There are 13 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Hangul
From: Chris Peters
1b. Re: Hangul
From: Padraic Brown
1c. Re: Hangul
From: Padraic Brown
1d. Re: Hangul
From: J. 'Mach' Wust
1e. Re: Hangul
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
1f. Re: Hangul
From: Daniel Bowman
1g. Re: Hangul
From: J. 'Mach' Wust
1h. Re: Hangul
From: R A Brown
2.1. Re: Melin's Swedish Shorthand -- for English! (was: Re: Gateway to c
From: J. 'Mach' Wust
3.1. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: J. 'Mach' Wust
3.2. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: R A Brown
3.3. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: J. 'Mach' Wust
3.4. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: R A Brown
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Hangul
Posted by: "Chris Peters" beta_leo...@hotmail.com
Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:53 am ((PDT))
> From: elemti...@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: Hangul
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
>
> It's not often one can pinpoint the date of promulgation of a whole system
> of writing (let alone the author of that system).
>
Sorry I sent this reply directly to Padraic before when I meant to send it to
the list.
I'm only aware of two such examples in the Natlang world: Hangul and Cherokee.
Are there any others?
:Chris
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Hangul
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:51 am ((PDT))
Cree syllabics (invented in the 1840s) and its daughter, Inuktitut syllabics
are the other two I know.
Deseret alphabet is another, also from the mid 1800s.
Various shorthand systems, I say, would also count.
The abakada of the Philippines was organised / invented int he 1940s (to
replace the previous
Spanish alphabet and orthography). It uses Latin letters, though. Braille also
comes to mind.
Padraic
>________________________________
> From: Chris Peters <beta_leo...@hotmail.com>
>To: Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Thursday, 10 October 2013, 11:50
>Subject: RE: Hangul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> From: elemti...@yahoo.com
>> Subject: Re: Hangul
>>
>> It's not often one can pinpoint the date of promulgation of a whole system
>> of writing (let alone the author of that system).
>>
>
>
>I'm only aware of two examples of this: Hangul and Cherokee. Are there any
>others in the Natlang world?
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Hangul
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:55 am ((PDT))
>> Are there any conlangs out there where you know, within their concultural
>> context, of an exact date of promulgation like this? I can't think of any
>> of mine with such exact dates. In a couple cases, the inventor is known,
>> and perhaps a general date range, but nothing more specific.
>
>My Elves (the speakers of Old Albic) ascribe their writing system
>to a cultural heroine. It is uncertain to which extent this is
>true, but it is considered quite likely by modern scholars that
>the script is indeed one invented by a single person, since it is
>featural; also the date of promulgation is not known.
One Daine writing system I know of has a similar culture heroine story
behind it. Of course, there is similarly no exact date (or even a close but
approximate date) of its creation or introduction to an anxiously waiting
world.
In the World, most writing systems go back so far in history that even
the mythology that surrounds their invention came along many millenia
afterwards. Some by now are surely on the third of fourth iteration of
their origin myth.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Hangul
Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@shared-files.de
Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:21 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:28:41 +0200, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>Hallo conlangers!
>
>On Thursday 10 October 2013 01:24:56 Padraic Brown wrote:
>
>> Pffff. Flash in the pan. People will get over this minor fad soon enough
>> and go back to the hanja! ;))
>>
>> It's not often one can pinpoint the date of promulgation of a whole system
>> of writing (let alone the author of that system).
>>
>> Are there any conlangs out there where you know, within their concultural
>> context, of an exact date of promulgation like this? I can't think of any
>> of mine with such exact dates. In a couple cases, the inventor is known,
>> and perhaps a general date range, but nothing more specific.
>
>My Elves (the speakers of Old Albic) ascribe their writing system
>to a cultural heroine. It is uncertain to which extent this is
>true, but it is considered quite likely by modern scholars that
>the script is indeed one invented by a single person, since it is
>featural; also the date of promulgation is not known.
Similar with Tolkien's elves whose writing systems were invented by
Rúmil and Daeron, with much refinement by Feanor.
I believe there is a connection between Tolkien's Elves' invention of
an alphabetic script from scratch -- without previous ideographic
elements -- and their immortality. Among us mortal folk, writing was
invented as a practical tool for knowledge preservation. Among
immortal Elves, knowledge preservation did not require writing. I
believe they had a very different reason for inventing writing: as a
playful tool for phonetic analysis.
--
grüess
mach
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Hangul
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" joerg_rhieme...@web.de
Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:55 pm ((PDT))
Hallo conlangers!
On Friday 11 October 2013 00:20:48 J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:28:41 +0200, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> >Hallo conlangers!
> >[...]
> >My Elves (the speakers of Old Albic) ascribe their writing system
> >to a cultural heroine. It is uncertain to which extent this is
> >true, but it is considered quite likely by modern scholars that
> >the script is indeed one invented by a single person, since it is
> >featural; also the date of promulgation is not known.
>
> Similar with Tolkien's elves whose writing systems were invented by
> Rúmil and Daeron, with much refinement by Feanor.
Yes. The Old Albic alphabet is of course not a derivative of any
of Tolkien's script; it is, like Tengwar, a featural alphabet,
but otherwise, it is not very similar. Indeed, it appears to be
a derivative of the Phoenician abjad: the letters <p>, <t> and
<c>, from which all other consonant letters are derived, closely
resemble Phoenician peh, taw and kaph turned counterclockwise
90 degrees, and the vowel letters are essentially `ayin with
various diacritics. Indeed, there is solid evidence that the
Phoenician script was sometimes used among the Elves before the
invention of the Old Albic alphabet: a fragment of an inscription
in Early Old Albic using Phoenician letters has been found at
Guildford, Surrey.
How the script ended up being written from bottom to top remains
unknown ;) (Extrafictionally, it is a combination of "Why not
try that out?" and the fact that I find that direction strangely
natural.)
> I believe there is a connection between Tolkien's Elves' invention of
> an alphabetic script from scratch -- without previous ideographic
> elements -- and their immortality. Among us mortal folk, writing was
> invented as a practical tool for knowledge preservation. Among
> immortal Elves, knowledge preservation did not require writing. I
> believe they had a very different reason for inventing writing: as a
> playful tool for phonetic analysis.
Maybe. Questions regarding the psychology of immortal beings
have repeatedly been discussed here, usually with reference to
Tolkien's Elves. They may indeed get far without writing,
depending on how good their memories are (one could argue that
a very long-lived being would eventually "run out of storage"
and face the decision between forgetting and going mad).
My Elves, however, aren't immortal; they have normal human
lifespans. Yet, there are some aspects to their culture that
do resemble that of Tolkien's Elves, such as a high importance
of beauty and sustainability. The Elves believe that they (in
fact, all humans) were created to guard and enrich the world
by creating and preserving beautiful things.
--
... 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 (14)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Hangul
Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" danny.c.bow...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:27 pm ((PDT))
>
> I believe there is a connection between Tolkien's Elves' invention of
> an alphabetic script from scratch -- without previous ideographic
> elements -- and their immortality. Among us mortal folk, writing was
> invented as a practical tool for knowledge preservation. Among
> immortal Elves, knowledge preservation did not require writing. I
> believe they had a very different reason for inventing writing: as a
> playful tool for phonetic analysis.
>
I am not a Tolkien scholar but this seems a bit surprising. Did the Elves
have exceptionally good memories? Otherwise, I would think writing would
serve a practical purpose regardless of one's mortality or lack thereof.
>
> --
> grüess
> mach
>
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: Hangul
Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@shared-files.de
Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:14 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:27:17 -0400, Daniel Bowman wrote:
>>
>> I believe there is a connection between Tolkien's Elves' invention of
>> an alphabetic script from scratch -- without previous ideographic
>> elements -- and their immortality. Among us mortal folk, writing was
>> invented as a practical tool for knowledge preservation. Among
>> immortal Elves, knowledge preservation did not require writing. I
>> believe they had a very different reason for inventing writing: as a
>> playful tool for phonetic analysis.
>>
>
>I am not a Tolkien scholar but this seems a bit surprising. Did the Elves
>have exceptionally good memories? Otherwise, I would think writing would
>serve a practical purpose regardless of one's mortality or lack thereof.
I think that writing will serve all kinds of practical purposes after
it has been invented. But before, most of these purposes cannot be a
motivation to invent writing.
I dislike the metaphor that our memory is like a computer hard drive
that can run out of space. I think it cannot.
There may be other explanations why Tolkien's Elves invented writing
in a different way than humans did, namely, without any involvement
of ideography. The idea that they had a whole different motivation
for this invention seems plausible to me.
What are human motivations for inventing writing? I have mentioned
knowledge preservation. I do not think Tolkien's immortal Elves would
have had that motivation. Another human motivation may have been
metaphysical communication: talking to the gods. Tolkien's Elves
would certainly not have had that motivation. Another human
motivation I have come across with regard to Sumerian is mere
book-keeping. That sounds not like a plausible motivation for
Tolkien's Elves to me. And none of these human motivations could
account for the lack of an involvement of ideography.
Playful phonetic analysis seems like a plausible motivation. Indeed,
Tolkien has mentioned that the inventors of the scripts had distinct
views on the analysis of the syllable that became manifest in the
scripts.
--
grüess
mach
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: Hangul
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:33 am ((PDT))
On 10/10/2013 19:51, Padraic Brown wrote:
> Cree syllabics (invented in the 1840s)
Yep - the invention of a missionary called James Evans.
> and its daughter, Inuktitut syllabics are the other two
> I know.
>
> Deseret alphabet is another,
Tho IMO opinion this is not in the same category as the
other examples. Altho the Deseret alphabet was intended to
replace the Roman alphabet for writing English, it did not
catch on, any more than the later Shavian alphabet caught on
(I notice that the "Deseret News" is publish in Roman script
in standard American spelling).
If we count this, then we must count Shavian and all the
many other writing systems proposed for English, including
some made up by me in my teens and, I have not the slightest
doubt, many devised by other members of this list :)
> also from the mid 1800s. Various shorthand systems,
Why from the mid 1990s? Shorthand systems were known way
back in ancient Greek times at least; and Cicero's freedman,
Tiro, would be somewhat aggrieved to be passed over. But
again IMO these are of a different nature. None have, nor
were they ever intended, to be used as general writing
systems for a community. They existed and still exist as
supplementary to other systems for the express purpose of
writing a language at (nearly) the same speed as speaking.
>> ________________________________ From: Chris Peters
[snip]
>>>
>>> It's not often one can pinpoint the date of
>>> promulgation of a whole system of writing (let alone
>>> the author of that system).
>>>
>>
>> I'm only aware of two examples of this: Hangul and
>> Cherokee. Are there any others in the Natlang world?
Other examples of scripts which, like Hangul, were
promulgated to replace a previous system of writing that
come to my mind are:
After the restoration of democracy in Athens, during the
archonship of Eucleides (403-402) the Athenians voted to
replace the old Attic alphabet with the alphabet of the
Ionians of Asia minor; this has survived till the present
day in the upper case Greek letters.
The adoption of an adapted form of the Roman alphabet to
replace Arabic for the writing of Turkish was promulgated on
Jan. 1st 1929.
Tho I concede that these examples are not exactly the same
in that Hangul was a new script, hitherto unused; whereas
the examples above are of adaptations of existing scripts to
replace another script.
Among others who devised a new script for peoples who had
hitherto not had a (regular) written system - just like
Sequoyah who gave the Cherokee an script (officially adopted
in 1825 and James Evans who did the same for the Ojibwe and
the Cree - are:
St Cyril & St Methodius who devised the Glagolitic script
for writing the old Slav language (the script now known as
Cyrillic appears to have been developed from the
contemporary Greek script at a later date and has now
replaced Glagolitic).
Bishop Ulfilas who devised the Gothic alphabet for old
Gothic language.
St Mesrop Mashtots and Isaac of Armenia devised the Armenian
script (St Mesrop is also sometimes accredited with the
invention of the Georgian script, but this not certain).
I suspect there are other examples.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
If /ni/ can change into /ɑ/, then practically
anything can change into anything.
[YUEN REN CHAO]
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Melin's Swedish Shorthand -- for English! (was: Re: Gateway to c
Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@shared-files.de
Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:26 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:40:13 +0200, BPJ wrote:
>2013-10-01 18:45, J. 'Mach' Wust skrev:
...
>> Melin's Swedish Shorthand seems an unusual member of the Gabelsberger
>> shorthand systems family in having almost no contrast in stroke
>> thickness at all.
>
>Notionally thickness/pressure is used to indicate double/long
>consonants -- thats why W, whick is called "dubbel-v" in Swedish
>and before the modern advent of numerous English loans was only
>an allograph mainly used in proper names, is a thick V -- but
>that distinction is in practice mostly omitted as its low
>functional load is mostly compensated for by context.
Right, I could have seen Melin's use of thickness in the Wikipedia
sample image. The Stolze-Schrey system also marks double consonants,
but by using a third height (quadruple-height, by your counting) of
consonant signs. The Deutsche Einheitskurzschrift simply omits
consonant doubling. While this is kind of adequate to standard German
phonology, it means not marking (leaving up to context) the
distinction between "checked" and "free" vowels.
...
>Thus St. Swedish _mossa_ /ˈmos:a/ 'moss' is /ˈmɞːsɑ/
>to me in dialectal mode (I code-switch a lot!) and _fågel_
>/ˈfoːgel/ 'bird' is /ˈfɞːgɛl/ to me -- and to some west Swedes
>it's even /ˈfɵgːɛl/ --, sometimes written _môsa, fôgel/fûggel_
>when writing dialect.
The shift of length from the vowel to the consonant between /ˈfɞːgɛl/
and /ˈfɵgːɛl/ is a very interesting phenomenon. Is this regular with
all long vowels?
>It was certainly no coincidence that the
>westerner Melin included an enlarged Ö, officially for the prefix
>"över-" 'over-', in his system!
>
>I'll see if I get the time and the tech to do a writeup of my
>adaptation to English. I haven't given up the hope! For a short
>summary in longhand (as you can see it is geared towards making
>etymologically related words -- both between Swedish/English/Latin
>and within English -- look similar as well as phonemic accuracy,
>please refer to <http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Werling_Melin>!):
>
>Swedish English Phoneme(s)
>------------------ -------- --------------------
>V W /w/
>B V /v/
>Br B /b/
>Fr Wh /ʍ/
>J Y /j/
>Sj J /dʒ/
>Tj Ch /tʃ/
>Z Zh[^Zh] /ʒ/, /ʒə/
>X Sh /ʃ/
>XX (enlarged X) Shr/Nsh /nʃ/, /ʃr/
>Ns Z /z/
>Ande Nz[^Nz] /nz/
>Ende Ns /ns/
>De (T-height B) Th /θ/, /ð/
>Nde (T-height X) Thr/Nth /nθ/, /θr/, /ðr/
>Hr (H-height Tv) Thw /θw/
>A A /æ/, /ɑ/
>Ö Ae /eɪ/
>E E /ɛ/
>Ä Ee /i/
>I I /ɪ/
>Isk (enlarged I) Ie /aɪ/
>O O /ɒ/, /ɔ/, /ɑ/[^O]
>Å Oe /oʊ/
>U U /ʌ/
>Y Oo /u/, /ʊ/
>Över (enlarged Ö) Ow /aʊ/
>JY YOo /ju/
>OJ OY[^Oy] /ɔɪ/
>A, E, O, U, R /ə/[^Schwa]
...
That is a very elaborate system. You have given the adaptation of
shorthand to English much more thought than I have, seldom using an
adaptation to English. In fact, I do not write in stenography on a
regular basis. An adaptation of English I have used employs largely
the same signs for analogous sounds (German/English: w/w, j/y,
sch/sh, st/st, schm/sm, schw/sw, tsch/ch, schn/sn). Other are used in
a looser analogy (German/English: z/th, kn/sk [both have a velar
component], pf/v, zw/tw [etymologically correct, by coincidence]).
The sign for German x (or gs) is used for English j, without any
reasonable analogy. German x is a surplus letter that is not really
required but is already arbitrarily chosen.
My vowels signs are quite deficient, since initially and medially, I
distinguish only four vowels: Front high, front low, back high, and
back low. In hiat or final position, the letters for y w h are used
as matres lectionis so distinctiveness in these positions is better.
Occasionally, I use a system of diacritics that allow for a phonemic
transcription.
A description of my English usage is still online:
http://tengwar.lima-city.de/calligraphizable_stenography/description/
---------
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:07:47 +0200, BPJ wrote:
>2013-10-03 23:34, J. 'Mach' Wust skrev:
>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:40:13 +0200, BPJ wrote:
>>
>>> 2013-10-01 18:45, J. 'Mach' Wust skrev:
>>
>>>> The vowels' representation is different from the
>>>> Faulmann system that is used in the more modern German systems (like
>>>> Stolze-Schrey or deutsche Einheitskurzschrift) which operate with the
>>>> script's baseline (which can be kept, raised or lowered). It yields a
>>>> very similar overall aspect, though. I wonder whether Melin came up
>>>> with his system independently form the Faulman system.
>>>
>>> He got the idea from Arends' system, but the implementation is his
>>> own.
>>> I've looked in vain for an illustration of Arends' system, including
>>> looking through my several binders and folders of photocopies,
>>> knowing that
>>> I used to have something, but the general principle is well
>>> _described_
>>> at <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Arends>
>>
>> Thanks for the hint. Indeed, the similarity is obvious. Here is a
>> picture:
>>
>> http://fotogalerie.herr-der-ringe-film.de/data/7977/arends.png
>>
>> There is one big difference, though: In Arends' system, the lower end
>> of the consonant signs is not significative for the consonants
>> themselves, but is a part of the following vowel.
>>
>
>I know. In fact I used to experiment with both schemes when
>dabbling as a shorthand constructor and I must say that I prefer
>Melin's solution.
I think Melin's solutin is closer to the Faulmann system as in
Stolze-Schrey or in the Deutsche Einheitskurzschrift, with two
different lengths (sometimes three, but very close connection is only
used for indicating vowelless yuxtaposition and is always
same-height) and three different heights. However, the shape of the
connecting upstroke may vary since the height distinction is not a
feature of the connecting upstroke itself (as in Melin's system), but
of the difference in height between the preceding and the following
consonant's groundline. A third feature that contributes to vowel
distinctions is the thickness of the following consonant, so there
are 2 × 3 × 2 = 12 different vowel signs.
Melin's way of using the connecting upstroke as real vowel letters
may well be more natural and practical than Faulmann's system. I will
not learn it, though, until after I have learnt Gregg's shorthand.
This system has always intrigued me as the most elegant of Western
shorthand systems.
...
>It all showed me that Melin's choices were quite good:
>
>* Consonants with similar PoA and MoA have similar signs:
> - Most sonorants -- the most frequent -- are dots or rings,
> - The most frequent suffix consonants are rings/dots or low
> ('half-grade' T and De) stems, and //g// in _-ig_ is
> usually silent, and thus not written,
> - All labials have a rightward bend or a rightward
> bowl, or both!
With the exception of b?
> - All dentals which are not rings/dots have a leftward bowl
> or a leftward loop for the clusters,
The regular formation of the consonant+T clusters is a nice solution.
The German systems use a triple-height upwards stroke -- and drop the
+T in "Eilschrift".
> - All velars have a rightward loop, and the single glottal
> H, has a leftward loop,
> - The two palatals have a leftward bowl *and* a leftward
> loop, indicating their position between the dentals
> and velars,
> - All the triple-height consonants are clusters -- Ng, Sj,
> Tj did at least develop from clusters, and are digraphs
> in longhand!
> - All S+Consonant(onsonant) clusters are triple-height
> versions of the corresponding C,
That is indeed very elegant.
--
grüess
mach
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@shared-files.de
Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:55 pm ((PDT))
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 09:06:52 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
...
>On 03/10/2013 22:34, J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 17:36:33 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
>>
>>> I think most of us here will agree that the *primary*
>>> form of any natlang is the spoken form. The written
>>> form is secondary and derived from the spoken; indeed,
>>> the same language can have more than one written form.
>>
>> I disagree. Affirming the primate of either the written
>> or the spoken forms seem like extremist positions to me.
>
>Oh? Then what about those poor souls who were speaking to
>one another for millennia before writing was developed? It
>seems self-evident to me that speech came first - that's
>what _primary_ means!
>
>I find it a little offensive to be called an extremist
>simply because I hold that for millennia people had language
>and spoke it, and that writing developed later.
I am sorry if I have been offensive. That was not my intention. I am
used to thinking that there is a continuum between the affirmations
"spoken language is first" and "written language is first". That is
why I have used the word extremist: for referring to the extremes of
this continuum.
I agree that spoken language is first most of the times, but not
always. As you have implied, most conlangs are an exception. And in
languages with a fixed orthography, the written form is first in a
certain sense, because it influences the spoken form.
>> The primate of the written form used to be affirmed for
>> most of the 19th century;
>
>I assume you mean *primacy* - that may have been the case
>among many pedagogues, but even in the 19th century there
>were linguists who realized that spoken language came first
>and that written form developed afterwards, i.e. spoken is
>primary and the written is secondary.
>
>In any case, I am not talking about _primacy_, I said
>_primary_. The two words are not synonymous.
They are easily confounded, and I imagine that even for native
English speakers, a use of the word "primary" calls the conceptual
metaphor 'first is better'.
--
grüess
mach
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
3.2. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:48 pm ((PDT))
On 10/10/2013 22:55, J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 09:06:52 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> In any case, I am not talking about _primacy_, I said
>> _primary_. The two words are not synonymous.
>
> They are easily confounded, and I imagine that even for
> native English speakers, a use of the word "primary"
> calls the conceptual metaphor 'first is better'.
>
We attend primary school from the age of five, and then move
onto secondary school at about eleven years old. If we stay
on in education after this, we go onto tertiary education.
There is IME no conceptual metaphor that primary education
is better than secondary or tertiary - not, for that matter,
that tertiary education is worse than primary or secondary.
The US primary elections are not AFAIK considered to be
conceptually better than the elections which follow them.
The Palaeozoic Era was once termed Primary not because it
was considered better than any subsequent geological era.
Et cetera.
I learnt how to speak English sometime before I learnt how
to write it. For natlangs the primary form is the spoken one.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
If /ni/ can change into /ɑ/, then practically
anything can change into anything.
[YUEN REN CHAO]
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
3.3. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@shared-files.de
Date: Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:34 am ((PDT))
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 07:48:26 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
>On 10/10/2013 22:55, J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 09:06:52 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
>[snip]
>>>
>>> In any case, I am not talking about _primacy_, I said
>>> _primary_. The two words are not synonymous.
>>
>> They are easily confounded, and I imagine that even for
>> native English speakers, a use of the word "primary"
>> calls the conceptual metaphor 'first is better'.
>>
>
>We attend primary school from the age of five, and then move
>onto secondary school at about eleven years old. If we stay
>on in education after this, we go onto tertiary education.
> There is IME no conceptual metaphor that primary education
>is better than secondary or tertiary
Why should there be? The conceptual metaphor, in the Lakoffian sense,
is not about primary education, but simply about 'first is better'.
It is a widely used conceptual metaphor as in "first-class", "first
place", "prince", "first-hand", "first-order", "first-world",
"you're my number one", "second-rate", "priority" etc. etc., all of
which were coined on the grounds of that conceptual metaphor.
ObConlang: In the coining of conlangs, the assumption or rejection of
specific conceptual metaphors may be interesting.
>I learnt how to speak English sometime before I learnt how
>to write it. For natlangs the primary form is the spoken one.
In your case, spoken English may have been first in the sense that
you have learnt it first. But is it first now? I do not doubt that
your English has been influenced by written English. And in my case,
I learnt written English first.
--
grüess
mach
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
3.4. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:05 am ((PDT))
On 11/10/2013 10:34, J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 07:48:26 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>>> They are easily confounded, and I imagine that even
>>> for native English speakers, a use of the word
>>> "primary" calls the conceptual metaphor 'first is
>>> better'.
>>>
>>
>> We attend primary school from the age of five, and
>> then move onto secondary school at about eleven years
>> old. If we stay on in education after this, we go onto
>> tertiary education. There is IME no conceptual
>> metaphor that primary education is better than
>> secondary or tertiary
>
> Why should there be?
There should not be. It was you who wrote "I imagine that
even for native English speakers, a use of the word
"primary" calls the conceptual metaphor 'first is
better"; I was merely pointing out with this and two other
examples that it was not so.
> The conceptual metaphor, in the Lakoffian sense, is not
> about primary education, but simply about 'first is
> better'.
... which you maintained that primary also implied. I say
it does not.
> It is a widely used conceptual metaphor as in
> "first-class",
We don't say "primary class' with this meaning!
> "first place", "prince", "first-hand", "first-order",
> "first-world", "you're my number one", "second-rate",
> "priority" etc. etc., all of which were coined on the
> grounds of that conceptual metaphor.
Yes, no one disputes that. But I note that in your list of
examples the words _primary_ and _secondary_ do not figure.
[snip]
>
>> I learnt how to speak English sometime before I learnt
>> how to write it. For natlangs the primary form is the
>> spoken one.
>
> In your case, spoken English may have been first in the
> sense that you have learnt it first. But is it first
> now?
It clearly depends on what you mean by first. It still
remains that for natlangs the spoken form is primary.
Written representations depend upon the spoken one. I can
write English in various secondary forms: Roman script,
Gregg Shorthand, Pittman Shorthand, Shavian alphabet,
Tengwar, Runes etc.
Primary and secondary do not imply better or worse; it is
not IMHO the job of a linguist to make value judgments on
the "goodness" or otherwise of spoken or written language.
We record language as it is; we may note that certain forms
of a language are used in different situations or by
different strata of society or by people in different
regions etc. We may note that some people consider one
register of English (Spanish, German etc) is "better" than
another. It is not the linguist's job to pronounce whether,
for example, southern British "Received Pronunciation" is
"better" than Standard American or, for that matter,
Standard Australian or any other variety.
> I do not doubt that your English has been influenced by
> written English. And in my case, I learnt written
> English first.
Both truisms - but, with respect, it has no bearing on the
fact that English was put into a written form as a
consequence of its being spoken. The written form is
secondary.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
If /ni/ can change into /ɑ/, then practically
anything can change into anything.
[YUEN REN CHAO]
Messages in this topic (30)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
