------------------------ 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: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: ? how would you classify this language ?
From: Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. new Unnamed Conlang
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: new Unnamed Conlang
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: new Unnamed Conlang
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: PMVA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: btw
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Can we stop this? (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Trebor Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Can we stop this? (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Interdental fricatives and affricates (Lisp)
From: Caleb Hines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: new Unnamed Conlang
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: ? how would you classify this language ?
From: David Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: new Unnamed Conlang
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: Keith Gaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: new Unnamed Conlang
From: Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: new Unnamed Conlang
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:14:19 -0400
From: Paul Bennett <[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?
The kingdom of Anglia was only a part of the island, at one time. I'm
assuming that's what Mach was refering to.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:09:56 -0700
From: Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ? how would you classify this language ?
Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:08:30 -0400 (EDT), David Peterson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> (3) That's *what I want*. (OSV)
>
>
> Arguably, (3) is SVO, with O as a subclause and OSV in that subclause.
>
> That is (what I want)
> S V O
> O S V
AIUI, that's SVO in both clauses. The relative pronoun is considered
part of the main clause, while the relative clause has a "gap": in
English, the argument that corresponds to the relative pronoun is left out.
full sentence: That is what (I want).
main clause: That is what
S V O
relative clause: I want [...]
S V (O)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:22:19 -0400
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:53:18 -0400, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> the island of Great Britain (why the adjective, btw? Is or was there
> a Not-so-great Britain?),
There was indeed. When the Angles and Saxons came, Britons fled to France
(as well as Wales, Cumbria, Scotland, et al), and set up Little Britain,
that is to say Brittany, and their language was (or became?) Breton.
Interestingly, when the Normans invaded, many Bretons were among their
number, and apparently considered themselves an army of justice, returning
Britain to British hands, and removing the Anglo-Saxons, oppressors of
their Celtic brethren. The fact that they set themselves up as an
oppressive ruling class, dominating an almost entirely Anglo-Saxon peasant
class (the Britons having been displaced pretty much to their modern
homelands) is somewhat of an amusing irony.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:53:26 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: new Unnamed Conlang
unnamed language.
concept: narration-based [all Implied First Person]
phoneme pronounciation:
gh (like "GHent" in Holland)
kh (like "KHaan" in Mongolian)
o (like "cOt" & "Octopus")
u (like "tUt & "bUnk")
I (like "tIn" & "pIn"
ii (like "sIght" and "strIve")
a (like "bAt" & "cAn")
b (like "Bat" & "aBBey")
d (like "Dog" & "aDD")
jy (like "DJoser" in Ancient Egyptian)
n (like "NouN")
m (like "Math")
sy (like in East European languages)
zy (like in East European languages)
s (like "Sop" & "Sip")
s' (like "Sheep")
ghere = narrate, narration
ghore = he narrates [thusly]
ghure = she narrates [thusly]
ghoure = it was relayed [to me] that it was narrated [thusly]
*for the ending of a narration, replace GH with KH;
khore = [and so] he narrated
s'aih = you
s'aoh = they
s'aeh = other
sobe = to
sabe = from
sebe = with
sibe = by
siibe = of
throw = ghekh
hit = ghedh
kick = ghadh
butting = ghakh
but = dusu
and = sudu
as well (as) = susudu
and then = sudusudu
so, therefore = dususu
because = susu
however = dusudu
jyen = man
jyon = woman
jyiin = anon.
jyiinaum = unknown
jyaen = person, people [abstract concept]
postfixes:
-(a)zy = recipient
-(a)sy = bestower
-aum = (?)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:58:43 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
Paul Bennett wrote:
> 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?
>
>
> The kingdom of Anglia was only a part of the island, at one time. I'm
> assuming that's what Mach was refering to.
>
>
>
Only there was never (at least in historical times) a Kingdom called
'Anglia'. East Anglia, sure.(incidentally, what was that in Old English?)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:01:13 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
>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).
>
>
>
Generally we call the individual parts of the UK 'countries', but in
legislation, I think they're usually 'parts'. And the
'not-so-great-Britain' is Brittany.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:06:21 -0400
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 09:53:26PM +0200, Rodlox wrote:
> unnamed language.
> concept: narration-based [all Implied First Person]
>
> phoneme pronounciation:
> gh (like "GHent" in Holland)
> jy (like "DJoser" in Ancient Egyptian)
> sy (like in East European languages)
> zy (like in East European languages)
Can someone tell me what these mean?
> kh (like "KHaan" in Mongolian)
I assume that's [x].
> o (like "cOt" & "Octopus")
> u (like "tUt & "bUnk")
> I (like "tIn" & "pIn"
> ii (like "sIght" and "strIve")
FYI, using a spelling based on the letter I for that sound is a very
highly marked English influence.
> s'aih = you
> s'aoh = they
> s'aeh = other
Okay, I didn't see "h" anywhere in your list - how is it pronounced?
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:42:15 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang
> > s'aih = you
> > s'aoh = they
> > s'aeh = other
>
> Okay, I didn't see "h" anywhere in your list - how is it pronounced?
sorry...it was in the list...but then, owing to an email problem, I had to
re-type the entire message.
h ( like "Hat" and "aHa!")
>
> -Marcos
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:32:14 -0400
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 08:01:13PM +0100, Joe wrote:
> Generally we call the individual parts of the UK 'countries', but in
> legislation, I think they're usually 'parts'.
Parts? How . . . plain. "Parts is parts." (old US TV commercial
reference). :)
I suppose since Wales has a prince it could be regarded as a
Principality. Incidentally, how come England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland
don't rate Princes?
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:34:42 +0200
From: PMVA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
Joe ta nugatu-r:
> Only there was never (at least in historical times) a Kingdom called
> 'Anglia'. East Anglia, sure.(incidentally, what was that in Old English?)
_East Engel rice_
--
/\ 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: 11
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:54:09 +0100
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
Joe wrote at 2004-09-16 20:01:13 (+0100)
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
> >
> >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).
> >
> >
> >
>
> Generally we call the individual parts of the UK 'countries', but
> in legislation, I think they're usually 'parts'. And the
> 'not-so-great-Britain' is Brittany.
England and Scotland are kingdoms, I think. Certainly they were
kingdoms before the Act of Union... Wales is a principality, and
Northern Ireland is a province. I'm not sure that there _is_ a
general term, unless Joe's right about 'part'.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:55:13 +0200
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: btw
On Wednesday 15 September 2004 18:42, Rodlox wrote:
> now that the "school"/"education[al system]" debates are
> ending/winding down, I've decided to stay on...at least
> for a while longer.
Welcome back!
Great that you don't give up and aren't scared away forever.
Enjoy your ride,
Carsten
--
Eri silvev�ng aibannama padangin.
Nivaie evaenain eri ming silvoiev�ng caparei.
- Antoine de Saint-Exup�ry, Le Petit Prince
-> http://www.beckerscarsten.de/?conlang=ayeri
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:53:26 -0400
From: Trebor Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can we stop this? (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
<sensitive stuff>
Hate to continue a possible soon-to-be flamewar, but I need to say a few
things.
Ray �rta: "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)."
You call Chris "anti-American"?
Roger is American and we have discussed offlist some things that you might
consider "anti-American" for discussing. From this, I conclude that I would
not be surprised if Roger agrees with Chris... As I do.
He is not "anti-American". He is revealing some nasty facts about the
American government. We have talked offlist and he is not the type like
Osama.
He is just "anti-American government", as I am. I have no problem with
America-- I just have problems with many of the things its government has
done (which is state terrorism; and helping Europe after WWII is not one of
those things I disagree with in any way!), as do many people in the third
world.
Now I'll shut up and anyone can call me "anti-American" all they want, I
don't care...
Be warned: I will seriously consider leaving if what happened to Christophe
happens to me (not that I would be missed too much, after all I'm just an
anarchist newbie-at-conlanging).
</sensitive stuff>
If anyone else leaves, I suggest the ZBB-- http://www.spinoff.com/zbb/ .
There's a "Other" forum, so if anyone wants, this discussion can be
continued there...
A good day to you all,
Trebor
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:08:38 -0400
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can we stop this? (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:53:26 -0400, Trebor Jung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If anyone else leaves, I suggest the ZBB-- http://www.spinoff.com/zbb/ .
>There's a "Other" forum, so if anyone wants, this discussion can be
>continued there...
Ahem. But don't drive it too far, like "Eddy the Great" (known to this list
as Eddy Ohlms or so) did!
Carsten ~ guitarplayer
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:36:02 -0400
From: Caleb Hines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Interdental fricatives and affricates (Lisp)
>> /s/ -> [T], [T-], where
>> [T] -> Interdental fricative (this one is the most common by far)
>
>Really interdental? Your tongue sticks out a little beyond the bottom of
the upper front teeth??
Yes. _Definitely_ interdental. To varying degrees. Usually it just barely
sticks out, but sometimes (usually for emphasis) up to over a quarter of an
inch.
>If so, try retracting it so that the tongue tip is in
>contact with the inside lower edge of the teeth. That, in my book, is a
>proper [T] = /T/ as in thick, thin etc., which in fact is what you describe
>next----
So perhaps instead of [T] and [T-], I should have used [T+] and [T]?
Actually, the later form (postdental) sounds more /s/-like to me than the
interdental form that I use more commonly (which is why I use it in /ts/).
>[s] can be pronounced in a variety of ways...
This is very interesting! So there is no single "right way" to do it?
> one of which was described by
>James W. His way, I think, is what we've been calling "apical s"...
>That's not the way I do it-- in my case, the tongue tip is
>against the upper inside surface of the _lower_ front teeth, with the
>friction produced between the blade of the tongue and the alv. ridge...
I think I like the later way better. The "apical s" sounds too similar
to /S/ for my taste (or I'm just doing it wrong), and seems a little more
difficult to make. This is probably because I'm used to having the tongue
closer to the teeth. Also, when I try putting my tongue tip behind the
teeth near the alveolar ridge it tends to slip downward. This "laminal s"
doesn't seem to do this as much IMO.
> (This is also the sound I make when hissing, e.g.
> imitating a snake. How would you imitate a snake??)
Interdentally.
>Hmm, the problem may be the gap between your teeth. Is it large?
No one's ever told me so, but I believe it probably is (see below).
>It could be that the gap in your teeth is allowing too much air to escape,
>so that it reduces the amount of friction you can produce in that area.
>Consequently your [s] has never been as "hissy" as it ought. And if, when
>you were young, nobody called attention to it (which includes teasing,
>unfortunately), you simply remained unaware of it and had no incentive to
>experiment with other ways of producing it.
This sounds very likely to me. I know that when I make an interdental
fricative, I can push quite a bit of air out from between my front teeth
(hence a hissing sound). And I can only think of one childhood memory where
a friend thought I made s's funny. He wanted to make sure, so he asked me
to say "uterus", which was a word I didn't want to say at that age. :) I
had mostly forgotten about that incident until recently, and I certainly
had no incentive to ever experiment with other ways.
I think another big problem, though, is not with my tongue or mouth, but
with my ears and brain. If I were to attempt to pronounce /T/ correctly, it
would sound like an /s/ to me. So if I comment on, for example, the size of
a juicy piece of meat, it will sound to me as if I were saying "That's one
sick* piece of meat!". Obviously, I wouldn't want to say that! To my
ears, /T/ just sounds like it should be an affricate. Wierd, huh?
Thanks,
~Caleb
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:40:49 -0400
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 10:42:15PM +0200, Rodlox wrote:
> > > s'aih = you
> > > s'aoh = they
> > > s'aeh = other
> >
> > Okay, I didn't see "h" anywhere in your list - how is it pronounced?
>
> sorry...it was in the list...but then, owing to an email problem, I had to
> re-type the entire message.
>
> h ( like "Hat" and "aHa!")
Don't you find that sound difficult to hear in final position?
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:46:59 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
Tim May wrote:
>Joe wrote at 2004-09-16 20:01:13 (+0100)
> > Mark J. Reed wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >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).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Generally we call the individual parts of the UK 'countries', but
> > in legislation, I think they're usually 'parts'. And the
> > 'not-so-great-Britain' is Brittany.
>
>England and Scotland are kingdoms, I think. Certainly they were
>kingdoms before the Act of Union... Wales is a principality, and
>Northern Ireland is a province. I'm not sure that there _is_ a
>general term, unless Joe's right about 'part'.
>
>
Well, England and Scotland aren't Kingdoms. The Act of Union dealt with
that. Northern Ireland is all that remains of the ex-Kingdom of
Ireland, though that was also stripped of its Kingdomhood in 1801.
Wales mgith be a Principality, but Prince Charles has no actual power in
Wales. So I'm not sure it can actually be called that.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:54:34 EDT
From: David Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ? how would you classify this language ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<<AIUI, that's SVO in both clauses. The relative pronoun is considered
part of the main clause, while the relative clause has a "gap": in
English, the argument that corresponds to the relative pronoun is left out.
full sentence: That is what (I want).
main clause: That is what
� � � � � � �� S� � V�� O
relative clause: I want [...]
� � � � � � � � � S�� V�� (O)>>
No. The whole reason that they proposed gaps and movement was that
their syntax didn't match up with the extent word order. So when they
talk about "word order", they mean surface word order--otherwise all
languages would have the same word order (at least, according to some
linguists). And technically, there's another gap in this sentence--the WH-
word has to move "covertly" to be in proper position. (Or is that the
empty operator...? Geez, I've forgotten my old school syntax already...)
-David
*******************************************************************
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
-Jim Morrison
http://dedalvs.free.fr/
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:35:47 -0600
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (was: OT Caution!! IRA funding)
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:01:13 +0100, Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> 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).
>
> Generally we call the individual parts of the UK 'countries', but in
> legislation, I think they're usually 'parts'. And the
> 'not-so-great-Britain' is Brittany.
"Parts" appears to be right for legal. The Wikipedia calls England, Wales, Scotland,
and Northern Ireland "nations", collectively the "Home Nations".
*Muke!
--
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: 20
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:02:44 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (
> >England and Scotland are kingdoms, I think. Certainly they were
> >kingdoms before the Act of Union... Wales is a principality, and
> >Northern Ireland is a province. I'm not sure that there _is_ a
> >general term, unless Joe's right about 'part'.
> >
> >
>
>
> Well, England and Scotland aren't Kingdoms. The Act of Union dealt with
> that. Northern Ireland is all that remains of the ex-Kingdom of
> Ireland, though that was also stripped of its Kingdomhood in 1801.
because some Irish sided with Napoleon? *curious*
> Wales mgith be a Principality, but Prince Charles has no actual power in
> Wales. So I'm not sure it can actually be called that.
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:51:59 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
Rodlox wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 10:46 PM
>Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (
>
>
>
>>>England and Scotland are kingdoms, I think. Certainly they were
>>>kingdoms before the Act of Union... Wales is a principality, and
>>>Northern Ireland is a province. I'm not sure that there _is_ a
>>>general term, unless Joe's right about 'part'.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Well, England and Scotland aren't Kingdoms. The Act of Union dealt with
>>that. Northern Ireland is all that remains of the ex-Kingdom of
>>Ireland, though that was also stripped of its Kingdomhood in 1801.
>>
>>
>
> because some Irish sided with Napoleon? *curious*
>
>
No, it was just merged with Great Britain. It was originally done by
the Irish in exchange for equal rights for Catholics. Which was
significantly delayed, until 1829.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:04:01 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang
> > h ( like "Hat" and "aHa!")
>
> Don't you find that sound difficult to hear in final position?
nah
:)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:53:52 +0100
From: Keith Gaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
Rodlox wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 10:46 PM
> Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms (
>
>>Well, England and Scotland aren't Kingdoms. The Act of Union dealt with
>>that. Northern Ireland is all that remains of the ex-Kingdom of
>>Ireland, though that was also stripped of its Kingdomhood in 1801.
>
> because some Irish sided with Napoleon? *curious*
Nope, there were a lot of reasons, but mainly to finalise its
integration with the rest of the UK. Nothing to do with Napoleon.
--
Keith Gaughan -- talideon.com
The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:08:08 -0000
From: Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> jy (like "DJoser" in Ancient Egyptian)
Does anyone what Ancient Egyptian sounded like?
> but = dusu
> and = sudu
> as well (as) = susudu
> and then = sudusudu
> so, therefore = dususu
> because = susu
> however = dusudu
It seems that you're making conceptually related
words sound alike. That makes it quite tricky in
terms of redundancy -- it's very easy to mishear
or confuse these words. Is it a philosophical
language?
-- Christian Thalmann
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:59:03 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > jy (like "DJoser" in Ancient Egyptian)
>
> Does anyone what Ancient Egyptian sounded like?
the Rosetta Stone.
other than that...I once heard that Coptic was a relic / vestige of Ancient
Egyptian.
> > but = dusu
> > and = sudu
> > as well (as) = susudu
> > and then = sudusudu
> > so, therefore = dususu
> > because = susu
> > however = dusudu
>
> It seems that you're making conceptually related
> words sound alike.
if it helps any, it's a non-agglutinative language.
> That makes it quite tricky in
> terms of redundancy -- it's very easy to mishear
> or confuse these words.
true.
> Is it a philosophical
> language?
um, not thus far; so far, it's a storytelling language - hence the emphasis
upon narration.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
