There are 11 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Hangul
From: Adam Walker
1b. Re: Hangul
From: C. Brickner
1c. Re: Hangul
From: BPJ
1d. Re: Hangul
From: Padraic Brown
1e. Re: Hangul
From: R A Brown
2.1. Re: Melin's Swedish Shorthand -- for English! (was: Re: Gateway to c
From: BPJ
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: Padraic Brown
3.3. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
From: R A Brown
4. Coming out in conlang
From: Casey Borders
5.1. Kalchian verbal conjugation
From: Padraic Brown
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Hangul
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:29 am ((PDT))
Shong Lue Yang's Pahawh script invented in 1959 for Hmong and Khmu comes to
mind.
Adam
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 8:32 AM, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
> 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 <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 (19)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Hangul
Posted by: "C. Brickner" tepeyach...@embarqmail.com
Date: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:11 pm ((PDT))
The Ethrans, as the first created of the Loquent People, became the scientists
and scholars who began to investigate the world in which they were placed.
Much was learned and recorded about the world in the 26,000 years before the
Pyrans were created. Each of the six archimages took on the responsibility of
an area of the world: astronomy, zoology, arts, earth sciences, botany,
physical sciences. Asus, responsible for the field of the arts, invented the
Senjecan acrophonic alphabet in order to record their discoveries. Since the
Ethrans are immortal, this is a known fact and not mythic . Of course, no date
is recorded.
Charlie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Padraic Brown" < elemti...@yahoo.com >
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 7:24:56 PM
Subject: Re: Hangul
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.
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Hangul
Posted by: "BPJ" b...@melroch.se
Date: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:56 pm ((PDT))
2013-10-11 15:32, R A Brown skrev:
>> 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.
Actually there was one native North American language, I
forget which, which was generally written in Duployan shorthand
as its normal written form.
ObConlang: there are probably more material in and about my
conlangs, especially Sohlob, written in Melin's shorthand than
in the Latin alphabet -- practically everything I've written on
paper as opposed to electronically is in shorthand. The
shorthand 'transcription' of Sohlob is BTW not a simple
transliteration of the Latin 'transcription', and it differs
from my English system adaptation as well. It uses the 'caron'
diacritic analogously to _č ǧ ǰ ǩ š ž_ for /tɕ ʁ dʑ χ ɕ ʑ/[^1]
and even on V T D to distinguish /v θ ð/[^2] from /w t d/, plus
_ḽ r̭ m̭ ṋ ṋ͡y ṋ͡g y̭ <j̭> w̭ <v̭>_ for voiceless laterals/nasals and
additionally _s͡k̭_ /sχ/ and _š͡k̭_ for /ɕχ/.
I've tried to bring myself to use the Latin script equivalent of
the same system, but with _ȟ_ rather than _ǩ_ -- but who am I
kidding? I could just as well use dreary _ch dh gh jh kh lh mh nh
nhg nhy rh sh th wh zh yh_. I'd much rather use _hc hd hg hj hk
hl hm hn hng hny hr hs ht hw hz hy_ except that Sally Caves has
prior art for that device!
/bpj
[^1]: Using <Tj> for _c_ and <Sj> for _z_.
[^2]: /θ ð/ occur in the Cidilib/Čiðilib and Linjeb languages
of the Sohlob family
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Hangul
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:48 pm ((PDT))
From: R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com>
> 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).
True...
> 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 :)
Well, I think you're right that short-hands and spelling reform
systems and alphabet reform systems ought probably not be
counted.
But I'd still count Deseret Alphabet if only because, at that time,
I think the Mormons were very much in a more separatist frame
of mind than they are anymore. They'd been on the trail of
persecution and mistrust and violence and at last came to a
place, where I suspect they were intent on creating their own
culture, their own people and their own country. Even though
the language was no different than that used by the rest of
English speaking America, I think there was enough cultural
distinction to allow this one to count.
>> 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.
Ah! Well, deepest apologies and respects to M Tiro! I had
forgotten about earlier scribal shortcut systems.
But even so, do we have a specific date of promulgation?
That I think was the main point. The ones I listed at least
could be pinned down to year and author, if not a more
specific time!
So, short hands are out! I'll stick with primary (not better!)
writing systems, then.
> 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.
Yes, I think this is a very valid point.
> 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.
Right. Also in this group would be Romanian. I would still tend
to count these replacements. For the people involved, Romanians
who had hitherto only known Cyrillic or Koreans who only knew
hanja or Philippinos who had only known Spanish orthography,
an entirely newly made system of writing or a borrowing from
some other system amounts to about the same thing! It's still
new to the language, it still undergoes some amount of
tweaking (the Philippine alphabet has a reduced number of
letters, the Romanian and Turkish have altered letters (dotless
i, letters with diacritics)) and, perhaps more importantly to
the discussion, has a date certain promulgation!
> 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.
Yep.
> 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.
Padraic
> Ray
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Hangul
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:36 pm ((PDT))
On 11/10/2013 21:56, BPJ wrote:
[snip]
>
> Actually there was one native North American language, I
> forget which, which was generally written in Duployan
> shorthand as its normal written form.
Ah yes - interesting. We'd better include Father
Jean-Marie-Raphaël Le Jeune who in the early 1890s developed
Duployan Shorthand for writing the Chinook Jargon and the
Salish languages: St’át’imcets (Lillooet), Nlaka'pamux and
Okanagan.
--
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 (19)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Melin's Swedish Shorthand -- for English! (was: Re: Gateway to c
Posted by: "BPJ" b...@melroch.se
Date: Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:38 am ((PDT))
2013-10-10 23:26, J. 'Mach' Wust skrev:
> 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.
IMO Melin's W = VV is a sloppy kludge, albeit an understandable
one since _w_ was merely an allograph in Swedish. There actually
is one word with /vː/: _vovve_ 'doggie', and in western/southern
accents _huvud_ 'head' is /ˈhɵvːɛ/ or /ˈhɞvvɛ/ (from Old Sw.
forms like the dative sg. or gen. plural, which had a syncopated
stem /hovð-/, which then spread to the definite nom./acc. of both
numbers _hofw(u)dhit, hofw(u)dhin_).
> 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.
Swedish is a bit different in that it actually has geminate
consonants, although it is similar in that stressed vowels before
a same-morpheme consonant cluster, including geminates, are
short, while stressed vowels in an open syllable or in a syllable
ending in a single consonant are long, while stressed vowels
before a consonant and a morpheme boundary followed by a
consonant (VC#C) vary lexically, lectally and depending on which
morphemes are involved. Thus vowel length depends on stress and
syllable- and morpheme structure. There are Swedish speakers who
perceive vowel length as phonemic, but I don't think I ever had,
since my Dialect1 has a lot of alternation of length in the same
root when consonantal endings are added. Also my accent has little
or no
qualitative difference between short and long stressed vowels.
Of course the reason checked vowels are 'indicated' by double
following consonant letters in most Germanic languages is that
they all had a system like the Swedish/Norwegian/Icelandic at some
time!
> ...
>> 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?
Sort of. _Mossa_ was _mŏsa_ and _fågel_ was _fŭgl > fŭgel_ in
Old Swedish, thus _mosa_ had and _fugl_ came to have a short
stressed vowel followed by a single consonant. Around 1300 all
such words were 'normalized' by either lengthening the vowel or
geminating the consonant, and different dialects 'chose'
differently for different words; moreover the vowel was
frequently lowered, especially _ĭ > ē_ and less frequently
_ŭ > ō_, _y̆ > ø̄_ etc. An odd example is _vĭka_ 'week' which
became /vekka/ in St. Sw. but is/was /vikka/ or /veːka/ in most
dialects. At the same time 'overlong' V:C: had either the vowel
shortened and VCC had the vowel shortened, so that in modern
Swedish and Norwegian all stressed syllables are long and all
fully unstressed syllables are short unless they have a
consonant cluster.
>
>> 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 X > Sh is of course a bit of a kludge, and Ö > Ae is even more so,
the odd men out really! My mnemonic is that the cognate of _great_
happens to exist as _gröt-_ in some Swedish place names
(Gmc. *au > OE. ēa O. Sw. ø̄ is of course regular!) I have to
console myself with that the sign looks 'like an E/Ee with an A
in the middle'.
>
> 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.
I of course use diacritics sometimes for the multivalent signs.
In some cases I use different spellings of whole words, like
MONth _month_ vs. MOTHER _mother_, while other _-ther_ words
use the Thr sign.
>
> A description of my English usage is still online:
> http://tengwar.lima-city.de/calligraphizable_stenography/description/
I remember looking at this years ago!
BTW I forgot to mention that I use Fr for Pf when writing German,
but you may have guessed that! _Pfeil_ at least becomes reminicent
of _pil_.
>
> ---------
>
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:07:47 +0200, BPJ wrote:
>
>
> 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 certainly feels more natural once you've learned it, but has the
downside that consonant signs other than the first in each word
are written above or below the baseline depending on the height of the
preceding vowel. The resulting _klättereffekter_ ('climbing effects')
can be bothersome, but are counterbalanced by breaking longer
compounds
(but with a smaller space than inter-word space between the parts!)
The word _överläkarvikarie_ 'stand-in chief physician' is proverbial,
but in practice it's abbreviated to ÖverLKVIK.
>
> ...
>> 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?
Yes of course! But it's easily overlooked because B is to V what P
is to F.
>
>> - 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".
Final _-t_ is important in Swedish as it is the neuter singular
adjective ending, adverb ending and supine ending. BTW many use
special wide versions of D, T, St, J etc. for Nd Nt Nst, Nj etc.
after E and Ä instead of the backwardsleaning signs.
>
>> - 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.
Yes, it's actually very featural!
Messages in this topic (31)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. 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 10:50 am ((PDT))
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:05:35 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
>On 11/10/2013 10:34, J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
...
>> 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.
I have no objection to this statement about the history of the
English language (or of any natlang). I have only objected to your
intitial statement: "I think most of us here will agree that the
*primary* form of any natlang is the spoken form." I did not know
that you implied "historically" or "diachronically". I only object
to this statement if it is meant synchronically.
--
grüess
mach
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
3.2. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:24 pm ((PDT))
From: R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com>
> 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.
I have to say that, although of course I certainly understand the
"conceptual metaphor" of first being better, as an English speaker
(first) (and writer later), "first" and "primary" overwhelmingly convey
the idea of place along a temporal or spatial continuum. Conveying
the idea of better is definitely a secondary meaning, or maybe tertiary,
and only very rarely comes to the fore (and then, usually when
speaking of the relative qualities of "first place" or "second place"
entries in some kind of skill contest).
>> 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!
Indeed not.
>> "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.
"Better" doesn't even figure in all of them. First place indicates
location along a spectrum of finishing slots. (Yes, quality can
come into play in determining who gets sorted where, but doesn't
really change that "first place" simply means "before everyone
else"). Same with first order, number one, priority, etc. None
of those speak of quality. "Second rate" (and its better, "first
rate") definitely dó indicate quality -- those are idioms whose
primary meaning involves the relative quality of what is being
described. First rate care, second rate food, etc.
Not really sure why "prince" is in this list. Apart from old
stories and news of the royal family, I am just not sure what
a prince actually is or does or why it should matter. I guess
as a leader of sorts or head of a realm, we get to primacy of
place again. But not relative quality, not "(prince is) better"
(and judging from many histories of royals, I'll wager that
there are many non-princes out here who are, in point of
fact, of better upbringing and better moral character than
the princes).
>> 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.
If he learned written English first, does that mean he learned it
better? Or, since it was given him first and foremost, does
that mean written English is a better language? I learnt English
(spoken) first, before any other language. I guess that makes
English the best language in the world! :)
For so goes the logic.
Padraic
> Ray
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
3.3. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:04 am ((PDT))
On 11/10/2013 18:50, J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
[snip]
> I have no objection to this statement about the history
> of the English language (or of any natlang). I have only
> objected to your intitial statement: "I think most of us
> here will agree that the *primary* form of any natlang
> is the spoken form." I did not know that you implied
> "historically" or "diachronically". I only object to
> this statement if it is meant synchronically.
No, I was not making a diachronic statement only. IMHO it
applies diachronically as well.
I was making a *linguistic* statement (i.e. not a pedagogic
one; not one from the point of view of a prescriptive
grammarian etc).
It seems to me that you are reading into the words 'primary'
and 'secondary' judgmental values that are not warranted in
the normal use of these words.
Also you appear to be confusing the 'literary form' of a
language with _written_. _Any form of English (German,
Spanish, Chinese etc, etc) from very formal and literary,
through colloquial to contemporary slang can be (and in some
case often is) written._
That these different strata of language and different
dialects can be written is due to the fact that they are
spoken (tho in the case of some literary styles this may be
more in theory than in practice). Furthermore, the written
form can be rendered in Roman script, Braille, Shavian
script, one of the several extant systems of shorthand,
various personal codes etc., etc.
Finally my original statement, which you quote above,
begins: "I think most of us here ...." - it does not say
_all_. That only one person has disagreed seems not to
invalidate "most", methinks.
I think this particular sub-thread of "Spoken French
Orthography" should come to an end.
--
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 (34)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Coming out in conlang
Posted by: "Casey Borders" thebeast...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:26 am ((PDT))
Geek and Sundry is a YouTube channel started by Felicia Day and Wil Wheaton
where they have all kinds of shows celebrated the many facets of geek
culture. One of the vlogs is "Geeking Out" hosted by Neil McNeil and Becca
Canote where they talk about being gay in geek culture. On her personal
channel Becca Canote posted a video for National Coming Out Day where she
goes through coming out in 20 different conlangs. Here's the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3sc9fyCnPA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5.1. Kalchian verbal conjugation
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:37 am ((PDT))
So, there is in the farthest reaches of Alaria beyond the seas a language with
what
I think is an interesting sort of verbal conjugation. First, the examples, in
this case,
the verb "see":
First person:
hmang-Tan-Co sme-ssue-Ti ku-mue-te
dog-A-ref see-MID-3.s.pr me-A-abl
The dog gets himself into view by me (masc).
---------------------------------------------------------
Second person:
ũm-dang-so saman-Ø-ni un-g-hmang-Tan-sum
thou-A-nom examine-Ø-2.s.pr to-lias-dog-A-acc
You (slave) examine to the dog.
----------------------------------------------------------
Third person:
lĩ-Tan-so ilt saman-Ø-ni un-g-hmang-Tan-sum
one-A-nom that examine-Ø-2.s.pr to-lias-dog-A-acc
She examines to the dog.
--------------------------------------------------------------
hmang = dog (any major species of wild, domestic or semi-domesticated)
sme- = "it comes into view"
saman- = "thoroughly examine"; "pick apart"
A = animacy ranking (there are seven, all together, both inherent and momentary)
MID = middle voice
Ø = active voice is unmarked default
abl = ablative case
nom = nominative case
acc = accusative case
ref = referential case
lias = an intrusive consonant
This example is in the unmarked/default "ongoing present". There is also
a (marked) "momentary present".
As you can see, and this is also the case for all other verbs of perception,
the first person forms are conjugated in the middle with respect to the
referent and with a "passive" root verb; while the second and third
persons are conjugated in the active with respect to the subject and with
an entirely different, "active" root verb.
It got me wondering if there is any ANADEW for this kind of conjugation:
one conceptual map for one person and then using an entirely different
conceptual map for the other person(s), and entirely different verbs for
both. The distinction here being one of detached, almost impersonal experience
(for the first person) vs. a more hands on, almost violent engagement with the
object in question (for the second and third persons).
Padraic
Messages in this topic (34)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
