me as more Romance than Swedish, and, IIRC, you're a native speaker of English, which means it's highly unlikely you'll naturally read it with the tell-tale Swedish intonation. > (This might be more an auxlang issue, but if a conlang > has NO native speakers then the pronunciation should > not be too closely specified anyway because people > will pronounce it their own way depending on their own > background anyway.) I'd go as far as to say it's strictly an auxlang issue. Whether you can pronounce my artlang correctly means a great deal less to me than whether I like the exact sound I've given it. I'm sure I'm not alone in this attitude. Andreas ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 11 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 14:47:27 +0100 From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Interjections Quoting "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:14:04PM -0000, caeruleancentaur wrote: > > I was working on my Senyecan vocabulary today (my favorite part of > > conlanging) and I came upon some of the interjections. I wondered > > who else might have some interjections in their conlang. I'm > > wondering if different emotions call forth similar phonemes, e.g., is > > pain always "ow"? > > By no means. The Spanish and Italian for "ow" is [a'i], for instance. > Plus, of course, interjections follow the basic phonology of their > languages - ISTR that the French equivalent of the stereotypical > "oof" (e.g. getting punched in the stomach) has either a [2] or a [9] in > it. I read somewhere that interjections indicating pain tend, crosslinguistically, to have low vowels, whereas ones indicating delight often have high front ones. I don't know how much truth there is to that, nor what psychophysiological factors would explain it, but must say that opening your mouth muchly (=> low vowels) when in pain seems intuitively appropriate. Andreas ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 12 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 14:56:13 +0100 From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Interjections Quoting "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 18:49:13 -0500, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Plus, of course, interjections follow the basic phonology of their > >languages - ISTR that the French equivalent of the stereotypical > >"oof" (e.g. getting punched in the stomach) has either a [2] or a [9] in > >it. > > Interjections may often follow the basic phonology of their languages, but > there are many samples of conventional interjections that go beyond it. > English, for instance, may have /?/ in several interjections, even though > this sound is alien to the English phonology (e.g. in the negation > interjection ['[EMAIL PROTECTED]@], or even ['?m)m_^?m)m_^], the same but > with the mouth > shut, which has much more unusual sounds). Of course, there's plenty of varieties of English to whom [?] isn't alien at all. It would be interesting to know if interjections like those you mention are more common in such than others, or derive from such. Andreas ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 13 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 14:03:27 -0000 From: Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: my phonology --- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I think /C/ > >is so much different from /x/ that a contrast would be feasible. > > You might be cheated by your German ears. I believe that German /x/ often > tends to be [X]. At least I think I can observe that I pronounce my German > /x/ further back in the mouth than my German /k/. German Ach-Laut is usually somewhere in between [X] and [x] -- [x_-] maybe? I can pronounce both of the latter, and consider them quite distinct. [C] and [x] sound very different to me. The Russians at my institute use [x] in "ich", and it doesn't sound like either High German [C], High German [x_-] or Swiss [X]. Distinguishing /X x_- x/ in a language is probably a bit tight, but you could very plausibly get away with /X x C/. -- Christian Thalmann ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 14 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:02:26 +0100 From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Interjections On Thursday 06 January 2005 23:14, caeruleancentaur wrote: > I was working on my Senyecan vocabulary today (my > favorite part of conlanging) and I came upon some of the > interjections. I wondered who else might have some > interjections in their conlang. I'm wondering if > different emotions call forth similar phonemes, e.g., is > pain always "ow"? Due to the tutorial book for my conlang I've been writing for the last 6 weeks, following interjections are in the dictionary now: ah! - Ah!/Hey! angutay! - Thanks! bahoiu! - Don't worry!/Never mind! manisu! - Hello! sahuban! - Welcome! saruban! - Bye! yi! - Alas!/My! yomu eban! - See you! It's not much, but it's a beginning at least. Since my lang is full with [a]'s, I guess the equivalent of "erm" and "uuuuh" is [a:::(m)]. I just haven't yet made up a way to emphasize one's intention with a rhetoric question such as English "..., does(n't) it?" or "..., no?". Maybe [{~_R]? This would equal "..., eh?". What about "ouch", though? French has "aïe" [Ai)] IIRC, I actually like that. On Friday 07 January 2005 04:32, Henrik Theiling wrote: > Confusingly, 'hm?' is also 'hm?' > in German, but with a fast rising tone instead of a slow > one as the affirmative sound. (And my grandma uses > /hm=?m=hm=/ for 'yes!' :-))) Mine, too. Alas, the joys of [?m=hm], [?m=?m=] and [m=.m=_F.m=_R] ... Sonorants at their best! My mum told me to never use these utterings in other countries because they're not or wrongly understood there usually. As for me *personally*, sometimes interjections are completely random. Unfortunately, my IPA skillz0rz aren't good enough to describe them if I manage to remember a random uttering at all. Carsten -- Eri silveváng aibannama padangin. Nivaie evaenain eri ming silvoieváng caparei. -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Le Petit Prince http://www.beckerscarsten.de/?conlang=ayeri ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 15 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:19:32 -0500 From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: OT: YAGPT: velar vs. uvular (was: my phonology) On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 14:03:27 -0000, Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >I think /C/ >> >is so much different from /x/ that a contrast would be feasible. >> >> You might be cheated by your German ears. I believe that German /x/ >> often tends to be [X]. At least I think I can observe that I pronounce my >> German /x/ further back in the mouth than my German /k/. > >German Ach-Laut is usually somewhere in between [X] and [x] -- >[x_-] maybe? > >I can pronounce both of the latter, and consider them quite >distinct. [C] and [x] sound very different to me. The Russians >at my institute use [x] in "ich", and it doesn't sound like >either High German [C], High German [x_-] or Swiss [X]. Swiss /x/ and standard German /x/ have different sounds, but I'd say the difference is rather in the manner of articulation than in the point of articulation: Swiss /x/ tends to be lightly trilled [R\_0]. Have you ever heard the Highest Alemannic dialect of Bernese Oberland (very different from Bernese dialect). In words such as /xats/ 'cat', /'lax:@/ 'laugh', or /'ts&:xni/ 'ten', they have a sound that's quite similar to a [C], or at least much more similar to it than other Swiss German/standard German pronunciations of /x/. It's often described as soft. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: j. 'mach' wust ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 16 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:22:14 -0500 From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Interjections On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 03:02:26PM +0100, Carsten Becker wrote: > As for me *personally*, sometimes interjections are > completely random. Unfortunately, my IPA skillz0rz aren't > good enough to describe them if I manage to remember a > random uttering at all. Heh. When I'm annoyed, I tend to mutter under my breath (in meetings) or yell (when driving alone) in random syllables. Every once in a while I'll actually remember to make a note for possible future use in a conlang, but mostly they're lost to posterity. A few recent ones: tSiba'savaja aS'4Ult kalnO'4Ikt@ dZi'zaba StO4d4a'val 'kolgrafa ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 17 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:29:04 -0500 From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Interjections On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 07:26:11AM -0500, J. 'Mach' Wust wrote: > Interjections may often follow the basic phonology of their languages, but > there are many samples of conventional interjections that go beyond it. True. > English, for instance, may have /?/ in several interjections, even though > this sound is alien to the English phonology (e.g. in the negation > interjection ['[EMAIL PROTECTED]@], or even ['?m)m_^?m)m_^], The sound /?/ may not exist as a phoneme in English, but it is certainly not alien to English phonology. It shows up even outside of the dialects where it's an allophone for intervocalic /t/, usually to make a prevocalic boundary evident (English doesn't universally insert a [?] before initial vowels the way German does). For instance, the phrase "an ocean" is usually [EMAIL PROTECTED]'?owSn=] in my 'lect, vs "a notion" which lacks the [?]. But yeah, it is more common in interjections; the common "uh-oh!" (the first word my 1-year-old son has used correctly) is ['?V?,?ow] for me. -Marcos ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 18 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:17:07 -0500 From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Language comparison On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 22:53:13 -0800, Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... >I meant "primitive" as in those used by modern-day African tribes, ... This view is the one of the old European tradition of "linguistics", where Latin was considered to be the supreme language and heathen languages were assumed to be primitive babbling. When the Europeans colonialism began, the Europeans were amazed that the languages of less developed cultures could be even more complex than Latin. (I'm rearranging the criteria you suggest could distinguish the qualities of languages:) >* little effort to use If there were human languages that would require more effort to talk, then they would have died out in the many thousands of years of language evolution. >* minimal loss in translation from thoughts, I don't believe that there's a "thought language" first (or "mentalese" as Pinker calls it IIRC) that would afterwards be translated into a "language language". I believe in the following connection of thought and language: Language is the form that thought takes (or must take) if we want to communicate it. Language is not a "translation" of thought, but merely a form of thought used for a specific purpose. This position goes back to Wilhelm von Humboldt. Interestingly, he also believed that languages did actually differ in quality, but I don't know what criteria he used. It's to be found in his book "Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaus und seinen Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts" ('about the heterogeneity of language construction and its influence [of language construction] on the intellectual development of mankind'), which is said to be one of the most interesting books on languages (and one of the first). Maybe I should try again to read it! :) >minimum possible potential for confusion between users >* semantically dense (i.e., minimal wasted space [bounded by necessary >redundancy) Language is constantly improving into two orthogonal directions: maximal denseness and minimal confusion (if it's too dense, the communication fails). These are among the main motors of language change (apart from inventiveness). Again, if these maximums/minimums would exist, languages would evolve towards them. However, there's no such directionality in the evolution of language. >* as clear/ambiguous as desired >* possible to carry multiple meanings (if desired) Unlike in computer "languages" (which is a misleading metaphora in this discussion) or Logics, meaning in natural languages is always flexible. >* writing system legible from any direction / inversion (e.g. flipped, >or on other side of a window) All writing systems can be read from any direction/inversion. We're just more used to read in a specific way. If you would have learnt reading in a class with a single book so that all had to sit around it in a circle, then you'd be able to read equally fluent from any direction. >* writing system that fully uses its medium (e.g., non-serial use of 2d >space) The aim of writing is not to fully use the paper, but to represent speech, which is essencially bidimensional. >* multimodal - maximally using whatever means of information transfer >available Face-to-face communication does this always. It involves rhythm and melody and any movements we make. >* usable in any given environment/situation (e.g., underwater, loud >rooms, with hands full, with mouth full, etc.) All speech organs have a more original function that is different from producing speech. When that original function is used, you can't produce speech. All natural languages are either sound languages (respiratory system, mouth) or sign languages (arms, hands, face, body). There are no languages that use either. >* advanced version: carry multiple meanings, some of which are only >understandable if you have a different mode of access (e.g., a more >advanced version of shaking your head when you're talking, such that >hearing-only listeners don't get the "this is false" message) Why should any language keep its speakers from showing what they think about the facticity of what they're uttering? I can't imagine a language where it wouldn't be possible to show through intonation (or some other device) that you are ironical about what you're saying or very convinced or very sceptic etc. >* corollary: not overspecified (e.g., ubiquitous gender when wasteful >of space or otherwise undesired) >* runtime encryption (if wanted) I don't understand these two (they sound pretty much like computerese to me). [EMAIL PROTECTED]: j. 'mach' wust ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 19 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:35:37 -0000 From: rob_nierse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Christophe --- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 28 December 2004 20:10, J Y S Czhang wrote: > > > ::looks around:: Where's Christophe, by the way? > > He's gone this fall because he was ... erm ... pissed > because of the many flamewars there were about politics and > religion and many other non-conlang related topics. I guess > he's still lurking, but he hasn't shown up for ages. > > Carsten That is what I thought too. I thought he would be too much hooked on this list. But I see him every monday and he really doesn't lurk. He only wants to come back when he has a new conlang. And he only wants to start conlanging after he gets other things in order. So it could take a while. Rob ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 20 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 16:51:35 +0100 From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: my phonology Hi! "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >... > >Hehe. But in English, the /T/-/s/-/S/ contrast also occurs in a > >crowded area of the mouth. As Basque's /s_a/-/s_m/-/S/. > > It's normal that languages distinguish many tip of the tonge points of > articulation (especially in fricatives), but it's unusual that there are > more than two back of the tongue points of articulation. Ok. > >I think /C/ > >is so much different from /x/ that a contrast would be feasible. > > You might be cheated by your German ears. I believe that German /x/ often > tends to be [X]. At least I think I can observe that I pronounce my German > /x/ further back in the mouth than my German /k/. I don't use [x] in German at all. It's plain [X] for me. So I don't think I'm cheated by German ears here: [x] is foreign to me -- it is not a realisation of German /x/ phoneme for me -- and is clearly different from [C], which rings the typical 'palatal' bell that [x] does not ring. It might ring the Russian accent bell, however. :-) > I have a very hard time to pronounce Spanish the voiced velar > fricative [G] correctly since my German mouth prefers to pronounce a > voiced uvular fricative [R]. Well, I could do it, although the Spanish sound was foreign to me. I did not mix it up with any of my German phonemes. **Henrik ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 21 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 16:57:57 +0100 From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: my phonology Hi! Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >... > Distinguishing /X x_- x/ in a language is probably a bit tight, > but you could very plausibly get away with /X x C/. Haha. :-) I want to create a conlang that has /s_N P f T s_a s_m s` S C x X/ Would that be feasible? Those are the only consonants in the language and there is only one vowel: /@/, which is epenthetic. Just kidding. But a funny idea. Maybe I'll try to do that and make some poems in that language. **Henrik ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 22 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 13:14:57 -0000 From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Language comparison --- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Shaul Vardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >In what sense are the languages used by modern-day African "tribes" >"primitive", and which particular languages have you studied and/or >are you referring to? My anthropology professor used tell us not to use the word "primitive" but rather "less sophisticated"! Charlie ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 23 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 16:45:04 -0000 From: Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OT: YAGPT: velar vs. uvular (was: my phonology) --- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Swiss /x/ and standard German /x/ have different sounds, but I'd say the > difference is rather in the manner of articulation than in the point of > articulation: Swiss /x/ tends to be lightly trilled [R\_0]. The trill is a good observation. I seem to lift the lowermost end of the tongue a bit to go from German to Swiss Ach, but maybe that's the mechanism that produces the trill. > Have you ever heard the Highest Alemannic dialect of Bernese Oberland (very > different from Bernese dialect). In words such as /xats/ 'cat', /'lax:@/ > 'laugh', or /'ts&:xni/ 'ten', they have a sound that's quite similar to a > [C], or at least much more similar to it than other Swiss German/standard > German pronunciations of /x/. It's often described as soft. Doesn't ring a bell... /'ts&:xni/ is pretty weird and urchig, so it's plausible Bernese to me. ;o) > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ah, you've switched to [k]? That feels less precise than your former [g_0], seeing as I have [k] in, say "Ggoggi" [koki] (Coke), distinct from [g_0] in "Grüess" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:]. I'd just go for phonemic notation: /[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/ @n S2:n@ -- Christian Thalmann ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 24 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:25:05 -0500 From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OT: YAGPT: velar vs. uvular (was: my phonology) On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 16:45:04 -0000, Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Have you ever heard the Highest Alemannic dialect of Bernese >> Oberland (very different from Bernese dialect). In words such as /xats/ >> 'cat', /'lax:@/ 'laugh', or /'ts&:xni/ 'ten', they have a sound that's >> quite similar to a [C], or at least much more similar to it than other >> Swiss German/standard German pronunciations of /x/. It's often described >> as soft. > >Doesn't ring a bell... /'ts&:xni/ is pretty weird and urchig, >so it's plausible Bernese to me. ;o) No, it's not (we say /ts&:/ when adjectival and /'ts&ni/ when substantival); it's typical Bernese Oberland. Note that this is one of the words where the standard German (_zehn_) is really justified, and they still preserve it! >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > >Ah, you've switched to [k]? That feels less precise than >your former [g_0], seeing as I have [k] in, say "Ggoggi" >[koki] (Coke), distinct from [g_0] in "Grüess" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:]. >I'd just go for phonemic notation: /[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/ [k] is my preferred analysis, since I don't believe in fortis/lenis, but rather that it's a length distinction. I'd analyze _Ggoggi_ as /k:Ok:i/. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: j. 'mach' wust ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 25 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:28:53 -0800 From: "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: wine script (was: You've got to be kidding me.) On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 05:06:03PM -0500, J. 'Mach' Wust wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 16:35:36 -0500, Carsten Becker > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > >My script is not to be confused with the script at omniglot.com!! I've > >always referred to it as "Ornament script", "Wine script" (with W!!) or > >"Tahano Nuvenon". > > I like the wine script much better! > > http://www.beckerscarsten.de/conlang/ayeri/pics/alphabet_ayeri_ornaments.jpg > > A very beautiful design. I don't doubt it could easily be converted into a > swift writing script. [...] Indeed. Absolutely lovely! I should ste^H^H^H^H adopt some of the ideas for the prospective Tatari Faran script. :-) It almost makes one wonder if similar decorative designs in ancient pottery are actually highly elaborated writing systems that tell stories that have been forgotten for millenia. T -- The fact that anyone still uses AOL shows that even the presence of options doesn't stop some people from picking the pessimal one. - Mike Ellis ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
