------------------------ 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: consport/congaming
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. AAAUUUUGH! (was Re: consport/congaming)
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: AAAUUUUGH! (was Re: consport/congaming)
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Ancient Egyptian (was: new Unnamed Conlang)
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. CSX Help
From: Jeremy Kleier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. CXS Help
From: Jeremy Kleier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: AAAUUUUGH! (was Re: consport/congaming)
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: CXS Help
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: "Douglas Koller, Latin & French" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: AAAUUUUGH! (was Re: consport/congaming)
From: Jan van Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Conlang Flag: Voting Now Open.
From: Jan van Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Non vitae sed scholae discimus
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: new Unnamed Conlang
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: consport/congaming
From: Apollo Hogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: new Unnamed Conlang
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: new Unnamed Conlang
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: new Unnamed Conlang
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: CHAT National toponyms
From: Keith Gaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:27:00 -0400
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: consport/congaming
J�rg Rhiemeier wrote:
> "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is there a separate list for conculturing vs. conlanging? I was
> > wondering if anyone had created new sports that are played in their
> > conculture. Would seem to be a good source of specialized vocabulary
> > needing no gloss. Or tabletop games (card/board), for that matter . .
> > .
>
> There is the Conculture mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> of course, but it has been virtually hi-jacked by the Ill Bethisad
> folks. I'd say an occasional conculture post here isn't objectionable
> - more than half of the list traffic on CONLANG has even less to do
> with *conlangs* than that.
I would tend to present anything to do with Kash or Gwr culture here,
especially if it included vocabulary.
>
> Regarding con-sports, I have only a few *very* sketchy ideas about
> Elvish (Old Albic) sports. They ran, swam, rode horses, played a
> ball game similar to field hockey, and had a martial arts tradition
> somewhat resembling east Asian martial arts.
Similarly for my people :-)---- except riding; there are no decent beasts of
burden on Cindu. It might be daring or amusing to try to leap aboard one of
the larger "lizards" but the ride I fear wouldn't last long and might entail
danger to life and limb.
The Kash are too big/heavy/furry to be fast swimmers, though they enjoy it
and in their way compete. Their record times would probably be laughable
from our POV. OTOH the Gwr, who live in the frigid north, have an abiding
dislike of the water, and do not swim, even though, being small
light-weight, they'd probably be good at it.
Both people run, lift weights, wrestle, do various martial arts, have games
involving throwing/kicking a ball, and batting a ball, but except for the
occasional exhibition game of the last, do not compete directly; in most
cases there simply couldn't be a fair match-up because of the size/weight
difference.
No doubt the Kash would favor something like American football, while the
Gwr would be more inclined to soccer.
Yet there are "Games" every 5 years, where everyone shows off, and
individual/species records are set. About the only events with direct
competition are marksmanship and archery.
There is probably a board game like chess, called "100 squares" (Old Gwr
Base-8 "100"); and no doubt card games requiring either skill (bridge) or
skill+luck (Celebrity Poker, anyone?), in which there could be inter-species
matches.
And while the ancient
> Greeks performed their exercises naked (the words "gymnasium" and
> "gymnastics" contain the word _gymnos_ `naked'),
..as do the Kash; their naughty bits are not ordinarily visible, and they
find tight-fitting clothing uncomfortable.
the Elves performed
> theirs (even swimming) fully clothed.
Similarly the Gwr; their naughty bits _are_ visible, but aside from that,
they just have hang-ups about nudity....
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:23:30 -0400
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: AAAUUUUGH! (was Re: consport/congaming)
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:04:34 +0100, Jan van Steenbergen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Without indulging in the same eternal discussion about the pros and
> the contras of IB, I must object against the term hijacked.
Aw, crap. Is there no subject about which we will not argue?
I feel like Charlie Brown practicing place-kicking. Every time a thread
starts, Lucy sticks the football out, and it takes a single word spoken
indelicately for her to yank the football away at the last minute, and I
land flat on my back, wondering what the heck happened this time, and
feeling a familiar sense of dismay, or betrayal, or something in that
general semantic space.
I'm half tempted to suggest John lock the list for a week, to let us all
calm down and get a sense of perspective, but I fear I could not live
without my fix for that long.
Can we please think twice, then leave the computer, go get a cup of chai
and a cigarette, or whatever, then come back and think some more before
posting anything in reaction to something we any of us consider
inflammatory?
Let's get back to Conlanging, or at least to general language or
linguistics discussion, and leave the partisanship (on *any* subject) at
the door.
Thanks,
Frustrated in North Carolina
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:57:35 -0400
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: AAAUUUUGH! (was Re: consport/congaming)
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 01:23:30PM -0400, Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:04:34 +0100, Jan van Steenbergen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Without indulging in the same eternal discussion about the pros and
> >the contras of IB, I must object against the term hijacked.
>
> Aw, crap. Is there no subject about which we will not argue?
Apparently not. Though you must admit that "hijacked" is rather an
emotionally loaded word, implying some disapproval.
But since when is there an "eternal discussion" about the pros and cons of
IB? I've been here a while now - nowhere near as long as some of you
old fogeys, of course - and have never seen such discussion. The few
discussions of IB I've seen have all been factual in nature. And I was
invited to participate, but my concultures are alien and thus don't fit
well into the IB world, nor am I able to dedicate what I consider the
requisite time to be a useful contributor to the project,
Anyway, my problem is an obsession with rules. I can't be happy with
a statement like "the Dankarans play a chesslike game", or "a
football-like sport", or such. I'd have to work out in detail exactly
how each game works. Which is, of course, painstaking and
time-consuming (not to say tedious, since I personally find it fun) and
distracts one from the actual business of language-creation. :)
So I have, in fact, been pondering what a Dankaran chess-like game might
be like, since battles of old featured gravity-controlling wizards as
well as the usual assortment of archers, footsoldiers, cavalry (mounted
or vehicular, not sure yet), etc. So far I'm envisioning a second board
above the main, accessible only to wizards, who can immobilize foes
below them, or perhaps aid in the movement of allies . . .
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:17:31 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Ancient Egyptian (was: new Unnamed Conlang)
On Friday, September 17, 2004, at 12:59 , Rodlox wrote:
> ----- 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.
Eh? It's a *stone*, not a gramophone record, tape or CD. It gives us no
idea whatsoever what either ancient Egyptian or for that matter what
ancient Greek sounded like.
>
> other than that...I once heard that Coptic was a relic / vestige of
> Ancient
> Egyptian.
Neither - it's a descendant of ancient Egyptian in the same way that
French, Spanish and so on are descendants of (Vulgar) Latin. Fortunately,
in the latter case we have several different Romance languages and by
making comparisons can make a reasonable guess what Vulgar Latin sounded
like.
Ancient Egyptian has only one descendant. It is rather like trying to
reconstruct what Latin sounded like if French were its only descendant.
The only certainty in fact is that we do not know what ancient Egyptian
sounded like and short of time-travel we will probably never properly know.
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:17:27 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
Wow - this topic has sparked off more mails that I ever thought it would.
It seems to have split into two different paths: (a) one dealing with
naming the whole country from just a part; (b) the other dealing with the
United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.
(a) NAMING A COUNTRY FROM JUST A PART
On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 06:45 , PMVA wrote:
> From _Engel lond_ and not, for example, from _Myrce_ or _Seaxan lond_.
Yes, but AFAIK there were not entities knowns as *Myrce lond or *Seaxan
lond. The former indeed would be strange - the land of the March dwellers
(i.e. dwellers in the borderlands). The Saxons were divided into different
kingdoms: Wessex, Sussex, Middlesex, Essex. It is noteworthy, I think,
that the Welsh who still calls us 'Saxons' (Saeson, sing. Sais) & my
language 'Saxon' (Saesneg) do not called England 'Saxony'. The Welsh for
England is 'Lloegr' a name which, I believe, was once given to the whole
island but came to be used for the Kingdom of England.
--------------------------------------------------------------
On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 07:58 , Joe wrote:
> Paul Bennett wrote:
[snip]
>> 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?)
Indeed, there wasn't. There were originally three Angle kingdoms: The West
Angles, the Middle Angles and the East Angles. IIRC the kingdom of the
Middle Angles was incorporated into the West Anglian kingdom at a fairly
early date.
But when the different kingdoms of the related Germanic speakers were
brought together under one king, the kingdom was called England (or the
Old English equivalent). OK - it was named from one of the original
constituents, so to speak.
But if this is what Mach was referring to, then the same applies to France
(named from the Franks who settled in north Gaul around the Paris area, I
believe) and to Greece whose name in most European languages is derived
from the Latin _Graeci_, the name of the first 'tribe' of Hellenes that
the Romans encountered by which the Romans designated all Hellenes/Greeks.
In the same way the French, Spanish & Welsh, inter alios, name Germany
after just one 'tribe' of ancient Germans, the Allemani: Allemagne,
Alemania, Yr Almaen (note definite article :)
I am quite sure there are many more such examples. If Mach was indeed
meaning that England got its name from the Angles who were just one of the
several Germanic peoples that settled in England (and lowland Scotland &
parts of Ireland) after the collapse the Roman province, then fair enough.
But I just wondered if............
=====================================================================
(b) MISUSE OF 'ENGLAND' TO DENOTE 'GREAT BRITAIN' ETC.
> On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 06:24 , Philip Newton wrote:
[snip]
> "England" = "Great Britain" or "UK" in some contexts, though England
> is only a portion of either.
Yes, I have met "England" used to mean "Great Britain" - really gets up
the nose of Scots & Welsh. But is it really used to include six counties
of Ireland as well? How ignorant can a person get? I cannot imagine that
either Republicans or Loyalists in the 6 counties like being called
English!!!
On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 06:53 , Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
> 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? :)
..by the uninformed, obviously.
> Admittedly, many, perhaps most, of us Americans conflate the
> terms, but I believe it is always a mistake to do so.
Indeed it is.
===============================================
On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 08:32 , Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 08:01:13PM +0100, Joe wrote:
>> Generally we call the individual parts of the UK 'countries',
I am not sure who "we" includes. IME "nations" is the usual term for
Scotland, England & Wales - certainly it is among rugby afficionados who
are looking forward to the Six Nations matches. (For Left-Pondians &
others, the 6 nations are, in alphabetical order, England, France,
Ireland [sic], Italy, Scotland, Wales). And Wales has its own _National_
Assembly, which does not make sense unless Wales is a nation. Scotland has
had its own parliament restored to it.
I don't think I've heard Northern Ireland called a nation. The Nationalist
there consider that it is part of the Irish Nation; the Loyalists
presumably consider themselves as a remnant of the former United Kingdom
of Great Britain & Ireland that remained loyal to the crown of that
Kingdom. It's usually IME called a 'Province'.
[snip]
> I suppose since Wales has a prince it could be regarded as a
> Principality.
Not merely could it be - it actually is a Principality. If you live there,
you come across the term used very commonly.
> Incidentally, how come England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland
> don't rate Princes?
In the case of England & Scotland its because they are _kingdoms_ which,
since the Stuarts, have been united under one crown and were in 1709
formally united as the Kingdom of Great Britain. Our present Queen is
Elizabeth II of England & Elizabeth I of Scotland; there was quite a lot
of argument when she came to the throne as to whether she should be
different styled in England & Scotland and IIRC there were even some acts
of violence in Scotland on post-boxes bearing the royal crest with
Elizabeth II on it. But it was resolved with an (informal IIRC) agreement
to take the highest number from the constituent kingdoms. Prince Charles
has wisely stated that he will, if he outlives his Mum (and her Mum lived
to be 101), be crowned 'George' - and that will the 7th one both in
England & Scotland :)
Charles BTW swore fealty to his Mum when he invested as Prince of Wales.
The 6 counties of Northern Ireland were once part of the Kingdom of
Ireland; but the rest of Ireland is now a republic. There are troubles
enough with the Loyalists being more 'British than the British' while the
Nationalists want to be re-united with rest of Ireland. To create a
"Prince of Northern Ireland" would be a sure way of starting the troubles
all over again.
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 09:46 , Joe wrote:
[snip]
> 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.
It is a Principality & is called that many times each day in the
Principality itself. As for power, Prince Charles has about the same power
as his Mum does in the UK.
I am not Prince Charles' greatest fan, but he has been the first Prince of
Wales for a *very* long time that has actually taken this office seriously.
He even took the trouble to learn the language and this fact alone did
much to boost his standing in Wales and to promote the Welsh language.
Certainly when I lived in Wales, many of the Welsh had great respect for
their prince.
------------------------------------------------
On Friday, September 17, 2004, at 01:54 , Tim May wrote:
[snip]
> All true, but irrelevant to the question of its current status. What
> information I can find suggests that the Government of Ireland Act
> 1920 created it as the "Province of Northern Ireland", although I
> can't find the text online. I _do_ know that it is commonly referred
> to as "the Province" by e.g. the BBC.
Yes, it is - and most of the politicians there from both sides of the
divide seem to call it a Province also in the interviews I've seen on TV.
> The issue is somewhat confused
> by its identification with the historic province of Ulster, with which
> it is not coterminous.
Indeed, it is not. The actual Province of Ulster consists of _nine_
counties, three of which are in the Republic. But the Loyalists do use the
term Ulster quite a lot, seemingly as tho it were coterminous.
> The Northern Ireland Act 1998 does not appear
> to use the term "province" - nor, AFAICT, does it use any other term.
Very wise of it :)
In short: the three nations of England, Scotland & Wales are constituent
parts of the Kingdom of Great Britain (Great, as opposed to (little)
Britain otherwise known in English as Brittany); the six counties of (the
Province of) Northern Ireland is a constituent part of the United Kingdom
(of Great Britain & Northern Ireland).
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:52:03 +0000
From: Jeremy Kleier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: CSX Help
D'oh! Found what I was looking for...
ts = ts) or t_s
Sorry about that...
Thanks!
Jeremy Kleier
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:41:17 +0000
From: Jeremy Kleier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: CXS Help
Can anyone provide the X-Sampa for the Japanese word 'tsunami'?
Thanks!
Jeremy Kleier
_________________________________________________________________
Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to
School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:02:43 -0400
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: AAAUUUUGH! (was Re: consport/congaming)
Mark J. Reed scripsit:
> But since when is there an "eternal discussion" about the pros and cons of
> IB?
Not here but on conculture. As Lord of the Instrumentality for both
groups, let me reiterate that non-IB postings are extremely welcome
on conculture.
> Anyway, my problem is an obsession with rules. I can't be happy with
> a statement like "the Dankarans play a chesslike game", or "a
> football-like sport", or such. I'd have to work out in detail exactly
> how each game works. Which is, of course, painstaking and
> time-consuming (not to say tedious, since I personally find it fun) and
> distracts one from the actual business of language-creation. :)
Well, if you wind up doing it anyway, or want some feedback or help,
by all means post to conculture.
--
And through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled, maddening
beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous flutes from
inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the detestable pounding
and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic
tenebrous ultimate gods -- the blind, voiceless, mindless gargoyles whose soul
is Nyarlathotep. (Lovecraft) John Cowan|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|ccil.org/~cowan
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:04:44 -0400
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CXS Help
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 06:41:17PM +0000, Jeremy Kleier wrote:
> Can anyone provide the X-Sampa for the Japanese word 'tsunami'?
Isn't it [ts)M.na.mi]?
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:12:11 -0400
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 07:17:27PM +0100, Ray Brown wrote:
> The Welsh for England is 'Lloegr' a name which, I believe, was once
> given to the whole island but came to be used for the Kingdom of
> England.
Good to know. And such a fun word to say! But then I have a weakness for
lateral fricatives. :)
> IME "nations" is the usual term for Scotland, England & Wales -
> certainly it is among rugby afficionados who are looking forward to
> the Six Nations matches. (For Left-Pondians & others, the 6 nations
> are, in alphabetical order, England, France, Ireland [sic], Italy,
> Scotland, Wales). And Wales has its own _National_ Assembly, which
> does not make sense unless Wales is a nation. Scotland has had its own
> parliament restored to it.
Hm. That would make the UK a supernational organization, like the EU or
the UN . . . but it is legally a single nation-state, is it not?
> Our present Queen is Elizabeth II of England & Elizabeth I of
> Scotland; there was quite a lot of argument when she came to the
> throne as to whether she should be different styled in England &
> Scotland and IIRC there were even some acts of violence in Scotland on
> post-boxes bearing the royal crest with Elizabeth II on it.
Huh. I had no idea.
> Prince Charles has wisely stated that he will, if he outlives his Mum
> (and her Mum lived to be 101), be crowned 'George' - and that will the
> 7th one both in England & Scotland :)
A joke, I assume? What would the respective numbers be for a King
Charles?
> I am not Prince Charles' greatest fan, but he has been the first Prince of
> Wales for a *very* long time that has actually taken this office seriously.
> He even took the trouble to learn the language and this fact alone did
> much to boost his standing in Wales and to promote the Welsh language.
I am impressed. I only hope he speaks Welsh better than W. speaks
Spanish. :)
> In short: the three nations of England, Scotland & Wales are constituent
> parts of the Kingdom of Great Britain (Great, as opposed to (little)
> Britain otherwise known in English as Brittany); the six counties of (the
> Province of) Northern Ireland is a constituent part of the United Kingdom
> (of Great Britain & Northern Ireland).
Thank you.
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:17:00 -0400
From: "Douglas Koller, Latin & French" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
Ray writes:
>Indeed, there wasn't. There were originally three Angle kingdoms: The West
>Angles, the Middle Angles and the East Angles.
That would make them the tri-Angles, nyuk, nyuk.
Kou
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:13:45 +0100
From: Jan van Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: AAAUUUUGH! (was Re: consport/congaming)
--- Mark J. Reed skrzypszy:
> > Aw, crap. Is there no subject about which we will not argue?
>
> Apparently not. Though you must admit that "hijacked" is rather an
> emotionally loaded word, implying some disapproval.
Agreed. I don't believe my statement was politically or otherwise
coloured by any standard. Anyway, it was definitely not my intention
to start a flamewar over the subject!
> But since when is there an "eternal discussion" about the pros and
> cons of IB?
They take place on Conculture every now and then. Some conculturers
feel they are not given the space they need because of the sometimes
very huge amount of IB-related messages, and would prefer it to move
to a separate group. Usually these discussions die with the implicit
conclusion that the number of people who r�ally want IB to leave is
fairly small.
> And I was invited to participate, but my concultures are alien and
> thus don't fit well into the IB world, nor am I able to dedicate
> what I consider the requisite time to be a useful contributor to
> the project, [...]
The first argument for not joining makes a lot of sense, the second
does not. In fact, there are several IB members who never sent a
single message to Conculture...
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: 13
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:28:07 +0100
From: Jan van Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang Flag: Voting Now Open.
--- Adrian Morgan skrzypszy:
> In the case of the Conlang flag vote, one flag is winning by a mile
> no matter what voting method you choose. Barring a miracle, it is
> *very* clear which design is going to win.
I can't wait to see the results!
> In fact, with 24 votes received, over 45% of people have placed the
> leading flag in first place! Now, that's a dramatic result however
> you look at it.
If I remember correctly, Peter Clark's (where has he gone?) Weekly
Polls usually had something between twenty and fourty respondents. So
I doubt if the total voter turnout will be much higher than that.
> It would be more interesting if it was a closer competition, but
> it's not turning out that way.
Well, it means at least that we agree for a change! :) It would have
been a lot harder if eight completely different flags would have
gained approximately the same amount of support. In that case we
would probably end up with no flag at all!
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: 14
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:27:25 -0400
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non vitae sed scholae discimus
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:51:02 +0200, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't know if my previous mail on this topic went thru, but I went home and
>checked Tore Jansson's _Latin_, and it agrees with what I thought I recalled;
>what Seneca actually wrote was _Non vitae sed scholae discimus_ "Not for life
>but for school do we learn". It's noted its often quoted in opposite form,
>and yet attributed to Seneca (which strikes me as highly discourteous, no
>matter how dead the old man might be).
It's not that bad since he meant it should be the other way round. By
inversing Seneca's word, we get it the way he'd have wanted it. It's not a
proper quote, but an allusion, and a quite litteral one.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:29:25 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Our present Queen is Elizabeth II of England & Elizabeth I of
>>Scotland; there was quite a lot of argument when she came to the
>>throne as to whether she should be different styled in England &
>>Scotland and IIRC there were even some acts of violence in Scotland on
>>post-boxes bearing the royal crest with Elizabeth II on it.
>>
>>
>
>Huh. I had no idea.
>
>
Um...that's because it's not true. Sorry, Ray, but she is the queen of
the United Kingdom, not England and Scotland.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:57:40 -0400
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:17:27 +0100, Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am quite sure there are many more such examples. If Mach was indeed
>meaning that England got its name from the Angles who were just one of the
>several Germanic peoples that settled in England (and lowland Scotland &
>parts of Ireland) after the collapse the Roman province, then fair enough.
> But I just wondered if............
I didn't. It's just that in several languages I know (actually, all
languages I know but English (?): German, French, Spanish), the most usual
way to refer to the UK is by saying _England_ (in the respective languages).
Actually, _Great Britain_ is just another such toponym, since originally,
British only referred to the Celtic people (whereas _Welsh_ could have
referred to both the Celtic and the Romance people on the island if there
were any Romance at all).
It's very common that a country is named after a part of it, but a name that
goes the other way round, that a country is named after a region of which it
forms a part, seems to be the exception.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:08:28 -0400
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:12:11 -0400, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Prince Charles has wisely stated that he will, if he outlives his Mum
>> (and her Mum lived to be 101), be crowned 'George' - and that will the
>> 7th one both in England & Scotland :)
>
> A joke, I assume? What would the respective numbers be for a King
> Charles?
The third, with the first and second both having had less than glowing
histories, by almost any measure.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:09:00 +0200
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang
Quoting Rodlox R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > kh (like "KHaan" in Mongolian)
> >
> >Mongolian might be a poor example, since very few people speak it.
>
> you never heard of Gengis Khan? :)
I have, and usually pronounced ['jINIs 'kA:n].
(How do anglophones pronounce it?)
> > > jy (like "DJoser" in Ancient Egyptian)
> >
> >I don't know how AE sounded, and I doubt anyone else does for sure either.
> >What's
> >worse, I don't even know what the conventional pronunciation of 'dj' is for
> >it.
>
> �n X-Sampa - J\
Ah. Would I then be right in assuming that 'sy' and 'zy' denote, respectively, a
voiceless and a voiced palatal fricative? (I'm still curious to hear what
Eastern European language uses them - I thought I had a decent grasp of the
various Latin orthographies of EE.)
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:18:02 -0400
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
Ray Brown scripsit:
> Yes, I have met "England" used to mean "Great Britain" - really gets up
> the nose of Scots & Welsh. But is it really used to include six counties
> of Ireland as well? How ignorant can a person get? I cannot imagine that
> either Republicans or Loyalists in the 6 counties like being called
> English!!!
In historical works, it's routine to see that France did this and England
did that, meaning by the latter the U.K.
> Prince Charles
> has wisely stated that he will, if he outlives his Mum (and her Mum lived
> to be 101), be crowned 'George'
How sad. How very sad.
What is he worried about? That if he is crowned as Charles III, he will
offend the large and powerful :-) Jacobite faction which applies that
title to Charles II's son? *They* don't recognize the House of Windsor
in any event.
And it's not even as if all the kings of the Hanover/Windsor dynasty
are named George: we already have had two Edwards and a William.
Why not a Charles?
I greatly admire Elizabeth's courage in taking the throne in her own name.
> Indeed, it is not. The actual Province of Ulster consists of _nine_
> counties, three of which are in the Republic. But the Loyalists do use
> the term Ulster quite a lot, seemingly as tho it were coterminous.
For which informal use, a certain loon attacked me for being in the
pay of the English -- meaning, I suppose, Reuters. And me a good
Hiberno-Deutsch American.
--
There are three kinds of people in the world: John Cowan
those who can count, http://www.reutershealth.com
and those who can't. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:19:31 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:12:11 -0400, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>> Prince Charles has wisely stated that he will, if he outlives his Mum
>>> (and her Mum lived to be 101), be crowned 'George' - and that will the
>>> 7th one both in England & Scotland :)
>>
>>
>> A joke, I assume? What would the respective numbers be for a King
>> Charles?
>
>
> The third, with the first and second both having had less than glowing
> histories, by almost any measure.
>
>
Well, the second wasn't two bad. A little promiscuous, but other than
that...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:30:50 -0700
From: Apollo Hogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: consport/congaming
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
[snip of non-con-language/culture stuff]
>
> Anyway, my problem is an obsession with rules. I can't be happy with
> a statement like "the Dankarans play a chesslike game", or "a
> football-like sport", or such. I'd have to work out in detail exactly
> how each game works. Which is, of course, painstaking and
> time-consuming (not to say tedious, since I personally find it fun) and
> distracts one from the actual business of language-creation. :)
>
> So I have, in fact, been pondering what a Dankaran chess-like game might
> be like, since battles of old featured gravity-controlling wizards as
> well as the usual assortment of archers, footsoldiers, cavalry (mounted
> or vehicular, not sure yet), etc. So far I'm envisioning a second board
> above the main, accessible only to wizards, who can immobilize foes
> below them, or perhaps aid in the movement of allies . . .
One useful reference for designing rules systems is the "Encyclopedia of
Chess Variants" (by David B. Pritchard) which is chock full of
examples of games, types of movements, and many thoughts on designing a
chess-like game.
If I ever do any con-culturing for my langs, I would probably include
a "Tafl"-type game (e.g. tablut, hnefetafl, tafl, etc.) There is lots of
room for inventivness there, the game is amusing (though IMO less rich
than chess, for example).
--Apollo
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:54:10 -0400
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:39:35 -0400, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark J. Reed scripsit:
>
>> NB: I find it interesting that "nah" represents /n&/ while "na"
>> represents /na/ ("na na na na, hey hey-ey, good-bye"); yet "ah" in
>> most Meanwhile, "yeah" represents /y&/,
>
>This word is very variable not only betweeen, but within, dialects of
>English. For me it has a centralizing diphthong, [EMAIL PROTECTED], that I don't
>otherwise have. I'd guess that whoever wrote this down first used a
>pronunciation similar to mine. The variant spelling "yah" probably
>represents something closer to [j&].
>
>All this paralinguistic stuff has very strange phonology and stranger
>orthography. I remember being quite surprised as a child to discvoer
>that written "tsk" meant a click, and that written "er" was just a
>non-rhotic spelling of [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka "uh".
I've read that [9] is common in Italian as in interjection. we use ['?m=?m=]
or ['[EMAIL PROTECTED]@] for negation and [?m='hm=] or [?@'[EMAIL PROTECTED] for
affirmation even though
our words can't have [m=], [?], or stressed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The first time I became conscious that interjections depend on language was
when I realized that in Germany, [i:] is an interjection of disgust, but of
amazement in Switzerland (we'd express disgust with [v\&_o:]).
Have people come up with special interjections for their conlangs?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:01:19 -0400
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:09:00 +0200, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Quoting Rodlox R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> > > kh (like "KHaan" in Mongolian)
>> >
>> >Mongolian might be a poor example, since very few people speak it.
>>
>> you never heard of Gengis Khan? :)
>
> I have, and usually pronounced ['jINIs 'kA:n].
>
> (How do anglophones pronounce it?)
This anglophone has /gG)eNgIs xAn/ ~ /geNgIs kAn/ but some say /dZ)endZ)Is/
Paul
... and I think that's my quota for the day
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:07:05 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new Unnamed Conlang
Paul Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:09:00 +0200, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Quoting Rodlox R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> > > kh (like "KHaan" in Mongolian)
>>> >
>>> >Mongolian might be a poor example, since very few people speak it.
>>>
>>> you never heard of Gengis Khan? :)
>>
>>
>> I have, and usually pronounced ['jINIs 'kA:n].
>>
>> (How do anglophones pronounce it?)
>
>
> This anglophone has /gG)eNgIs xAn/ ~ /geNgIs kAn/ but some say
> /dZ)endZ)Is/
>
Really? I've never heard that one. I always say the latter variant of
what you have.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:15:03 +0100
From: Keith Gaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CHAT National toponyms
Ray Brown wrote:
>> The issue is somewhat confused
>> by its identification with the historic province of Ulster, with which
>> it is not coterminous.
>
> Indeed, it is not. The actual Province of Ulster consists of _nine_
> counties, three of which are in the Republic. But the Loyalists do use the
> term Ulster quite a lot, seemingly as tho it were coterminous.
I think almost to annoy all the Republicans and Nationalists, and as a
nasty dig at those from the Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal, and other
surrounding border counties in the other provinces.
>> The Northern Ireland Act 1998 does not appear
>> to use the term "province" - nor, AFAICT, does it use any other term.
With good reason, seeing as Ulster might be a province, but Northern
Ireland != Ulster.
> In short: the three nations of England, Scotland & Wales are constituent
> parts of the Kingdom of Great Britain (Great, as opposed to (little)
> Britain otherwise known in English as Brittany); the six counties of (the
> Province of) Northern Ireland is a constituent part of the United Kingdom
> (of Great Britain & Northern Ireland).
And if you think that's bad, you should see the reaction of people from
the border counties when Northern Ireland gets referred to as Ulster.
It's just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
K. -- Who's from one of the border counties.
--
Keith Gaughan -- talideon.com
The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
