There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Dieing Languages
From: Padraic Brown
1b. Re: Dieing Languages
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
1c. Re: Dieing Languages
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
1d. Re: Dieing Languages
From: Roger Mills
2a. Re: THEORY: How to be beautiful?
From: Leonardo Castro
2b. Re: THEORY: How to be beautiful?
From: Leonardo Castro
2c. Re: THEORY: How to be beautiful?
From: Jyri Lehtinen
3a. Re: Revising Tirelat romanization
From: H. S. Teoh
3b. Re: Revising Tirelat romanization
From: BPJ
3c. Re: Revising Tirelat romanization
From: Adam Walker
3d. Re: Revising Tirelat romanization
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
4a. Reference grammar vs. pedagogical grammar
From: H. S. Teoh
4b. Re: Reference grammar vs. pedagogical grammar
From: Adam Walker
5a. Re: Is this a good place to present Ehenív?
From: Nina-Kristine Johnson
6a. Re: Ot: Ihilda and the Mescratchious
From: Anthony Miles
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Dieing Languages
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed May 29, 2013 4:40 am ((PDT))
--- On Tue, 5/28/13, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> So the meaning would automatically change?
It could. It doesn't háve to, but it probably will. Even if meaning
remains the same, pronunciation and possibly spelling will change.
> Would ten members be considered as a speech community or network?
Yes. Pick a number, any number!
> I know my linguistics texts talk about speech communities
> and network, but there isn't mentioned in my
> Sociolinguistics book.
One thing about social sciences has always seemed to be the rather fluid
nature of the nomenclature. Each "authority" (professor / writer / big
cheese in the field) has his own brand of nomenclature. A speech
community and a speech network are the same thing, it seems to me. Mind
you, I ain't a social scientist, and might just be struck down for uttering
such blasphemy!
> I wish that book had more than the one chapter on the subject. There is
> a small section in Chapter one in my Introduction to Linguistics text,
> but the same thing.
What? More than one chapter saying that "one or more speakers of any
language constitute a speech community"?
Padraic
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Dieing Languages
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" goldyemo...@gmail.com
Date: Wed May 29, 2013 6:20 am ((PDT))
What does it mean, you mean?
I'm confused by your question.
Mellissa Green
@GreenNovelist
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On
Behalf Of Padraic Brown
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:27 AM
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Subject: Re: Dieing Languages
--- On Tue, 5/28/13, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> How does what work out too?
`n/o*id#%l$e
Padraic
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Dieing Languages
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" goldyemo...@gmail.com
Date: Wed May 29, 2013 6:27 am ((PDT))
No I guess just more details, for some reason it seems like there should be
more info, but maybe not. So I guess I've got a speech community too.
I do like the section on Ethnographics of Communication, as it compares
speakers attitudes among cultures. And it has questions, which I plan to
answer in my conlang report.
So what are the attitudes towards speaking in your world? Is it
gender-specific, are women allowed to talk etc? Is it age-specific?
Mellissa Green
@GreenNovelist
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On
Behalf Of Padraic Brown
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:40 AM
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Subject: Re: Dieing Languages
--- On Tue, 5/28/13, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> So the meaning would automatically change?
It could. It doesn't háve to, but it probably will. Even if meaning
remains the same, pronunciation and possibly spelling will change.
> Would ten members be considered as a speech community or network?
Yes. Pick a number, any number!
> I know my linguistics texts talk about speech communities
> and network, but there isn't mentioned in my
> Sociolinguistics book.
One thing about social sciences has always seemed to be the rather fluid
nature of the nomenclature. Each "authority" (professor / writer / big
cheese in the field) has his own brand of nomenclature. A speech
community and a speech network are the same thing, it seems to me. Mind
you, I ain't a social scientist, and might just be struck down for uttering
such blasphemy!
> I wish that book had more than the one chapter on the subject. There is
> a small section in Chapter one in my Introduction to Linguistics text,
> but the same thing.
What? More than one chapter saying that "one or more speakers of any
language constitute a speech community"?
Padraic
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Dieing Languages
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed May 29, 2013 9:46 am ((PDT))
On May 29 you wrote: I know my screen reader goofed that one. I think you said
you didn't have a clue what I wrote.
What got you confused.
THIS: (and more below)
--- On Tue, 5/28/13, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <goldyemo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> For example, the word noidle can be spelled noydle or noidle
> in Yardish, but in Silknish is only spelled one way:
> `n/o*id#%l$e.
RM-- OK the problem: that shows up on my screenas "grave accent + n + slash +o
+ asterisk + i + d + hashmark + percent sign + l + dollar sign + e" hope your
reader can read that back to you.
Padraic: What does that work out to?
RM-- Precisely the question. :-)))
===========================================================
Then on May 29 you wrote:
`t#c%%h$e which means frost, as in frostbite, would change to fever
is
> spelled tche, which wouldn't work with bite.
Which appears as: grave accent + t + hashmark + c + percent + percent + h +
dollar + e . I Don't understand the "which wouldn't work with bite" at
all..............
What do all the odd symbols represent? what's the problem????
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: THEORY: How to be beautiful?
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" leolucas1...@gmail.com
Date: Wed May 29, 2013 4:59 am ((PDT))
2013/5/28 David McCann <da...@polymathy.plus.com>:
> Normally I'd argue for an objective aesthetics, but when it comes to
> the sound of language I think it's going to be subjective.
>
> I love Italian (opera?)
Opera alone would hardly make me like Italian, but together with
Italian pop and folk music like those sung by Andrea Bocelli, The
Three Tenors, Irene Grandi, Laura Pausini, etc., it makes me like
Italian and other related languages such as Napolitan.
> and Brazilian Portuguese (Gal Costa, Astrud Gilberto!)
So maybe you would love Bossa Nova in Italian language: "Estate". My
favorite version is in the voice of Irene Grandi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcxSrZP3y2U
Curiously, the Brazilian singer/composer Renato Russo recorded an
album of popular Italian songs called "Equilibrio Distante" and, in my
opinion, he outperformed the original versions of all those songs
(although their own songs in Portuguese don't please me very much):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgXiSReqZCg
2013/5/28 Herman Miller <hmil...@prismnet.com>:
> Linguistic beauty is in the ear of the beholder.
And in the voice of the speaker... Listen to this girl speaking in
English, Arabic, Swahili and French -- all of them sounded beautiful
(maybe "cute") to me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVARHfN13OI
> For one thing, Italian has
> clear, pure vowels, and these are pretty close to the IPA cardinal vowels
> (so they're well differentiated and easy to recognize). It has few really
> uncommon consonants, and the ones it does have are not harsh ones.
>
> I don't get why French is considered so beautiful. To my ears, Portuguese
> takes everything that sounds nice about French and does it better. But you
> know what they say, "chacun à son goût".
Now that you said it, it seems that French is only beautiful when
spoken in a soft, smooth, somewhat delicate voice and intonation,
otherwise it's very harsh.
2013/5/28 H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx>:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 07:36:01PM -0300, Leonardo Castro wrote:
> [...]
>> OTOH, I guess that I don't know how to appreciate tonal languages,
>> maybe because I feel that the tones are in the wrong places (for
>> instance, I feel that the Chinese interrogtive particle "ma" should
>> have a rising tone).
> [...]
>
> Hmm. I think you still haven't "gotten" the idea of tones yet. Not your
> fault, of course -- I observe that it is very difficult for native
> speakers of European languages, where pitch contour is very much a part
> of prosody and for conveying mood, to be truly free of that L1 bias to
> interpret pitch/tone in that way.
I have already read that tonal languages overlap phonemic and prosody
tones. More interesting than that is how Mandarin and Cantonese
differently deal with word tones in music, according to this site:
http://www.sinosplice.com/life/archives/2010/12/06/tones-in-chinese-songs
http://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/3309/how-do-tones-work-in-music-sung-in-tonal-languages-such-as-cantonese-or-mandari
So, I simply "feel" that phonemic tones mess up my parameters of
language appreciation. Searching for "beautiful chinese music",
there's a series of very beautiful songs beautifully sung by beautiful
women, but I guess that phonemic tones are lost there. Besides, with
such voices, maybe the songs would be equally beautiful in any
language:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuHMCFYIC9E
---
In regard to English,
Até mais!
Leonardo
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: THEORY: How to be beautiful?
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" leolucas1...@gmail.com
Date: Wed May 29, 2013 5:03 am ((PDT))
In regard to English, I find it moderately beautiful and prefer rhotic
varieties, especially the American Standard Movie Trailer Speaker
Accent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QPMvj_xejg
Até mais!
Leonardo
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: THEORY: How to be beautiful?
Posted by: "Jyri Lehtinen" lehtinen.j...@gmail.com
Date: Wed May 29, 2013 5:32 am ((PDT))
>
> Now that you said it, it seems that French is only beautiful when
> spoken in a soft, smooth, somewhat delicate voice and intonation,
> otherwise it's very harsh.
>
A version of this generalises really to all languages and to me is at the
heart of the problem of calling a language attractive or unattractive. I
haven't encountered a language that wouldn't sound nice when the musical or
rhetorical style requires it to do so. On the other hand people don't tend
to sound very appealing in situations like in a queue to a grill stand at
2AM regardless of the language they are speaking.
-Jyri
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Revising Tirelat romanization
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
Date: Wed May 29, 2013 7:27 am ((PDT))
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 09:13:23PM -0400, Herman Miller wrote:
> I've been thinking for some time that it might be better to spell
> out Tirelat affricates as <ts> and <dz> instead of <ċ> and <ż>. For
> one thing, natlangs never pronounce these as /ts/ and /dz/, and for
> another, spelling them as <ts> and <dz> makes the pronunciation
> obvious.
I like <ts> and <dz>. They are far more obvious than <ċ> and <ż>. That,
and Tatari Faran uses <ts> for /ts/. :) (Well, TF also has <dz> but it's
transcribed /j/. It's kinda too late to change that now, as I've grown
rather accustomed to /j/.)
> Now I'm starting to think that I should just simply avoid the letter
> <x> in any of my languages. I've been thinking about the name "Xora
> Xhoan Daxos" from the "Game of Thrones" series. If it's meant to be
> pronounced "Zora Zoan Daksos", as the actors do, why not just spell
> it that way? If it's meant to be pronounced differently, no one can
> know which of the many pronunciations of <x> is intended.
Yeah, <x> can mean any one of 50 things, and is completely unhelpful in
indicating pronunciation in an unfamiliar language (conlang or
otherwise). I mean, seriously, it ranges all the way from /ks/ and /x/
to /s_m/ and /?/, and might as well mean whatever you want it to mean.
> The obvious fix is to use <kh> for the /x/ sound. It could be
> mistaken for /k.h/ as in "backhand" or "sinkhole", but not much
> else, and Tirelat doesn't have an /h/ sound. Plus it gives me an
> excuse to write <gh> for /ɣ/. I've never much liked <ġ> or <ğ>, or
> any of the alternatives like <ƣ> ("gha", U+01A3).
<kh> and <gh> are what Ebisédian uses for these sounds.
> So, what about other potential changes?
>
> 1. <rh> for /r̥/ (voiceless r). I've been using <ŕ> since there are
> few alternatives for precomposed characters with a diacritic on the
> letter <r>, and none of the others seemed much better (perhaps <ṙ>
> might be suitable). I've considered <hr>, but this leads to
> ambiguity if I continue using <h> for long vowels.
What about <rh>?
> 2. <ng> for /ŋ/. While this would make typing easier, there's always
> the problem of how to represent /ŋɡ/, and the obvious solutions are
> <ngg> or <n'g>. Since nasal+stop clusters in Tirelat are always
> homorganic, <mg> would also work. But it still seems like <ŋ> is the
> best way to spell /ŋ/.
<ngg> sounds fine to me, though a bit ugly, I'll have to admit.
> 3. <y> for /j/. Spelling /j/ as <y> would leave <j> free to
> represent /dʒ/, which exists in some conservative dialects. But
> there's nothing much wrong with <dž>, and I'd need a new spelling
> for /ɨ/, which I'm currently writing as <y>.
/ɨ/ as <y>? Sounds like Russian transcription. ;-) What about <jh> for
/dʒ/? Or is that ambiguous with something else?
> 4. <lh> for /ɬ/. While it's a nice analogy with <rh>, I think the
> letter <ł> should be familiar enough that there's no need to change
> it. A worse problem is potential confusion with /ʎ/.
>
> 5. Double letters for long vowels. This would be reasonable, but
> Tirelat actually uses a letter to mark long vowels in its native
> alphabet, and <h> seems like the best way to spell this character in
> a romanized version.
[...]
What about a macron accent? Like ā for long a, etc.. That way you'd free
up <h> for other uses.
T
--
One Word to write them all,
One Access to find them,
One Excel to count them all,
And thus to Windows bind them.
-- Mike Champion
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Revising Tirelat romanization
Posted by: "BPJ" b...@melroch.se
Date: Wed May 29, 2013 9:36 am ((PDT))
2013-05-29 03:13, Herman Miller skrev:
> I've been thinking for some time that it might be better to spell
> out Tirelat affricates as <ts> and <dz> instead of <ċ> and <ż>.
> For one thing, natlangs never pronounce these as /ts/ and /dz/,
> and for another, spelling them as <ts> and <dz> makes the
> pronunciation obvious.
Indo-Aryanists actually use <ċ> and <ż> (or <ĉ> and <ẑ>)
for /ts/ and /dz/, and I've seen them so used for Tibetan too.
>
> Now I'm starting to think that I should just simply avoid the
> letter <x> in any of my languages. I've been thinking about the
> name "Xora Xhoan Daxos" from the "Game of Thrones" series. If it's
> meant to be pronounced "Zora Zoan Daksos", as the actors do, why
> not just spell it that way? If it's meant to be pronounced
> differently, no one can know which of the many pronunciations of
> <x> is intended.
>
> The obvious fix is to use <kh> for the /x/ sound. It could be
> mistaken for /k.h/ as in "backhand" or "sinkhole", but not much
> else, and Tirelat doesn't have an /h/ sound. Plus it gives me an
> excuse to write <gh> for /ɣ/. I've never much liked <ġ> or <ğ>, or
> any of the alternatives like <ƣ> ("gha", U+01A3).
How do you write other fricatives and affricates?
>
> So, what about other potential changes?
>
> 1. <rh> for /r̥/ (voiceless r).
>
> 2. <ng> for /ŋ/.
>
> 3. <y> for /j/. Spelling /j/ as <y> would leave <j> free to
> represent /dʒ/, which exists in some conservative dialects. But
> there's nothing much wrong with <dž>, and I'd need a new spelling
> for /ɨ/, which I'm currently writing as <y>.
>
> 4. <lh> for /ɬ/.
>
> 5. Double letters for long vowels.
>
> Any thoughts on these conventions? My inclination is to go with
> <ts>, <dz>, <kh>, <gh>, and <rh>, but keep <ŋ>, <j>, <ł>, and <h>
> for long vowels.
I would certainly think twice before mixing +h digraphs and
diacritics, and certainly before using different strategies for
/r̥/ and /ɬ/! I empathize with your reservations about <x>. I
have myself used it for almost every voiceless fricative
between /χ/ and /ʃ/ as well as for voiced coronal affricates;
to be sure there are precedents of sorts for all these usages,
but this very ambiguity introduces an uneasiness about the
letter. In the 'Romanization' of Sohlob, which goes back to
Latin-1 days, I use both diacritics and single letters with odd
values as well as digraphs:
| <æ> /æ/
| <c> /tɕ/
| <ç> /ɕ/
| <e> /ɨ/
| <j> /dʑ/, [ʑ]
| <hl> /ɬ/
| <ng> /ŋ/ (<nk nx nq> [ŋk ɴχ ɴʁ])
| <ny> /ɲ/
| <o> /ɒ/
| <q> /ʁ/
| <x> /χ/
| <y> /j/
plus, in the sister language Cidilib <hm hn hng hny hr> for
voiceless sonorants and <ngg> for /ŋg/. I would like to make it
more consistent, and would preferably use <ħ/ꝁ> /χ/, <ǥ> /ʁ/, <ł>
/ɬ/, <ɍ> /r̥/, <ŋ> /ŋ/ and maybe even <ɉ> for /dʑ/, but there
just isn't any way I could consistently represent the voiced and
voiceless quadruplets of nasals with existing precomposed
characters. The closest I can get is not right at all:
| <m> /m/ <ṃ> /m̥/
| <n> /n/ <ṉ> /n̥/
| <ň> /ɲ/ <ṋ> /ɲ̊/
| <ṅ> /ŋ/ <ṇ> /ŋ̊/
I could live with <m ṃ n ṇ ň ṇ̌ ŋ ŋ̇ l ḷ r ṛ> if I only could
get them all precomposed! Moreover most fonts have a <ǥ>
struck through the tail, while I like it struck through the
(upper) bowl.
I've tried to go all in the other way with digraphs, but those
certainly rub me the wrong way. The words just don't look right!
| <æ> <e>
| <c> <ch>
| <ç> <sh>
| <e> <y>
| <j> <jh>, <zh>
| <q> <gh>
| <x> <kh>
| <y> <j>
/bpj
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Revising Tirelat romanization
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Wed May 29, 2013 9:57 am ((PDT))
I use <x> in the Gravgaln romanization for a sound that varies between the
uvular trill and a voiced velar fricative or affricate.
Adam
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:36 AM, BPJ <b...@melroch.se> wrote:
> 2013-05-29 03:13, Herman Miller skrev:
>
> I've been thinking for some time that it might be better to spell
>> out Tirelat affricates as <ts> and <dz> instead of <ċ> and <ż>.
>> For one thing, natlangs never pronounce these as /ts/ and /dz/,
>> and for another, spelling them as <ts> and <dz> makes the
>> pronunciation obvious.
>>
>
> Indo-Aryanists actually use <ċ> and <ż> (or <ĉ> and <ẑ>)
> for /ts/ and /dz/, and I've seen them so used for Tibetan too.
>
>
>
>> Now I'm starting to think that I should just simply avoid the
>> letter <x> in any of my languages. I've been thinking about the
>> name "Xora Xhoan Daxos" from the "Game of Thrones" series. If it's
>> meant to be pronounced "Zora Zoan Daksos", as the actors do, why
>> not just spell it that way? If it's meant to be pronounced
>> differently, no one can know which of the many pronunciations of
>> <x> is intended.
>>
>> The obvious fix is to use <kh> for the /x/ sound. It could be
>> mistaken for /k.h/ as in "backhand" or "sinkhole", but not much
>> else, and Tirelat doesn't have an /h/ sound. Plus it gives me an
>> excuse to write <gh> for /ɣ/. I've never much liked <ġ> or <ğ>, or
>> any of the alternatives like <ƣ> ("gha", U+01A3).
>>
>
> How do you write other fricatives and affricates?
>
>
>> So, what about other potential changes?
>>
>> 1. <rh> for /r̥/ (voiceless r).
>>
>> 2. <ng> for /ŋ/.
>>
>>
>> 3. <y> for /j/. Spelling /j/ as <y> would leave <j> free to
>> represent /dʒ/, which exists in some conservative dialects. But
>> there's nothing much wrong with <dž>, and I'd need a new spelling
>> for /ɨ/, which I'm currently writing as <y>.
>>
>> 4. <lh> for /ɬ/.
>>
>> 5. Double letters for long vowels.
>>
>> Any thoughts on these conventions? My inclination is to go with
>> <ts>, <dz>, <kh>, <gh>, and <rh>, but keep <ŋ>, <j>, <ł>, and <h>
>> for long vowels.
>>
>
> I would certainly think twice before mixing +h digraphs and
> diacritics, and certainly before using different strategies for
> /r̥/ and /ɬ/! I empathize with your reservations about <x>. I
> have myself used it for almost every voiceless fricative
> between /χ/ and /ʃ/ as well as for voiced coronal affricates;
> to be sure there are precedents of sorts for all these usages,
> but this very ambiguity introduces an uneasiness about the
> letter. In the 'Romanization' of Sohlob, which goes back to
> Latin-1 days, I use both diacritics and single letters with odd
> values as well as digraphs:
>
> | <æ> /æ/
> | <c> /tɕ/
> | <ç> /ɕ/
> | <e> /ɨ/
> | <j> /dʑ/, [ʑ]
> | <hl> /ɬ/
> | <ng> /ŋ/ (<nk nx nq> [ŋk ɴχ ɴʁ])
> | <ny> /ɲ/
> | <o> /ɒ/
> | <q> /ʁ/
> | <x> /χ/
> | <y> /j/
>
> plus, in the sister language Cidilib <hm hn hng hny hr> for
> voiceless sonorants and <ngg> for /ŋg/. I would like to make it
> more consistent, and would preferably use <ħ/ꝁ> /χ/, <ǥ> /ʁ/, <ł>
> /ɬ/, <ɍ> /r̥/, <ŋ> /ŋ/ and maybe even <ɉ> for /dʑ/, but there
> just isn't any way I could consistently represent the voiced and
> voiceless quadruplets of nasals with existing precomposed
> characters. The closest I can get is not right at all:
>
> | <m> /m/ <ṃ> /m̥/
> | <n> /n/ <ṉ> /n̥/
> | <ň> /ɲ/ <ṋ> /ɲ̊/
> | <ṅ> /ŋ/ <ṇ> /ŋ̊/
>
> I could live with <m ṃ n ṇ ň ṇ̌ ŋ ŋ̇ l ḷ r ṛ> if I only could
> get them all precomposed! Moreover most fonts have a <ǥ>
> struck through the tail, while I like it struck through the
> (upper) bowl.
>
> I've tried to go all in the other way with digraphs, but those
> certainly rub me the wrong way. The words just don't look right!
>
> | <æ> <e>
> | <c> <ch>
> | <ç> <sh>
> | <e> <y>
> | <j> <jh>, <zh>
> | <q> <gh>
> | <x> <kh>
> | <y> <j>
>
> /bpj
>
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: Revising Tirelat romanization
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" joerg_rhieme...@web.de
Date: Wed May 29, 2013 10:20 am ((PDT))
Hallo conlangers!
On Wednesday 29 May 2013 18:36:26 BPJ wrote:
> 2013-05-29 03:13, Herman Miller skrev:
> > I've been thinking for some time that it might be better to spell
> > out Tirelat affricates as <ts> and <dz> instead of <ċ> and <ż>.
> > For one thing, natlangs never pronounce these as /ts/ and /dz/,
> > and for another, spelling them as <ts> and <dz> makes the
> > pronunciation obvious.
>
> Indo-Aryanists actually use <ċ> and <ż> (or <ĉ> and <ẑ>)
> for /ts/ and /dz/, and I've seen them so used for Tibetan too.
The scholarly romanization of Armenian uses <c> and <j> for
these sounds (and the caronized versions thereof for the
postalveolar affricates), which I feel is quite nifty. The
only drawback is that many people *will* pronounce them
wrongly.
> > Now I'm starting to think that I should just simply avoid the
> > letter <x> in any of my languages. I've been thinking about the
> > name "Xora Xhoan Daxos" from the "Game of Thrones" series. If it's
> > meant to be pronounced "Zora Zoan Daksos", as the actors do, why
> > not just spell it that way? If it's meant to be pronounced
> > differently, no one can know which of the many pronunciations of
> > <x> is intended.
Yes, <x> has so many values that it is perhaps best to avoid
this letter, though it is a handy way of writing /x/.
> > The obvious fix is to use <kh> for the /x/ sound. It could be
> > mistaken for /k.h/ as in "backhand" or "sinkhole", but not much
> > else, and Tirelat doesn't have an /h/ sound. Plus it gives me an
> > excuse to write <gh> for /ɣ/. I've never much liked <ġ> or <ğ>, or
> > any of the alternatives like <ƣ> ("gha", U+01A3).
>
> How do you write other fricatives and affricates?
Indeed, this question must be answered. You cannot really
give advice about the romanization of a phoneme without
knowing the full phoneme inventory and what kinds of letters
are to be used for all those phonemes. If Tirelat does not
have /h/, there is nothing wrong with using <kh> for /x/ and
<gh> for /ɣ/. These are pretty common conventions.
> > So, what about other potential changes?
> >
> > 1. <rh> for /r̥/ (voiceless r).
> >
> > 2. <ng> for /ŋ/.
> >
> > 3. <y> for /j/. Spelling /j/ as <y> would leave <j> free to
> > represent /dʒ/,
Or to represent /dz/, see above.
> > which exists in some conservative dialects. But
> > there's nothing much wrong with <dž>, and I'd need a new spelling
> > for /ɨ/, which I'm currently writing as <y>.
Sure.
> > 4. <lh> for /ɬ/.
> >
> > 5. Double letters for long vowels.
> >
> > Any thoughts on these conventions? My inclination is to go with
> > <ts>, <dz>, <kh>, <gh>, and <rh>, but keep <ŋ>, <j>, <ł>, and <h>
> > for long vowels.
>
> I would certainly think twice before mixing +h digraphs and
> diacritics, and certainly before using different strategies for
> /r̥/ and /ɬ/!
<rh> and <lh> look quite nice for /r̥/ and /ɬ/, and <ng> for /ŋ/;
I am doing the latter in Old Albic, too, and the former in those
Albic languages that have voiceless liquids. The only drawback of
<ng> for /ŋ/ is that you have to write /ŋg/ as <ngg>, which is
a bit clumsy.
> I empathize with your reservations about <x>. I
> have myself used it for almost every voiceless fricative
> between /χ/ and /ʃ/ as well as for voiced coronal affricates;
> to be sure there are precedents of sorts for all these usages,
> but this very ambiguity introduces an uneasiness about the
> letter. In the 'Romanization' of Sohlob, which goes back to
> Latin-1 days, I use both diacritics and single letters with odd
>
> values as well as digraphs:
> | <æ> /æ/
> | <c> /tɕ/
> | <ç> /ɕ/
> | <e> /ɨ/
> | <j> /dʑ/, [ʑ]
> | <hl> /ɬ/
> | <ng> /ŋ/ (<nk nx nq> [ŋk ɴχ ɴʁ])
> | <ny> /ɲ/
> | <o> /ɒ/
> | <q> /ʁ/
> | <x> /χ/
> | <y> /j/
Fair. Only <e> for /ɨ/ and <q> for /ʁ/ rub me as "wrong".
> plus, in the sister language Cidilib <hm hn hng hny hr> for
> voiceless sonorants and <ngg> for /ŋg/. I would like to make it
> more consistent, and would preferably use <ħ/ꝁ> /χ/, <ǥ> /ʁ/, <ł>
> /ɬ/, <ɍ> /r̥/, <ŋ> /ŋ/ and maybe even <ɉ> for /dʑ/, but there
> just isn't any way I could consistently represent the voiced and
> voiceless quadruplets of nasals with existing precomposed
> characters. The closest I can get is not right at all:
>
> | <m> /m/ <ṃ> /m̥/
> | <n> /n/ <ṉ> /n̥/
> | <ň> /ɲ/ <ṋ> /ɲ̊/
> | <ṅ> /ŋ/ <ṇ> /ŋ̊/
Indeed not. It is unsystematic!
> I could live with <m ṃ n ṇ ň ṇ̌ ŋ ŋ̇ l ḷ r ṛ> if I only could
> get them all precomposed!
Precomposed characters are nice, but this kind of thing is
what combining diacritics are made for, so don't be shy of
using them.
> Moreover most fonts have a <ǥ>
> struck through the tail, while I like it struck through the
> (upper) bowl.
>
> I've tried to go all in the other way with digraphs, but those
> certainly rub me the wrong way. The words just don't look right!
>
> | <æ> <e>
> | <c> <ch>
> | <ç> <sh>
> | <e> <y>
> | <j> <jh>, <zh>
> | <q> <gh>
> | <x> <kh>
> | <y> <j>
<y> is, I think, a more intuitive spelling for /ɨ/ than <e>,
and <gh> is likewise better than <q>.
> /bpj
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Reference grammar vs. pedagogical grammar
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
Date: Wed May 29, 2013 7:45 am ((PDT))
Yesterday I stumbled across an extremely helpful page that describes the
difference between a reference grammar and a pedagogical grammar:
http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAReferenceGrammar.htm
It even outlines the difference between a reference grammar intended for
native speakers, and a reference grammar intended for linguists for
comparative purposes.
It would seem that my conlang grammars so far have been pedagogical
grammars (more-or-less, maybe with elements of a grammar intended for
native speakers), rather than reference grammars. Since I've also
written introductory tutorials to both of my conlangs, I'm thinking that
perhaps I can refactor the material and turn the present version of "A
Gentle Introduction to Tatari Faran" into a full-fledged pedagogical
grammar, and revise the phonology/grammar pages into a real reference
grammar of the comparative kind.
What's the typical chapter organization of a reference grammar of the
comparative kind, though? I tried looking online and found this page:
http://www.uiowa.edu/intlinet/unijos/nigonnet/nlp/refgram2.htm
Would that be a typical / useful structure for a reference grammar?
T
--
Recently, our IT department hired a bug-fix engineer. He used to work for
Volkswagen.
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Reference grammar vs. pedagogical grammar
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Wed May 29, 2013 7:48 am ((PDT))
One of these days I'll get around to writing an actual grammar of some sort
for one of my languages.
Adam who has discovered a use for the ornative case in the very first
sentence of the Bable text....
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:44 AM, H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> Yesterday I stumbled across an extremely helpful page that describes the
> difference between a reference grammar and a pedagogical grammar:
>
>
> http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAReferenceGrammar.htm
>
> It even outlines the difference between a reference grammar intended for
> native speakers, and a reference grammar intended for linguists for
> comparative purposes.
>
> It would seem that my conlang grammars so far have been pedagogical
> grammars (more-or-less, maybe with elements of a grammar intended for
> native speakers), rather than reference grammars. Since I've also
> written introductory tutorials to both of my conlangs, I'm thinking that
> perhaps I can refactor the material and turn the present version of "A
> Gentle Introduction to Tatari Faran" into a full-fledged pedagogical
> grammar, and revise the phonology/grammar pages into a real reference
> grammar of the comparative kind.
>
> What's the typical chapter organization of a reference grammar of the
> comparative kind, though? I tried looking online and found this page:
>
> http://www.uiowa.edu/intlinet/unijos/nigonnet/nlp/refgram2.htm
>
> Would that be a typical / useful structure for a reference grammar?
>
>
> T
>
> --
> Recently, our IT department hired a bug-fix engineer. He used to work for
> Volkswagen.
>
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Is this a good place to present Ehenív?
Posted by: "Nina-Kristine Johnson" ninakristi...@gmail.com
Date: Wed May 29, 2013 8:17 am ((PDT))
*E-me!* I'm indeed flattered with all the positive responses I've received.
*Č*o*l**š**ake, šan fandi, kittit!* (Thank-you very much, everyone!). ^_^
Admittedly, the grammar is a bit odd. I used Japanese as an inspiration and
some *Yoda*. But it is a bit different from Japanese. I apologise if the
structure breakdown sounds awkward and all over the place.
For some reason, though...it seems to *flow together*. I tested this by
writing (and am filming!) my own movie. I have 4 scenes done but the
project is on hold because of work and lack of time.
Coming to YouTube!
Anyway...in response to some questions. I would be happy to answer. ^_^
There are a few different variations of syntax, but all share a basic
structure.
*1. Thing you're talking about (object or person)*
ex: *Dali *(life)
I begin the statement by emphasizing that I will be speaking of Life.
*2. Adjective* *(when needed...as with other languages: not all statements
require an adjective)*
This comes before the subject.
*
*
*ex. Sošir * (correct)
*3. Subject*
ex. *Sa adila* (my mother)
*4. Verb*
*
*
ex. aš (is)
There are exceptions to beginning the structure with *dali*...*hawal *
(about)* dali* (how I would write it, personally).
*Hawal dali, sošir, sa adila aš* (My mother is correct about life--or
simply "Mother is right").
Variations of this include adding more *subjects*. Adjectives need not
apply in some cases.
Best way to illustrate it is if I use it in a sentence.
ex. *Ísk malųpe, **sæ, sa adila aktalt*. (A kitten, me, my mother gave or
My mother gave me a kitten).
*Subject 1, pronoun (in this case), subject 2, and verb (past tense). *
*Aktalt* is literally *gived*. Also, no adjective was used in this
sentence.
And to answer the question about adjectives...
There are exceptions to placement of these. *These pertain to Subject
# 1 *(numerical,
mostly, but you can use colour, age, size)
*Zay **malųpe-e* (2 kittens), *sæ, sa adila aktalt. *(My mother gave me two
kittens).
or
*Ísk sarni malųpe, **sæ, sa adila aktalt*. (My mother gave me a black
kitten).
or
*Zay sarni **malųpe-e* (2 kittens), *sæ, sa adila aktalt. *(my mother gave
me two black kittens).
*For subject # 2 (the one one that comes before verb)*
ex. *Yųg dali, tisala, e'ata*. (I'm happy with life).
In this scenario: the adjective is not directly attributed to the topic at
hand. (in this case: *dali*).
And of course the use of multiple verbs in a sentence. I feel if I
demonstrate it: it would be better.
*ex: Va saykas, sakt, és e-éna. *(I need to go to the store).
Va Saykas, Sakt (verb1), és e-éna* *(verb 2)
If you want to add a specific time: that would go between the noun and verb
1.
*Va saykas, ra yanæ, **sakt, és e-éna *(I need to go to the store, today).
Time, adjective, and adverbs all go in one place.
I could go on and on citing examples in this way (if you lot have the
time...I just might).
*And finally: about word creation.*
For some of these: I took a cue from Chinese. I studied Mandarin at
university and found it interesting that the word for computer was
literally *electric brain* (which I sort of copied for *Ehenví*...). Also,
the word for *cheese* is quite literally *Old milk*.
The other words were either taken from another language (ex. French word
for *Tree* and the German word for *Honey*), what I associate with a
concept or word (ex: I actually morphed work colleagues' names into words
or how I feel about them; *Stylish* and *Kindness* are taken from their
names) or I just come up with a word in my head. The verb *sakt* is a good
example of "off the top of the head".
The words for *Kitten* and *Puppy* are actually a mix of these.
*Mala + Lųpethl *(Little Cat)
*Mala + Bénkal *(Little Dog)
*Dog* = dog names (Bentley and my aunt's dog, Rascal)
*Cat *= cats names (Lucy, Pele, and Ethel)
Please let me know if I forgot something or I messed up my wording. Also if
there are questions: I love answering them (better than answering questions
at work! I don't know why your circuit got messed up or why the server
forgot your password!).
I rarely get to tell people about the language and how it works. And those
who I do tell are interested but are like *oh goodness! I don't understand
a word you're saying. Still think your language is adorable.*
*Ho pas ingrasa víd-e, bi čol, šan fandi, és kitit!* (I thank you all very
much for your kind words).
Tisala-e!,
Kristine ^_^
On 28 May 2013 20:19, Herman Miller <hmil...@prismnet.com> wrote:
> On 5/28/2013 7:50 PM, Nina-Kristine Johnson wrote:
>
> I started working on it at University. I spent 8 years perfecting it and
>> because of it: it is actually somewhat functional. I know it is not really
>> anyone's cuppa tea, but I enjoy using it on my little dry erase board at
>> work for writing out my daily agenda (break at 9 AM, e.g.). My colleagues
>> think it is amusing when I use the language.
>>
>
> I'm a big fan of tea, almost any kind but chamomile actually, and it looks
> like your language doesn't taste much like chamomile.
>
>
> Here is a link to the site. *Kiti...bi wanho*. (please enjoy)
>>
>> http://irondune.com/eheniv_**site/ehenivhohai1.html<http://irondune.com/eheniv_site/ehenivhohai1.html>
>>
>> *Tisala-e aks kitit!* (Cheers and thanks!),
>> Kristine
>>
>
> Some interesting stuff there. Nice that you have a word for "ocarina"
> (even though it is "akarina" ... well, even English borrowed that one.)
>
> How does your word derivation work? It looks like some words are clearly
> related, like lųpethl : malųpe, benkal : malbén, éroz : vérozín. Are there
> other words that follow the same patterns?
>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: Ot: Ihilda and the Mescratchious
Posted by: "Anthony Miles" mamercu...@gmail.com
Date: Wed May 29, 2013 10:19 am ((PDT))
>Hi All:
>Before you read any further - what does the following title of a fantasy
>novella evoke for you:
>Ihilda and the Mescratchious
Mescratchious sounds to me like a fictional geological era, like a Jurassic,
except you make it all up. Ihilda sounds like a female name, but it's just
enough "off" to sound a little less "feminine".
Messages in this topic (9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com
conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
