There are 13 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Little-endian Numeral System?
From: Eric Christopherson
1b. Re: Little-endian Numeral System?
From: Dustfinger Batailleur
1c. Re: Little-endian Numeral System?
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
2a. Re: subject and object covered by a single case?
From: qiihoskeh
2b. Re: subject and object covered by a single case?
From: kechpaja
2c. Re: subject and object covered by a single case?
From: Matthew Boutilier
2d. Re: subject and object covered by a single case?
From: Logan Kearsley
2e. Re: subject and object covered by a single case?
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
2f. Re: subject and object covered by a single case?
From: Matthew Boutilier
3a. spoken conlang as computer language
From: Wesley Parish
3b. Re: spoken conlang as computer language
From: George Corley
3c. Re: spoken conlang as computer language
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
4.1. Re: THEORY: Long and short vowels association.
From: H. S. Teoh
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Little-endian Numeral System?
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" ra...@charter.net
Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 5:59 am ((PDT))
On Aug 17, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <tsela...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The
> interesting part is that when written in numerals, Arabic numbers follow
> the way they are spoken: least-significant figure first. Since Arabic is
> written right-to-left, this means numbers are written exactly as we write
> them, and can be read left-to-right by us correctly :P. And interestingly,
> at least in the Maghreb (Morocco, Tunisia, etc.), figures are actually
> written left-to-right, despite the rest of the text being written
> right-to-left!
This confuses me. Isn't writing in the Arabic world generally done in MSA --
and thus more or less consistent across dialects? Do Maghrebi people write in
MSA with the *exception* of numerals?
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Little-endian Numeral System?
Posted by: "Dustfinger Batailleur" dustfinge...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 6:40 am ((PDT))
After some more research, I found out that Malagasy is actually
little-endian: http://www.sf.airnet.ne.jp/ts/language/number/malagasy.html
On 18 August 2013 08:59, Eric Christopherson <ra...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
> tsela...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The
> > interesting part is that when written in numerals, Arabic numbers follow
> > the way they are spoken: least-significant figure first. Since Arabic is
> > written right-to-left, this means numbers are written exactly as we write
> > them, and can be read left-to-right by us correctly :P. And
> interestingly,
> > at least in the Maghreb (Morocco, Tunisia, etc.), figures are actually
> > written left-to-right, despite the rest of the text being written
> > right-to-left!
>
> This confuses me. Isn't writing in the Arabic world generally done in MSA
> -- and thus more or less consistent across dialects? Do Maghrebi people
> write in MSA with the *exception* of numerals?
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Little-endian Numeral System?
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" tsela...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:44 am ((PDT))
On 18 August 2013 13:04, Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >AFAIK Arabic does. Or at least Classical and Modern Standard Arabic do.
>
> Hm, Wikipedia on Arabic grammar suggests that this is also just a case of
> ones before tens and doesn't extending further. e.g.:
>
> | Formal: alfāni wa-tis`u mi'atin wa-thnatā `ashratan sanatan '2,912 years'
> thousand and-nine hundred and-two ten years (coarsely)
>
> | Spoken: alfayn wa-tis` mīya wa-ithna`shar sana(tan) '(after) 2,912 years'
> Only difference in makeup here is univerbation of the "two-ten". Same
> order.
>
>
Okay. I must have remembered wrong. I learned about Arabic a long time ago,
and numbers in Arabic are notably complicated, so I must have misremembered.
On 18 August 2013 14:59, Eric Christopherson <ra...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
> tsela...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The
> > interesting part is that when written in numerals, Arabic numbers follow
> > the way they are spoken: least-significant figure first. Since Arabic is
> > written right-to-left, this means numbers are written exactly as we write
> > them, and can be read left-to-right by us correctly :P. And
> interestingly,
> > at least in the Maghreb (Morocco, Tunisia, etc.), figures are actually
> > written left-to-right, despite the rest of the text being written
> > right-to-left!
>
> This confuses me. Isn't writing in the Arabic world generally done in MSA
> -- and thus more or less consistent across dialects? Do Maghrebi people
> write in MSA with the *exception* of numerals?
I was only talking about numbers written in figures: 102, 2013, etc. For
those, there is a difference between how the Maghreb (basically all of
Northern Africa, except Egypt and Sudan) and the Middle East write them:
the Maghreb use the same Arabic numerals as we do: 0, 1, 2, 3..., while the
Middle East uses the Indic numerals: ٠, ١, ٢, ٣ ... The order on the
paper stays the same (and is the same as the order of numerals as written
by us), but the order in which they are *written* seems to be different: in
the Maghreb they leave some space and write numbers left-to-right, while in
the Middle East (at least in Oman where I've been and seen people writing),
they write them right-to-left. Although I've read once that some people in
the Middle East also write numbers left-to-right, though with the Indic
numerals.
All in all a complicated situation...
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: subject and object covered by a single case?
Posted by: "qiihoskeh" qiihos...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 4:16 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 00:02:48 -0500, Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlar...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>ONE case for subject and object, that is still a case (contrasting with GEN
>and VOC)? there have got to be natlang (or even conlang) precedents for
>something like this, yes?
>
>matt
This brings up another question: what do you call that case? Nominative,
absolutive, or something else?
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: subject and object covered by a single case?
Posted by: "kechpaja" kechp...@comcast.net
Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:16 pm ((PDT))
On Aug 18, 2013, at 19:16, qiihoskeh <qiihos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 00:02:48 -0500, Matthew Boutilier
> <bvticvlar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ONE case for subject and object, that is still a case (contrasting with GEN
>> and VOC)? there have got to be natlang (or even conlang) precedents for
>> something like this, yes?
>>
>> matt
>
> This brings up another question: what do you call that case? Nominative,
> absolutive, or something else?
Usually "direct", IIRC. I think Romanian has something like that, so it is
ANADEW.
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: subject and object covered by a single case?
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" bvticvlar...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:30 pm ((PDT))
thanks, everybody, for responding to my question. i haven't quite decided
yet what my conlang solution will be.
but the issue of case naming plagues me as well. not knowing anything about
Romanian, i'm looking into that presently.
"direct" is what it is? i guess that makes sense: direct subject + direct
object?
i could've sworn (Classical) Nahuatl functioned like this. my knowledge of
this language is quite minimal, but there's the noun ending -tli
(alternating with -li and -tl) which i'm pretty sure i've seen called the
"absolutive." and, seriously, i think i've seen nouns with this ending used
as both subjects and objects. and, most importantly, i don't think there's
any other case ending that it alternates with (although it's omitted when
you have certain prefixes; *cal-li* 'house-ABS' but *no-cal* 'my house').
can any Nahuatl-knower please speak up?
matt
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 12:15 AM, kechpaja <kechp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2013, at 19:16, qiihoskeh <qiihos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 00:02:48 -0500, Matthew Boutilier <
> bvticvlar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> ONE case for subject and object, that is still a case (contrasting with
> GEN
> >> and VOC)? there have got to be natlang (or even conlang) precedents for
> >> something like this, yes?
> >>
> >> matt
> >
> > This brings up another question: what do you call that case? Nominative,
> absolutive, or something else?
>
> Usually "direct", IIRC. I think Romanian has something like that, so it is
> ANADEW.
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: subject and object covered by a single case?
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" chronosur...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 12:01 am ((PDT))
On 18 August 2013 23:30, Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> thanks, everybody, for responding to my question. i haven't quite decided
> yet what my conlang solution will be.
>
> but the issue of case naming plagues me as well. not knowing anything about
> Romanian, i'm looking into that presently.
>
> "direct" is what it is? i guess that makes sense: direct subject + direct
> object?
>
> i could've sworn (Classical) Nahuatl functioned like this. my knowledge of
> this language is quite minimal, but there's the noun ending -tli
> (alternating with -li and -tl) which i'm pretty sure i've seen called the
> "absolutive." and, seriously, i think i've seen nouns with this ending used
> as both subjects and objects. and, most importantly, i don't think there's
> any other case ending that it alternates with (although it's omitted when
> you have certain prefixes; *cal-li* 'house-ABS' but *no-cal* 'my house').
> can any Nahuatl-knower please speak up?
I doubt I know Nahuatl any better than you do, but I believe you're
talking about the absolutive *state*, which is not quite the same
thing as a case, and contrasts with the possessed (or construct, as
it's called in, e.g., Hebrew) state. The absolutive suffix just
indicates a noun that's standing by itself, neither being the object
of a possessive pronoun nor a non-head component of a compound.
It is possible to have a language with the state distinction and case
distinctions operating simultaneously and completely orthogonally
(although I'm not sure of natlang examples offhand).
-l.
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: subject and object covered by a single case?
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" tsela...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 12:11 am ((PDT))
On 19 August 2013 09:01, Logan Kearsley <chronosur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It is possible to have a language with the state distinction and case
> distinctions operating simultaneously and completely orthogonally
> (although I'm not sure of natlang examples offhand).
>
>
Classical and Modern Standard Arabic have both state and case distinctions
operating orthogonally. It's not always clear though, because in writing
case is often unmarked (it's only fully marked when writing is fully
vocalised). As for spoken Arabic variants, they tend to eschew case
completely anyway.
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: subject and object covered by a single case?
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" bvticvlar...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Aug 19, 2013 12:16 am ((PDT))
ah ah ah, yes, *state*. that makes sense, in relation to the Semitic, esp
with losing this state marker to accommodate e.g. possessives.
so! i guess Nahuatl does not work as a subject/object-case language. or, if
it does, this is not evidence for it.
matt
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
tsela...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 August 2013 09:01, Logan Kearsley <chronosur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > It is possible to have a language with the state distinction and case
> > distinctions operating simultaneously and completely orthogonally
> > (although I'm not sure of natlang examples offhand).
> >
> >
> Classical and Modern Standard Arabic have both state and case distinctions
> operating orthogonally. It's not always clear though, because in writing
> case is often unmarked (it's only fully marked when writing is fully
> vocalised). As for spoken Arabic variants, they tend to eschew case
> completely anyway.
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. spoken conlang as computer language
Posted by: "Wesley Parish" wes.par...@paradise.net.nz
Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:16 pm ((PDT))
Just thought this might be of interest
http://www.i-programmer.info/news/99-professional/6263-code-by-voice-faster-than-keyboard.html
Wesley Parish
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: spoken conlang as computer language
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:33 pm ((PDT))
Very interesting, though, to clarify:
programming language != conlang (programming languages are fundamentally
different from human languages)
And this is not a new programming language, it's a clever new mode for
coding in python.
It's certainly a cool idea for accessibility. I'm not sure if his personal
commands will work for everyone, but I'd love to see spoken modes for more
programming languages.
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Wesley Parish
<wes.par...@paradise.net.nz>wrote:
> Just thought this might be of interest
>
>
> http://www.i-programmer.info/news/99-professional/6263-code-by-voice-faster-than-keyboard.html
>
> Wesley Parish
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: spoken conlang as computer language
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" goldyemo...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:27 pm ((PDT))
Interesting article. I can see its use for blind or other disabled
programmers.
Mellissa Green
@GreenNovelist
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On
Behalf Of Wesley Parish
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 10:16 PM
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Subject: spoken conlang as computer language
Just thought this might be of interest
http://www.i-programmer.info/news/99-professional/6263-code-by-voice-faster-
than-keyboard.html
Wesley Parish
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4.1. Re: THEORY: Long and short vowels association.
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
Date: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:17 pm ((PDT))
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 08:34:30PM -0700, Padraic Brown wrote:
[...]
> I don't think I need to stress that I am anti spelling "reform" in
> just about every shape and flavor it comes in. The benefits of just
> buckling down and doing the hard work of learning to read the damn
> language at the start will far outweigh any theoretical benefits in
> "reforming" the spelling. And anyway, if such endeavors were really
> all that beneficial, the Arabs, the Greeks, the Russians and the
> Chinese would have "reformed" to the Latin alphabet 50 to 100 years
> ago or so.
[...]
Nevertheless, the Russians *did* have a spelling reform within the last
100 years, though not to the Latin alphabet. They dropped a lot of old
letters that were no longer pronounced or had merged with other sounds,
as well as introduce a new letter (ё) to reflect a sound change that had
differentiated what was previously a single letter. Quite a good number
of words were respelled to reflect actual pronunciation, among which
include alternation rules like:
сънъ -> сон
съна -> сна
reflecting a sound change wherein the ancient ultra-short /i̯/ (ь)
(respectively /u̯/ (ъ)) alternately vanished or lengthened to /e/ (resp.
/o/). As well as the new use of ь to mark certain grammatical categories
where such a sound didn't actual exist historically (a striking example
of which is the -шь ending for the 2nd person singular verb:
historically, there is no such combination as шь /shi̯/ in the language
since ш is always "hard").
Russian is a *lot* easier to read (and write! -- a large number of
spelling rules that had no phonological basis were eliminated) thanks to
this reform, though it certainly isn't without controversy (there are
factions who want to bring back the Yat (ѣ), for example). The reform
did lead to ambiguities like мір / мир -> мир ("peace" vs. "world"), but
for the most part these aren't really a problem 'cos where they would be
ambiguous in writing, they're already ambiguous in speech, so you
already have to disambiguate anyway.
The dropping of ъ (except in certain rare contexts) resulted in about a
3.5% savings in paper due its ubiquitous pre-reform appearance after
*every* non-palatized final consonant.
And speaking of reforms... Chinese had a major reform also within the
last 100 years, resulting in the so-called "simplified Chinese" writing
that is decidedly easier to read and especially write (saving on a huge
number of penstrokes on a vast number of common words), though to
someone like me who grew up with the old writing, it felt like the
writing was losing a whole dimension of nuance originally present. I
still remember comments from family members about how the new system
"loses the original meaning", "looks like a caricature of *real*
writing", etc.. But now, 30 years later, they have mostly adapted to the
new system though occasionally suffering the humiliation of being
corrected by schoolchildren who say "teacher, you made a mistake in that
character!" -- when it was actually the correct pre-reform character.
The transition isn't completely finished yet, resulting in the need for
publishing Chinese texts in two versions, traditional and simplified, in
order to cater to older audiences, but with the latter rapidly
overtaking the former as said older audience gradually passes on.
Resisting the reform seems about as sensible as resisting natural
language change, in retrospect. (After all, it *is* the writing system
catching up with, oh, hundreds, or even thousands, of years of
phonological and grammatical changes that nobody but linguists even
remember.) Such resistance inevitably fades into obscurity in the dusts
of time as the rest of the world moves on. :) (And I say that as someone
who is still emotionally attached to the traditional Chinese writing --
in spite of being almost completely illiterate! Yet one realizes that
after it's all said and done, it's really only nostalgia that remains,
nostalgia which the younger generation does not have and definitely will
*not* be passing on to *their* children. No matter how hard or "evil"
the transition may have been, people just adapt to it as they always
have, and the world goes on.)
T
--
If the comments and the code disagree, it's likely that *both* are wrong. --
Christopher
Messages in this topic (36)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
