------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Thoughts on my Gwr Language
From: Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Conlang Evolution Experiment Weekly Review 10
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Generalizing about U.S. education (was: Subject / Object / ?)
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: sexual dimorphism( was: So-called Alternative Lifestyles)
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: Subject / Object / ?
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Pronouns in Split Ergative systems
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Subject / Object / ?
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: sexual dimorphism( was: So-called Alternative Lifestyles)
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: Subject / Object / ?
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: Subject / Object / ?
From: Christophe Grandsire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Flag: Countdown to Voting
From: "I. K. Peylough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: Subject / Object / ?
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Flag: Countdown to Voting
From: "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Subject / Object / ?
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Subject / Object / ?
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Flag: Countdown to Voting
From: "I. K. Peylough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: The fourteen vowels of English?
From: Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: Flag: Countdown to Voting
From: "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: Subject / Object / ?
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Bilabials and Saber Teeth
From: Arthaey Angosii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: The fourteen vowels of English?
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: sexual dimorphism( was: So-called Alternative Lifestyles)
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: Flag: Countdown to Voting
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: Orthography help
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: LLL Weekly Update #10/2004
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:11:12 +1200
From: Wesley Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on my Gwr Language
Most of my languages are pretty analytical - mostly because I never caught up
with the synthetics until I started learning Latin.
Wesley Parish
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:04, Isaac A. Penzev wrote:
> Roger Mills jazdy:
> > The person who received my version found it easy to translate (as I knew
>
> it
>
> > would be), and commented that likes analytical languages, "wish[ing] they
> > were more popular among conlangers." It seems to be true that we don't
> > favor such languages (or do we, and I just haven't encountered many?);
> > are we so much in love with complexity?
>
> I'm afraid most ppl here are afraid to present anything too much analytical
> because the others would consider their projects "primitive" or "naive". A
> year ago I had an idea for a similar project but then changed to smth
> else...
>
> Yitzik
--
Wesley Parish
* * *
Clinersterton beademung - in all of love. RIP James Blish
* * *
Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:12:04 +0100
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Conlang Evolution Experiment Weekly Review 10
The Conlang Evolution Experiment is now 10 weeks old!
http://www.talideon.com/concultures/wiki/?doc=ConlangEvolutionExperiment
In the last week, Apollo Hogan has declared khikeng "Basically finished".
I've added it to Langmaker, and started work on a descendent, kigeng.
As we've now reached something of a milestone on the project, now seems
like a good point to take stock a little. How do people think the project's
going? I throw the floor open to discussion.
Pete
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:40:00 -0400
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Generalizing about U.S. education (was: Subject / Object / ?)
Isaac A. Penzev scripsit:
> > In the United States, the education establishment in the
> > public schools (i.e. primary and secondary schools) considers
> > it old-fashioned to teach grammatical concepts such as
> > subject and object and how to analyse a sentence.
>
> Wow! I didn't know the thing were *SO* bad in the States :((((
As I've said many times before:
The U.S. doesn't have a single national curriculum. It doesn't even have
fifty statewide curricula. Education is locally controlled, with a *very
few* national rules imposed as a side effect of making funds available or
by courts. (There are a few states that do impose statewide curricula,
but even so there is usually some flexibility.) Local control is in the
hands of school boards almost everywhere (NYC has recently become one
of the few exceptions), who are elected non-professionals. Furthermore,
curricula are being changed constantly.
Consequently, people who claim that "U.S. schools" do or don't do this,
that, or the other are *always* generalizing from extremely limited
evidence, frequently personal experience. (This includes me.) There is
a public high school right here in New York City where every student is
taught Latin and Classical Greek, for Ghu's sake.
--
"You're a brave man! Go and break through the John Cowan
lines, and remember while you're out there [EMAIL PROTECTED]
risking life and limb through shot and shell, www.ccil.org/~cowan
we'll be in here thinking what a sucker you are!" www.reutershealth.com
--Rufus T. Firefly
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:45:10 +0100
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: sexual dimorphism( was: So-called Alternative Lifestyles)
>In this case, the chief difference as compared to humans is that elven females
>are on average only marginally smaller and weaker than males, and have what
>human males might characterize as a disappointing lack of curves. Elves of both
>sexes are decidedly thinly built by human standards. Their average height is
>about the same as that for men in neighbouring human communities.
>
>
This seems to be a common feature of elves in books: every author either
describes them all as feminine or androgynous (and tall and thin and
fair-haired also generally). What are the roots of this preconception?
Are they based in the mythology of some culture, or are they from
Tolkien, or some other author...? I find it interesting comparing
dwarves and elves also, since dwarves are typically the opposite (or at
least the logical counterpart to the elves): every member of their race,
male and female, displays exaggerated male characteristics (as well as
being short). Its no wonder really that in practically every book with
elves and dwarves the two don't get on well at all, given that the
feminine characteristics (including their music, art etc which are
typically thought of as more feminine pursuits) of the elves and the
masculine characteristics (their warlike nature, often the fact that
their womenfolk have beards, etc) of the dwarves are so exaggerated that
the gulf between them is massive.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:46:40 +0200
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Subject / Object / ?
Quoting Christophe Grandsire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> En r�ponse � Jeffrey Henning :
>
>
> >On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:39:16 +0200, Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > what is the difference between Subjects, Objects, and something that
> might
> >be confused with them?
> >
> >Think about them as describing the role of a noun phrase in relation to the
> >verb.
>
> Is Rodlox American? Is the education system where he lives so bad?
>
> I mean, those are notions I learned in first year of primary school (age 6)
> and used throughout my education in French, English and Spanish classes.
I first heard of the concepts sometime in 4-6th grade. I think that's normal for
Sweden. I do know that very many Swedish adults learnt the concepts in school,
but have since forgotten them.
> This is nothing against Rodlox. He isn't responsible if he wasn't given
> that information before. But I shudder at the kind of education that leaves
> such simple (and necessary if you want to be able to even begin analysing a
> sentence) notions out.
I'm 100% that the majority of my countrimen have never ever grammatically
analyzed a Swedish sentence after leaving school. Why should they?* Indeed, the
_only_ reason _I_ do it is that I happen to be interested in linguistics to a
degree that probably sets me squarely in the 100th percentile.
I was taught English to a conversational level without the use of the concepts
of subject and object. This works _precisely_ because it's a IE language
without cases - pretty much everything in this regard works like in Swedish*. I
do not know Spanish, but am tempted to assume it works the same for someone
coming from English.
I, OTOH, had some help of the concepts in learning German; made it easier to
develop a feel for, you guessed it, when to use accusative as opposed to
nominative case. This is also the chief justification that was given as to why
we should learn it in Swedish class; to make acquisition of foreign languages
easier.
* This is not a rhetorical question. I am genuinely curious as to why you
apparently see a need for primary schools to teach kids how to analyze
sentences in their native language.
** Granted, both make a nom-obl distinction in pronoun, but it's practically
identical in the two languages, and so represents no problem.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:52:28 +0100
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Pronouns in Split Ergative systems
Describing Morphosyntax says that ergative marking in split ergative
systems is always applied to less animate entities, whereas more animate
entities take accusative marking. Where the split occurs varies, but my
question is this: suppose you have a split ergative language where
people take accusative marking and everything else takes ergative
marking. According to the heirarchy in Describing Morphosyntax the
pronoun system would be accusative. Are there any natural languages with
a split ergative system divided like this where the split also occurs in
the pronoun system, with pronouns referring to humans taking accusative
marking, and pronouns referring to non humans taking ergative marking?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:22:25 +0100
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Subject / Object / ?
>I was taught English to a conversational level without the use of the concepts
>of subject and object. This works _precisely_ because it's a IE language
>without cases - pretty much everything in this regard works like in Swedish*. I
>do not know Spanish, but am tempted to assume it works the same for someone
>coming from English.
>
>
The Spanish Pronoun system is similar in some ways but not in others.
For a start there's a (at least) three way distinction, in place of the
two of english: nom (yo, tu, usted, el....) , acc (me, te, le, la, ...)
, and oblique (mi, ti, usted, el...). You could also count the indirect
object and reflexive pronouns as more sets, but for most person/number
combinations these are the same as the accusative (they differ in the
third person). The most obvious difference is that the spanish
accusative, indirect object, and reflexive pronouns are clitics (or
prefixes... whatever they are, although they're written separately they
can't be parted from their verb by other constituents of the phrase),
unlike in English. Another difference is that Spanish is a prodrop
language, and subject pronouns especially don't often appear since verb
marking fulfills their role.
The Spanish case system is unlike the English case system in some ways.
Whereas in English we strictly separate subject and object (by word
order rather than explicit marking, admittedly...) in Spanish there is
no such distinction for nouns other than in nouns which refer to
specific people (the so-called "personal a"; word order has a mainly
pragmatic rather than grammatical function), so in some instances
clauses can be ambiguous where there is no ambiguity in English. In
practice the ambiguity rarely arises since the context usually makes it
clear.
In any case, I think you need to be acquainted with the ideas of
subject, object and indirect object because you need to know what you're
making the verb agree with (in many cases indirect object pronouns are
compulsory even when the argument they refer to is present), especially
since we have very little in the way of verbal agreement in English.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:20:32 +0300
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: sexual dimorphism( was: So-called Alternative Lifestyles)
On Sep 13, 2004, at 1:45 PM, Chris Bates wrote:
>> In this case, the chief difference as compared to humans is that
>> elven females
>> are on average only marginally smaller and weaker than males, and
>> have what
>> human males might characterize as a disappointing lack of curves.
>> Elves of both
>> sexes are decidedly thinly built by human standards. Their average
>> height is
>> about the same as that for men in neighbouring human communities.
> This seems to be a common feature of elves in books: every author
> either
> describes them all as feminine or androgynous (and tall and thin and
> fair-haired also generally). What are the roots of this preconception?
> Are they based in the mythology of some culture, or are they from
> Tolkien, or some other author...? I find it interesting comparing
> dwarves and elves also, since dwarves are typically the opposite (or at
> least the logical counterpart to the elves): every member of their
> race,
> male and female, displays exaggerated male characteristics (as well as
> being short). Its no wonder really that in practically every book with
> elves and dwarves the two don't get on well at all, given that the
> feminine characteristics (including their music, art etc which are
> typically thought of as more feminine pursuits) of the elves and the
> masculine characteristics (their warlike nature, often the fact that
> their womenfolk have beards, etc) of the dwarves are so exaggerated
> that
> the gulf between them is massive.
I think it probably did come from Tolkien, since as far as i know
before him elves were generally short, like Keebler's elves.
Speaking of elves, see "Those Eyes" by David Brin:
http://www.davidbrin.com/thoseeyes1.html
-Stephen (Steg)
"jealousy, selfishness,
and being a self-hating human
can cause early death."
~ R' Yehoshua` (rough translation)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:26:29 +0200
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Subject / Object / ?
> In any case, I think you need to be acquainted with the ideas of
> subject, object and indirect object because you need to know what you're
> making the verb agree with (in many cases indirect object pronouns are
> compulsory even when the argument they refer to is present), especially
> since we have very little in the way of verbal agreement in English.
Well, you _have_ it, which is more than can be said for Swedish. I cannot
offhand recall how it was explained to us back in 4th grade, but it pretty much
must have preceeded the introduction of the concepts of subject and object in
Swedish class.
I don't have any textbooks from back then left, but kicking my brain around a
bit, I seem to recall we learnt _I am_, _you are_, etc, as a kind of units;
_jag �r_=_I am_, _du �r_=_you are_, _han �r_=_he is_, and so on. Still can't
recall how they explained the sg~pl distinction; trying to think how _I_ would
do it, I suspect they might've de-facto used the concept of subject without
using the term; saying it agrees with the word "carrying out" the verb.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:34:55 +0200
From: Christophe Grandsire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Subject / Object / ?
En r�ponse � Andreas Johansson :
>* This is not a rhetorical question. I am genuinely curious as to why you
>apparently see a need for primary schools to teach kids how to analyze
>sentences in their native language.
Because that's the only way to make them able to reliably and consistently
build and understand complex sentences in their own language. I remember
reading the results of a survey that proved that illiteracy was caused in
part by a lack of teaching the basic analytic tools necessary to analyse
sentences in one's native tongue. It was in dead tree form, so I don't have
a link to it (nor do I have it here). Note that I'm referring to illiteracy
here (the inability to understand texts of medium to high complexity), not
analphabetism, which has other causes.
If your goal is just to allow all children to write SMS messages on their
mobiles, then you're right that this is unnecessary. I personally think
literacy should be a little higher than that.
>** Granted, both make a nom-obl distinction in pronoun, but it's practically
>identical in the two languages, and so represents no problem.
I was lucky to know how all those concepts when I started learning English.
The structure of the English sentence is different enough from the
structure of the French sentence that being able to fall back on a
structured system of analysis helped me learning much faster. Even with
languages I learned later, it helped: for instance, I am better at writing
Dutch than my friend, who is a native Dutchman. I make more spelling
mistakes than him and my vocabulary is limited (and I constantly confuse
genders), but my sentences are usually better built than his, and when it
comes to grammatical rules I'm much better at expressing them than he is,
and thus much better at *using* them.
But learning foreign languages isn't the main reason for learning simple
grammatical concepts, as all those things I've been describing apply to
your native language as well, especially in a literate civilisation like ours.
Christophe Grandsire.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:56:07 -0400
From: "I. K. Peylough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Flag: Countdown to Voting
How do we vote if we doesn't see any flags we like?
I
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:20:19 +0930, Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The voting form is ready, and no new flag submissions have been
>received in the last few days, so it would appear that we're just
>about ready to vote. Once voting begins, no new submissions will be
>accepted.
>
>If you are working on a flag that you would like to submit when it's
>finished, this is your opportunity to say so. If there is anything you
>wish to say or do before submissions close, now's your chance.
>
>As it happens, I've (as previously mentioned) asked someone to help
>design a flag with knotted tongues as the centrepiece, which I'm still
>waiting to see. I won't insist that we wait for this if there's a
>strong demand for voting to begin ASAP, but I've sent an email asking
>for a timeframe estimate on it and will keep you informed.
>
>Regardless of when voting begins, it will continue for a whole week.
>
>Adrian.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:23:27 +0200
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Subject / Object / ?
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:01:46 +0200, Christophe Grandsire
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> En r�ponse � Joe :
>
>
> >Personally, I'd agree with that
>
> So basically, you're saying that it's acceptable to be unable to analyse
> your own sentences.
That's not how I read it - I saw him as saying "yes, this is a fairly
correct assessment of the _status quo_". I did not read it as saying
he thinks this status is either desirable or undesirable.
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Watch the Reply-To!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:26:16 +0930
From: "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Flag: Countdown to Voting
I. K. Peylough wrote:
> How do we vote if we doesn't see any flags we like?
What's the problem? I've almost never seen any politicians I like, but
I've still voted for them ...
Adrian.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:08:09 -0400
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Subject / Object / ?
It has admittedly been . . . (pause for math) . . . 27 years since I
was in the 4th grade, but at that time we did, in fact, study how to
diagram sentences. In English class. In a government-funded school.
In the USA.
So we learned not only "subject" and "object", but fancy words like
"predicate". And the distinction among "direct object", "indirect
object", and "object of preposition". Or between "direct object" and
"predicate nominative" (another fancy word). Adverbial vs. adjectival
prepositional phrases. All that good stuff.
We didn't learn the words "accusative" and "dative", though; those would
have to wait until German class. We just said that words like "me"
were in the "objective" case.
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:34:32 +0200
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Subject / Object / ?
Quoting Christophe Grandsire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> En r�ponse � Andreas Johansson :
>
>
> >* This is not a rhetorical question. I am genuinely curious as to why you
> >apparently see a need for primary schools to teach kids how to analyze
> >sentences in their native language.
>
> Because that's the only way to make them able to reliably and consistently
> build and understand complex sentences in their own language. I remember
> reading the results of a survey that proved that illiteracy was caused in
> part by a lack of teaching the basic analytic tools necessary to analyse
> sentences in one's native tongue. It was in dead tree form, so I don't have
> a link to it (nor do I have it here). Note that I'm referring to illiteracy
> here (the inability to understand texts of medium to high complexity), not
> analphabetism, which has other causes.
I must say this much surprises me. Particularly since I know plenty of people
who could not grammatically dissect the simplest sentence (altho they likely
could for a while during their school years), yet can read and write texts of
highish complexity perfectly well.
It also seems a priori unexpected - why would not one's subconscious grasp of
one's native grammar suffice, when it clearly does for speaking? At least I
"say" what I'm going to write in my head as I type it, which makes it hard for
me to believe the mental processes involved in the production of written and
spoken texts are _that_ different.
> If your goal is just to allow all children to write SMS messages on their
> mobiles, then you're right that this is unnecessary. I personally think
> literacy should be a little higher than that.
I would too, but I had never in my life suspected that that sort of conscious
grammatical understanding would be necessary or even particularly helpful for
achieving it.
> >** Granted, both make a nom-obl distinction in pronoun, but it's practically
> >identical in the two languages, and so represents no problem.
>
> I was lucky to know how all those concepts when I started learning English.
> The structure of the English sentence is different enough from the
> structure of the French sentence that being able to fall back on a
> structured system of analysis helped me learning much faster.
I'm told that having an abstract understanding of grammar is helpful from about
puberty and on, but before that children learn better if they're, so to speak,
thrown into it without preparation and forced to swim.
What, if any, observational data underlies this, I do not know. I've heard it
from a variety of sources, incl some of my language teachers over the years.
> Even with
> languages I learned later, it helped: for instance, I am better at writing
> Dutch than my friend, who is a native Dutchman. I make more spelling
> mistakes than him and my vocabulary is limited (and I constantly confuse
> genders), but my sentences are usually better built than his, and when it
> comes to grammatical rules I'm much better at expressing them than he is,
> and thus much better at *using* them.
Well, looking at just two people does not make for particularly convincing
statistics. I was taught English with the help of very little in the way of
grammatical analysis, yet it's fairly easy to find natives whose written
English is much worse than mine. I'd be tempted to suspect that your success
owes at least as much to greater interest in, and perhaps greater native talent
for, sentence structuring and grammatical rules.
FWIW, IME, I'm often better at _stating_ the rules of a language than a native
while being worse at _applying_ them.
> But learning foreign languages isn't the main reason for learning simple
> grammatical concepts, as all those things I've been describing apply to
> your native language as well, especially in a literate civilisation like
> ours.
So it may be, but this far I have very little reason to believe it to be the
case, beyond your assertion that it is. It contradicts both what my intuition
tells me and the assumptions implicit behind most of my language education, so
I hope you will forgive me a certain skepticism.
If anyone has a link to an online article dealing with the matter, I'd be
interested.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:32:41 -0400
From: "I. K. Peylough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Flag: Countdown to Voting
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:26:16 +0930, Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I. K. Peylough wrote:
>
>> How do we vote if we doesn't see any flags we like?
>
>What's the problem? I've almost never seen any politicians I like, but
>I've still voted for them ...
>
>Adrian.
That's exactly the problem: this flag vote thing is uncomfortably close to
real-life elections. Where it's mostly predecided by a small clicque who
severely limit the choices. Is there any need for this? Well have fun, but
could you take it off list?
I
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:43:06 +0200
From: Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The fourteen vowels of English?
> j. 'mach' wust wrote:
>
> I've read of the minimal pair /k&n/ (modal verb) vs.
> /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ('to put into
> cans'). Do you really have this?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> j. 'mach' wust
I've just tried it out (I've used the SAMPA primary
stress mark at the phrasal, rather than the word
level, since my knowledge of the prosodic marks is
laughable):
"I can."
[aI "k&@n]
"I can open the can."
[aI kn= OU.pn= DV k&@n]
"I can peaches."
[aI k&@n pi.tSIz]
"trashcan"
["tSr\&S.k&@n]
So, basically, yes. As a noun or action verb, /can/ is
always [k&@n], but as a modal verb, it's either [k&@n]
when stressed or [kn=] when unstressed.
��[r\I."gAr\dz]
[,sti.vn= "wIl.jm=z]
Vous manquez d�espace pour stocker vos mails ?
Yahoo! Mail vous offre GRATUITEMENT 100 Mo !
Cr�ez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.benefits.yahoo.com/
Le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger est arriv� ! D�couvrez toutes les nouveaut�s pour
dialoguer instantan�ment avec vos amis. A t�l�charger gratuitement sur
http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:54:34 +0930
From: "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Flag: Countdown to Voting
I. K. Peylough wrote:
> That's exactly the problem: this flag vote thing is uncomfortably close to
> real-life elections. Where it's mostly predecided by a small clicque who
> severely limit the choices. Is there any need for this? Well have fun, but
> could you take it off list?
WTH are you talking about?
1. The selection of a flag is a popular idea among a significant
number of list members. If that doesn't make it belong on-list, I
don't know what does.
2. There is no "clique". Anyone can submit a design, and any design
that is seconded by someone other than the creator *will* be added
to the list of official candidates. Of course, it's easier to
advertise a design if you have a website, but arrangements can be
made. How the hell do you justify your statement that it's "mostly
predecided by a small clicque who severely limit the choices"? I'm
being as fair-handed as I can, I assure you.
3. If you don't like the candidate flags, then either you care or you
don't. If you care, submit your own - I guarantee to add it if it
is seconded, and I might even add it anyway. If you don't care,
then ignore the thread, and ignore the final decision, too. It
doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever unless you want it to.
However, don't impose your views upon the significant number of
people who have expressed an active interest in the process.
Adrian.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:38:18 -0400
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Subject / Object / ?
Andreas Johansson scripsit:
> > >* This is not a rhetorical question. I am genuinely curious as to why you
> > >apparently see a need for primary schools to teach kids how to analyze
> > >sentences in their native language.
> >
> > Because that's the only way to make them able to reliably and consistently
> > build and understand complex sentences in their own language. [...]
>
> I must say this much surprises me. Particularly since I know plenty of people
> who could not grammatically dissect the simplest sentence (altho they likely
> could for a while during their school years), yet can read and write texts of
> highish complexity perfectly well.
>
> It also seems a priori unexpected - why would not one's subconscious grasp of
> one's native grammar suffice, when it clearly does for speaking? At least I
> "say" what I'm going to write in my head as I type it, which makes it hard for
> me to believe the mental processes involved in the production of written and
> spoken texts are _that_ different.
Remember that you are talking to a francophone, for whom this procedure is
essentially impossible due to the wide separation of spoken French and written
French, which Christophe has himself characterized as "two separate languages"
on many occasions.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
"It's the old, old story. Droid meets droid. Droid becomes chameleon.
Droid loses chameleon, chameleon becomes blob, droid gets blob back
again. It's a classic tale." --Kryten, Red Dwarf
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:42:04 -0700
From: Arthaey Angosii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Bilabials and Saber Teeth
I began wondering this morning if what I have always assumed was /m/
in Asha'ille really is /F/ instead (long-legged m, the labiodental
nasal). The native speakers of Asha'ille have saber teeth, which, now
that I think about it, would make bilabials particularly difficult for
them.
So where does this leave me with /p/ and /b/? Do you think /p\/ and
/B/ would be easier to pronounce? They're still bilabial, but without
direct contact of the lips.
Does a sound between /B/ and /f/ exist? That is, I believe this sound
I'm toying with is a labiodental friccative with *no contact* between
the teeth and the lower lip.
--
AA
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:50:10 -0400
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The fourteen vowels of English?
J. Mach Wust wrote:
>
> I've read of the minimal pair /k&n/ (modal verb) vs. /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ('to put
> into
> cans'). Do you really have this?
>
That sounds like US Southern dialect to me; unless you meant to type /k&n/
vs. /k&@n/-- in which case I think there's no real contrast. The
underlying/base form of both is simply /k&n/; all the rest depends and where
and how they can occur.
Modal 'can', in the rare case when it's the main verb of the sentence, would
also be pronounced [k&@n]--
--Can you do it by tomorrow?
--I c�n. [k_h&@n]
(Probably also, --I c�n't [k_h&@nt] but it's marginal, for me)
--What's your job at Del Monte?
--I c�n (sci. 'things') [k_h&@n]
OTOH, modal can is usually followed by something else-- another verb, 'not
~ -'t', too -- (ceases to be main verb and is unstressed) and in these cases
loses its monosyllabic-ness and lengthened vowel-- so it either reduces to
unstressed [kn=] or has a shortened vowel nucleus--
--He can r�ad [k_hn='r\i:d], but he can't wr�te [k_h&~?'r\aj?] (or
[k_h&~(n)t'r\ajt] in more careful speech)
--He can t�o! [k_h&n'tu:]
(I suspect the /k/ in [k..n=] is aspirated only slightly, if at all.)
At the beginning of a course long ago, the prof. asked us to do a phonetic
transcription of a dialogue, in our normal speech, to see how accurate our
various ears were. One of the sentences was "Can you get me a can of beer?"
Very few of us, to his dismay, noted the difference between the two can's.
Many even failed to note that "can of beer" would probably be
[k_h&n@'[EMAIL PROTECTED] everyday speech.
Thus even the container "can" can lose its offglide in a phrase or followed
by another syllable-- "canning" ['k_h&nIN]-- though obviously it never
reduces to [k_hn=].
(Others' dialects may differ)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:49:54 +0200
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: sexual dimorphism( was: So-called Alternative Lifestyles)
Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>>Andreas Johansson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don't know about the Meghean-speakers. I don't even know if homosexuality
>>
>>occurs
>>
>>>among them, but since sexual dimorphism is less pronounced among them than
>>
>>among
>>
>>>humans, it would seem likely.
>>
>>What do you mean by "sexual dimorphism is less pronounced among them"?
>>Does it refer to secondary gender characteristics?
>
>
> "Sexual dimorphism" refers to anatomical differences between the sexes,
> particularly ones not directly related to sexual functions.
>
> In this case, the chief difference as compared to humans is that elven females
> are on average only marginally smaller and weaker than males, and have what
> human males might characterize as a disappointing lack of curves. Elves of both
> sexes are decidedly thinly built by human standards. Their average height is
> about the same as that for men in neighbouring human communities.
I thought it would be like this. At first I thought that Elf women must
at least have breasts, but then breasts needn't be large at all to
fulfill their primary function. A woman I knew commented how her
"fried eggs" produced lots of milk while her friend's "balloons"
produced hardly any milk.
--
/BP 8^)
--
B.Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
(Tacitus)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:02:36 -0400
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Flag: Countdown to Voting
I. K. Peylough wrote:
> >> How do we vote if we doesn't see any flags we like?
> >
And Adrian wrote:
> >What's the problem? I've almost never seen any politicians I like, but
> >I've still voted for them ...
>
> That's exactly the problem: this flag vote thing is uncomfortably close to
> real-life elections.
Oh come now. The Nation will not rise or fall depending on the outcome...
One has the option of not voting. There is no requirement that one like, or
use, whatever design is ultimately chosen.
>Where it's mostly predecided by a small clicque who
> severely limit the choices.
It is not predecided by any means. Anyone is free to offer a design.
> Well have fun, but could you take it off list?
>
It's too late for that; I think everyone was surprised at the response.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:22:11 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Orthography help
On Monday, September 13, 2004, at 04:21 , Herman Miller wrote:
> Trebor Jung wrote:
>
>> How could I represent /K/ and /tK)/ as non-digraphs?
>
> /K/ can be represented as a barred L: originally a lower case l with a
> hyphen superimposed, which was easy to produce on a typewriter, but you
> could use the Polish "l with stroke", if your software can handle it.
[snip]
> ...................................But if you need to
> use unaccented characters of the Latin alphabet, it would be somewhat of
> an arbitrary choice; "x" might be as good as any.
Barred-l is a possibility for the voiceless lateral fricative. But IME
those who have never or rarely heard the Welsh (or Nuguni) pronunciation
and and do not know the spelling, more often than not think the sound is a
badly pronounced [s] or [S], so something suggesting the sibilant sound is
another possibility. Therefore I agree with Herman that |x| is as good as
any. Indeed, in a Conlang I began work on a few years back (but lost
interest in) I used |x| in just that same way.
> Some texts use a barred lambda for /tK)/, but this is a somewhat rare
> character, probably best avoided if you're putting the text on a web
> page or something. Of the remaining Latin letters, perhaps "k" could be
> used for this.
I think something perhaps suggesting an affricate might be an idea. |j| is
an affricate in English spelling & |z| in German & Italian. So I suggest
either |j| or |z|
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:08:51 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LLL Weekly Update #10/2004
> And while the lostlangs mailing list has been HUMMING, there is
> actually little to report because most posts have been off-topic.
sorry.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
