------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Conlang flag design; comments and proposals
From: Jan van Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Conlang Coat of Arms
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Conlang aesthetics
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Conlang flag design; comments and proposals
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: Further language development Q's
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: ? how would you classify this language ?
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Further language development Q's
From: Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Further language development Q's
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: Writing Grammatical Rules for Conlangs in the Conlang itself
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: Further language development Q's
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Non scol... sed vita... discimus
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Non scol... sed vita... discimus
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Non scol... sed vita... discimus
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Non scol... sed vita... discimus
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Non scol... sed vita... discimus
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: German word order (was Re: ? how would you classify this language ?)
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: OT kvetch-- Interdental fricatives and affricates (Lisp)
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Can we stop this? (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: PMVA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: Writing Grammatical Rules for Conlangs in the Conlang itself
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: "Douglas Koller, Latin & French" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: Further language development Q's
From: Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:22:38 +0100
From: Jan van Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang flag design; comments and proposals
--- Jan van Steenbergen skrzypszy:
> > > http://web.netyp.com/member/dragon/temp/conlangflag.htm
> >
> > Goblin-eyed elves kissing... not quite the symbolism
> > I'd go for. =P I thought we had agreed not to put
> > faces onto the flag.
>
> No *unbearded* faces, at least... Now that I think of it, adding
> beards to the faces would automatically make them bearded �nd gay,
> wouldn't it? ;)))
But I hastily add that I quite like the flag in question!
Jan
=====
"If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a closed room
with a mosquito."
Relay 10/R - schedule: <http://steen.free.fr/relay10/schedule.html>
- rules: <http://steen.free.fr/relay10/intro.html>
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger -
all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:40:24 +0100
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Conlang Coat of Arms
I've just been looking up details of the Rule of Tincture in heraldry, and
it appears that is not a hard and fast rule, and that deviations are
permitted for small details. Therefore,
Argent, in chief a quill gules nibbed or, in base an anvil sable. Motto:
me accusativum praefixo indicaturum
appears to be perfectly valid.
Pete
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:07:18 +0100
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Conlang aesthetics
I've noticed several people on the relay list commenting on the aesthetics
of the languages they've followed, and I wondered what people who've
followed Khanga�yagon in various relays, and M�gikimnaz in this one, think
of its aesthetics?
I've crossposted this to conlang, as a discussion of conlang aesthetics
might be of general interest.
Pete
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:18:19 +0100
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang flag design; comments and proposals
>>>>http://web.netyp.com/member/dragon/temp/conlangflag.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Goblin-eyed elves kissing... not quite the symbolism
>>>I'd go for. =P I thought we had agreed not to put
>>>faces onto the flag.
>>>
>>>
>>No *unbearded* faces, at least... Now that I think of it, adding
>>beards to the faces would automatically make them bearded �nd gay,
>>wouldn't it? ;)))
>>
>>
>
>But I hastily add that I quite like the flag in question!
>
>
I'd vote for the bearded gay elves lol! Please can we have one last
submission? :p
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:25:21 +0200
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Further language development Q's
Quoting Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It's fairly simple. German, for example, had (up to
> the sixteenth century), [r]. It's still pronounced
> that way in some dialects, I believe, and it's also
> common in some 'old-fashioned' speech, like operas,
> where [r] is seen as more 'melodic'. After about the
> sixteenth century, the German [r] shifted to [R],
> either because [R] is easier to articulate than [r]
> (it is, at least for me), or from influence from
> French (this sounds doubtful to me).
FWIW, the French influence is the explanation I've always heard. It's also been
made responsible for the use of uvular r's in Dutch and in southern
Scandinavian dialects.
For me, [r] comes easier than [R]. Neither occurs in my native 'lect.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:27:34 +0200
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ? how would you classify this language ?
Quoting Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Classical Latin was basically SVO, but varied considerably, usually
> because of topic fronting and shifting focus to the end.
It was? I thought it was basically SOV? The example sentences in my Latin
mini-grammar are; _puer puellam amat_.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:34:47 +0200
From: Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Further language development Q's
--- Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit�:
> Quoting Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > It's fairly simple. German, for example, had (up
> to
> > the sixteenth century), [r]. It's still pronounced
> > that way in some dialects, I believe, and it's
> also
> > common in some 'old-fashioned' speech, like
> operas,
> > where [r] is seen as more 'melodic'. After about
> the
> > sixteenth century, the German [r] shifted to [R],
> > either because [R] is easier to articulate than
> [r]
> > (it is, at least for me), or from influence from
> > French (this sounds doubtful to me).
>
> FWIW, the French influence is the explanation I've
> always heard. It's also been
> made responsible for the use of uvular r's in Dutch
> and in southern
> Scandinavian dialects.
Hmmph, so I'm wrong. Not the first time :).
> For me, [r] comes easier than [R]. Neither occurs in
> my native 'lect.
Interesting; you're Swedish-born, right? Which rhotic
does your native dialect have? [4]? I'm afraid my
knowledge of Swedish is pathetically nil.
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: 8
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:51:41 +0200
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Further language development Q's
Quoting Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> --- Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit :
> > Quoting Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > It's fairly simple. German, for example, had (up
> > to
> > > the sixteenth century), [r]. It's still pronounced
> > > that way in some dialects, I believe, and it's
> > also
> > > common in some 'old-fashioned' speech, like
> > operas,
> > > where [r] is seen as more 'melodic'. After about
> > the
> > > sixteenth century, the German [r] shifted to [R],
> > > either because [R] is easier to articulate than
> > [r]
> > > (it is, at least for me), or from influence from
> > > French (this sounds doubtful to me).
> >
> > FWIW, the French influence is the explanation I've
> > always heard. It's also been
> > made responsible for the use of uvular r's in Dutch
> > and in southern
> > Scandinavian dialects.
>
> Hmmph, so I'm wrong. Not the first time :).
>
> > For me, [r] comes easier than [R]. Neither occurs in
> > my native 'lect.
>
> Interesting; you're Swedish-born, right? Which rhotic
> does your native dialect have? [4]? I'm afraid my
> knowledge of Swedish is pathetically nil.
My /r/ is normally a retroflex trill or approximant - the trilled pronunciation
is naturally more prevalent in careful speech. X-SAMPA and CXS denote the
approximant as [r\`], but do not deign to supply a symbol for the trill - my
own JXS scheme uses [r`] (which in X-SAMPA/CXS means a retroflex tap or flap -
JXS uses [4`] for that).
In rapid speech, it may become a fricative; [z`].
Calling my native 'lect a "_dia_lect" might be stretching the term - my parents
come from different regions, and I moved around alot as a kid. The result is a
mix pretty close to the standard, which most people find non-localizable beyond
the fact that I'm neither from Scania nor from Norrland.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:16:56 -0600
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Writing Grammatical Rules for Conlangs in the Conlang itself
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:52:31 -0700, Elliott Lash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone currently on the list tried to write
> grammatical texts about the grammar of your conlangs
> using the conlang itself?
The closest to this I have done was writing native-language definitions as an exercise
in vocabulary,
Thus frex:
abse
(1) nem�� javmb morj�-'f
part deep sea of
(2) nem�� ���te fovtam ve eej* fovtam
part intense most, or profound most
avg�
(1) prose ir�� dort j�ve ad� ve i�kthe abe ad�
petition reverent performed deity to or worshipped other to
(2) heth prose'f iag��.
such petition's performing
*Muke!
* <eej> looks out of place, mainly because it's a borrowed word, derived from Middle
Drake /@jjaj\/; the reduction of vocalic sequences between Middle Atlantic (�dlantki)
and modern Atlantic played havoc with the /@jja/.
--
website: http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt: http://kohath.deviantart.com/
FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:43:57 -0400
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Further language development Q's
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:31:48 +0200, Carsten Becker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>2) Ayeri is a trigger language, that means fluid-S AFAIK.
> The topic of a sentence can be any argument of a verb.
> So is it possible, that one daugher language can
> develop an nom/acc system and another one an abs/erg
> system? I haven't found a tendency in Ayeri to one
> of both ends yet, though. But I think because at least
> the one standard version I have until now has no real
> passive construction, it would tend to be accusative,
> although there is a causative that makes some kind of
> passive constructions possible: man�o -> manaisa
> (to invent, v. -> invented, adj.)
What about this one?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:44:19 -0400
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non scol... sed vita... discimus
It's "scraping together", but anyway.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:38:12 +0200
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Non scol... sed vita... discimus
Hey!
My father, cramming together his knowledge of Latin wanted to know if
the sentence "Non scholae sed vita discimus" is correct and which cases
there are -- Though this piece of Latin is what I found on Google. My
dad said first said it'd be "Non scholam sed vitae discimus". When I
told him about what I found on Google he wasn't sure anymore.
Thanks,
Carsten
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:59:28 +0100
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non scol... sed vita... discimus
Staving Carsten Becker:
>Hey!
>
>My father, cramming together his knowledge of Latin wanted to know if
>the sentence "Non scholae sed vita discimus" is correct and which cases
>there are -- Though this piece of Latin is what I found on Google. My
>dad said first said it'd be "Non scholam sed vitae discimus". When I
>told him about what I found on Google he wasn't sure anymore.
If the intended meaning is "We learn not from school, but from life", I
think it's
non schola sed vita discimus
using the ablative in each case (I always remember the ablative as "by,
with or from").
Pete
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:26:39 -0400
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non scol... sed vita... discimus
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:38:12 +0200, Carsten Becker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hey!
>
>My father, cramming together his knowledge of Latin wanted to know if
>the sentence "Non scholae sed vita discimus" is correct and which cases
>there are -- Though this piece of Latin is what I found on Google. My
>dad said first said it'd be "Non scholam sed vitae discimus". When I
>told him about what I found on Google he wasn't sure anymore.
When I google for "Non scholae sed vita discimus", then google asks me:
> Did you mean: "non scholae sed vitae discimus"
This is also how I remembered this saying, 'we don't learn for school, but
for life'. Both nouns are in dative.
The internet doesn't make quite clear whether this is a litteral quote or
not, but it seems to be based on Seneca, Epistulae 106, 12.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:07:24 +0200
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non scol... sed vita... discimus
Quoting "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:38:12 +0200, Carsten Becker
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Hey!
> >
> >My father, cramming together his knowledge of Latin wanted to know if
> >the sentence "Non scholae sed vita discimus" is correct and which cases
> >there are -- Though this piece of Latin is what I found on Google. My
> >dad said first said it'd be "Non scholam sed vitae discimus". When I
> >told him about what I found on Google he wasn't sure anymore.
>
> When I google for "Non scholae sed vita discimus", then google asks me:
>
> > Did you mean: "non scholae sed vitae discimus"
>
> This is also how I remembered this saying, 'we don't learn for school, but
> for life'. Both nouns are in dative.
>
> The internet doesn't make quite clear whether this is a litteral quote or
> not, but it seems to be based on Seneca, Epistulae 106, 12.
If memory serves, the original has "non vitae sed scholae discimus".
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:37:51 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: German word order (was Re: ? how would you classify this language ?)
J�rg Rhiemeier wrote:
>Hallo!
>
>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:38:37 +0100,
>Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>'vary between'? what's between them?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>German, I suppose. SOV, SVO, and VSO are all possible, in various
>>clauses (Always SVO or VSO in main clauses, though, I think). That's
>>called a V2 language, because, as I learnt it, the verb is always the
>>second concept(except after certain conjunctions, in which case it goes
>>to the end of the clause).
>>
>>
>
>German is SVO in declarative main clauses (but if there is an auxiliary
>and an infinite form, the auxiliary is in second position and the
>infinite form at the end of the clause), SOV in subordinate clauses,
>and VSO in yes-no questions (in wh-questions, the interrogative
>pronoun is in first position, followed by the verb).
>
>
Ye forget that adverbial phrases modify the word order too.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:13:47 -0400
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT kvetch-- Interdental fricatives and affricates (Lisp)
How very peculiar-- I sent an extensive reply to Caleb's msg. in the wee
hours last night(today), but never got a copy back, or so I thought;
couldn't find it in my deleted stuff either. Lo and behold, good ol' msn had
put it in my spam file. I yam offended.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:16:12 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, at 11:12 , J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
[snip]
> It's strange how names of countries are formed. Sometimes, the place name
> adopted for the country may have been used for the whole area of that
> country (Australia), sometimes only for a part (England, Holland). However
Holland I understand. But England? I was born here and have lived in
England nearly two thirds of my 65+ years (the other third I lived in
Wales). But what is this part of England from which England is named?
> it seems very strange to me that the name of a continent has become the
> name
> of a single country.
Presumably a back-formation from 'United States of America'.
But is this use really any stranger than the use of 'Europe' in the
British media of the past few decades to mean 'The European Union' and not
the whole continent?
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:16:15 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Can we stop this? (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, at 08:19 , Chris Bates wrote:
>> The only deliberate Govt-sponsored terroristic activities (that I can
>> think
>> of in recent years) would be Guatemala, and our Contra affair in
>> Nicaragua.
>> Of the former, most Americans have been and remain blissfully unaware;
>> the
>> latter was so hopelessly mis-managed and corrupt (not to say wrong) that
>> the
>> people and even Congress eventually rose up in revulsion.
>>
>>
>>
> I have to say that this is untrue. One of the most ironic things about
> the US government's crusade against terrorism is that by any fair
> definition of the word (no word games, no "counter-terrorism" etc to
> hide what it really is) the US is one of the world's biggest terrorist
> states.
Cobblers!
Some of us have slightly longer memories than Mr Bates. Some of us
actually lived through WWII and the austerities that followed and have a
dim remembrance how Americans came to our aid both during that conflict
and financially with the Marshal Plan in the years that followed. Does
anyone really think Stalin would've halted the Red Army in central Europe
if the Americans had not been involved? I for one am a Brit who will
always be thankful for US support during WWII and the years of the Cold
War.
It's all right for Mr Bates to rant, but his country did not suffer the
enormity of the Twin Towers.
I do not always agree with everything the US does or has done (indeed,
sometimes I am quite dismayed - as I am from time to time at the actions
of my own country) - but I consider Mr Bates' rant to be ill-informed
hyperbole and IMNSHO a gross abuse of this list.
Good grief! What is happening to us? Do we really want this list to tear
itself apart?
We've just had one (IMO valued) member of the list leave because of the
activities of over-zealous pro-Americans both on and off the list. Now we
are treated to the rantings of an equally over-zealous anti-American. If
this continues then it will inevitably lead to flames and more people
leaving (Indeed, if Rodlox decides to leave now, quite frankly, I would
not blame him; but I do think it a loss if people who join the list with
an interest in language construction are put off in this way).
I am *not* opposed to free speech. But there are fora on the Internet for
those who want to engage in such discussions; that is not, as I understand
it, the purpose of this list. I was under the impression that this list
was for those interested in *language construction*. Yes, I know we do
wander off topic - but as chums chatting, not bigots ranting.
Do you think we could end this thread before it descends into flames and
that we could get back to conlanging?
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:24:26 +0200
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:16:12 +0100, Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, at 11:12 , J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
> [snip]
> > It's strange how names of countries are formed. Sometimes, the place name
> > adopted for the country may have been used for the whole area of that
> > country (Australia), sometimes only for a part (England, Holland). However
>
> Holland I understand. But England? I was born here and have lived in
> England nearly two thirds of my 65+ years (the other third I lived in
> Wales). But what is this part of England from which England is named?
"England" = "Great Britain" or "UK" in some contexts, though England
is only a portion of either.
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Watch the Reply-To!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:45:40 +0200
From: PMVA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
Ray Brown ta nugatu-r:
>> It's strange how names of countries are formed. Sometimes, the place name
>> adopted for the country may have been used for the whole area of that
>> country (Australia), sometimes only for a part (England, Holland). However
> Holland I understand. But England? I was born here and have lived in
> England nearly two thirds of my 65+ years (the other third I lived in
> Wales). But what is this part of England from which England is named?
>From _Engel lond_ and not, for example, from _Myrce_ or _Seaxan lond_.
--
/\ P. M. Arktayg pmva[na]avenned.org /\
\/ "rubba s.idqin ka:na ?akd_aba min kid_bin" \/
\/\/ 'cz�sto prawda jest bardziej k�amliwa ni� k�amstwo' \/\/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:52:13 -0400
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Writing Grammatical Rules for Conlangs in the Conlang itself
Elliott Lash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone currently on the list tried to write
>grammatical texts about the grammar of your conlangs
>using the conlang itself?
I've written a fair amount of my notes on the development of
gjax-zym-byn in the language itself, especially definitions
of newly coined words. But not so much of defining basic grammar;
mostly just notes on changes in the grammar, new root words, affixes,
and particles. I haven't done anything as formal as your Silindion
example.
P.S. I am about to go nomail for a while - probably 2-3 weeks.
- Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:44:51 -0400
From: "Douglas Koller, Latin & French" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
Ray writes:
>>It's strange how names of countries are formed. Sometimes, the place name
>>adopted for the country may have been used for the whole area of that
>>country (Australia), sometimes only for a part (England, Holland). However
>
>Holland I understand. But England? I was born here and have lived in
>England nearly two thirds of my 65+ years (the other third I lived in
>Wales). But what is this part of England from which England is named?
It seems to have improved in recent years, at least among my own
coterie of friends, but in the hoarfrost of the 70's, England/(Great)
Britain meant the whole of the UK. For those of us scrambling to be
correct, it's "the Netherlands," and "the United Kingdom" is united
because it's composed of four constituents.
Kou
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:58:16 -0700
From: Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Further language development Q's
Carsten Becker wrote:
> Hey!
>
> I still don't get the hang of developing Ayeri into (a)
> daughter language(s), but if I should ever do this, there
> are two things that I'm wondering about:
>
> 1) How can I get from [4] to /R/, i.e. [X, R]? [4] is
> alveolar, and /R/ uvular, so at the opposite end of
> the mouth. Are there any steps in between that justify
> this change? OTOH, I've heard dialects that use [4]
> instead of [R]. I've learnt that it's always dialects
> that develop into another daughter languages.
[4] can become [R] because of auditory similarity. Not all sound changes
work by articulatory simplification.
> 2) Ayeri is a trigger language, that means fluid-S AFAIK.
I don't think trigger languages are really the same thing as fluid-S. I
think they're separate categories. But I don't know.
> 3) OFF-TOPIC as for the topic of this thread, but ON-TOPIC
> as for languages: What does "deictic" mean? I haven't
> found it in my dictionary.
It means "having to do with deixis". ;) Look up deixis in the SIL
glossary -- it's complicated.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:53:18 -0400
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 07:24:26PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> "England" = "Great Britain" or "UK" in some contexts
In what contexts is that? Speech by the uninformed? :)
Admittedly, many, perhaps most, of us Americans conflate the
terms, but I believe it is always a mistake to do so.
The motivation for such conflation, however, does not seem mysterious to
me - not only was England historically the dominant power of
that area, it is also the location of the nation's capital city.
Still, I feel the name England should be reserved to refer only to the .
. . what is it, technically, a state? . . . of England, which is located
on the island of Great Britain (why the adjective, btw? Is or was there
a Not-so-great Britain?), which is part of the nation called the United
Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
