------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 14 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: 1st, 2nd, 3rd - 4th person POV??
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: The etymology of (King) Arthur (was Re: CHAT: reign names)
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: OOPs!! When is a class not a class? (Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes
in Language)
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes in Language
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. what makes a con-script a Con-Script?
From: Rodlox R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: OOPs!! When is a class not a class? (Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes
in Language)
From: Keith Gaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Contemporaneous protolanguages
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Basque Gender Marking (was Re: Further language development Q's)
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: Fijian gender
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: 1st, 2nd, 3rd - 4th person POV??
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Inventing names
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: what makes a con-script a Con-Script?
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Contemporaneous protolanguages
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Contemporaneous protolanguages
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 08:09:02 +0200
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 1st, 2nd, 3rd - 4th person POV??
--- "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 12:24:41PM -0400, Roger
> Mills wrote:
> [...]
> > In the various creative writing classes I took
> waaaaay back when (with a
> > deliciously bitchy teacher) we had to do exercises
> in all these methods; 2d
> > Pers. is the hardest, rather weird, and uncommon
> in Engl. prose probably for
> > good reason.
>
> Back in my highschool days, I had an English teacher
> who was convinced
> it was impossible to write a story in the 2nd
> person.
Michel Butor's "La Modification" is very famous for
being entirely written in the 2nd person. See:
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/butor.htm
=====
Philippe Caquant
Ceterum censeo *vi* esse oblitterandum (Me).
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:30:11 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The etymology of (King) Arthur (was Re: CHAT: reign names)
On Thursday, September 23, 2004, at 08:12 , Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
[snip]
>> I still find it noteworthy that no ancient author ever referred to the
>> inhabitants of Britain or Ireland as Celts, yet they knew Celts on the
>> continent.
>>
>> Far too many assumptions are made IMHO about early Britain.
>
> [snip]
>
> I might be uncharacteristically uninfected by the whole ol' "Celtic Myth"
> for a
> young westerner who spent much of his teens plowing thru Fantasy novels,
> but
> when I hear someone question whether the ancient inhabitants of the
> British
> Isles were "Celts", my immediate interpretation is linguistic - I take it
> as
> questioning whether their languages belong to the same branch of IE as do
> the
> continental Celtic languages (Gaulish and friends).
Friends? AFAIK Gaulish is the only known one - and what is known of that
is far from perfect. But as I understand it, the main reason that the
pre-English languages of Ireland & Britain were not called 'Gallic' is
that the name resonated too much of France which in the 18th century was
depicted as our "natural enemy". But J. Caesar said the Celtae made up the
larger part of the Galli, so 'Celtic' was coined as being politically
neutral (i.e. 'political correctness' is not a late 20th century
phenomenon). Another example of the whole being named after a part?
> Now, given the arguments
> you put forth, it seems pretty clear you're rather addressing a question
> of
> what might be called ethnic identity.
Yes, in part. I am also addressing the notion I have seen in some books of
a 'Celtic Empire' stretching from Ireland, through western & central
Europe and across into Galatia in Asia Minor. There is, of course, no
evidence of any such 'empire'. But I also question the idea of a single
uniform culture, held together by 'druids', that I have seen portrayed.
It seems to me that we are dealing with a long process of diffusion and
acculturation.
> What I'm getting at is that this kind of question may be more fruitfully
> discussed if it's clear at the outset if we by terms such as "Celts"
> refers to
> a linguistic, cultural, racial or other grouping.
Indeed so - but alas the whole "Celtic Myth" has had such a hold that it
has become difficult to disentangle these elements. Even linguistically
IMO it does not help. Some people talk about various features, e.g.
initial consonant mutation, as 'typical' of the 'Celtic languages'. But
there is no evidence of this in Gaulish. This and most other 'typical'
features seem to be features of the Insular 'Celtic' languages - and their
only appearance on the continent is when British (Brezhonek) was taken
across to Brittany by those fleeing from the harassing from Saxon
encroachment & Irish piracy (no idea of common Celticness then!).
What were the elements that contributed to the Insular languages? How did
certain features that some have seen as Semitic get there? Contact with
Phoenician traders to the "Tin Isles"? Etc.
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:30:03 +0100
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OOPs!! When is a class not a class? (Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes
in Language)
On Friday, September 24, 2004, at 08:29 , Philippe Caquant wrote:
> --- Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev:
[snip]
>> OK - Philippe, if your only experience of using
>> objects is JavaScript,
>> maybe we had better not continue using the class ~
>> object analogy
>> otherwise we are very likely to be talking at
>> cross-purposes, which won't
>> help anybody.
>>
> As I understood from Flanagan's "JavaScript" (I'm
> currently at page 344 of the French edition, and there
> are 955 in all), JavaScript in not a real OOP, but it
> more or less behaves like an OOP.
Either your Flanagan ain't the David Flanagan who wrote "JavaScript: the
Definitive Guide" or he's changed his mind or something has gone awry in
the translation. In "JavaScript: the Definitive Guide" (page 137 of the
Third edition) he writes:
"The truth is that JavaScript is a true object-oriented language. It draws
inspiration from a number of other (relatively obscure) object-oriented
languages that use prototype-based inheritance instead of class-based
inheritance."
By 'other' he means other than classic OOP languages like C++ and Java,
which uses class-based inheritance.
> As I don't know Java
> neither C++, it's hard for me to explain it smartly.
> What I know is that JS has no types
Is this your first experience of an untyped language? You've a lot to
learn :)
> and confuses "+"
> and "concatenate" (well, it doesn't really confuse
> them, it only makes it very likely that you will have
> problems with that some day),
Eh?? But "+" is commonly used for concatenation. I've used it for years
and so far have had no problems.
>
> So, when I'l be through with JavaScript, I'll learn
> Java (probably at least 1500 pages ?) and C++, and a
> dozen of other things, including DHTML, XTHML, XML,
> XSL, PHP, MySQL, Perl, Unix, vi, Apache, Tomcat, etc,
How can you learn Apache?? It's a webserver (and a ood one too IMO) -
unless you actually mean the language of the Apaches of North America
(That's much more interesting!). Isn't vi an editor? and Unix an operating
system, and... - such a mixed bag of tools here. You sound like a
carpenter bemoaning having to learn how use all the different tools of
carpentry.
> and then I maybe will be able to send "Hello, world"
> on the internaut's screen,
I hate to disillusion you, but it is quite easy to put a page on the
Internet that says "Hello World" and you do *not* need DHTML, XTHML, XML,
XSL, PHP, MySQL, Perl, Unix, vi, Apache, or Tomcat in order to do it!
> There is something rotten in the Kingdom of Programming, IMO.
How very sad. But I'll not rise to that bait again.
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO September, 2004
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 08:35:54 +0200
From: Philippe Caquant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes in Language
--- Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev:
>
> To be quite frank, _ordinary people_ consider things
> differently even now!
> Most people, for example, would say that a horse
> is real and a unicorn is
> not.
Hmmm again... Consider how many people believe in
astrology, horoscopes, homeopathy, religions... and in
the politicians they vote for. (BTW, when I was young,
I worked in a factory for some time, and I once had a
heartily discussion with a worker from Algeria - a
very nice and friendly guy, about 40 years old. I
tried to persuade him that the Earth was a sphere
(Allah knows why we came upon that topic) and he
absolutely refused to believe it. He said that if it
was so, people on the other side of the Earth would
walk with their feet up and their head down, which is
impossible. That was around 1975).
> Plato's conceptions might be more apt. It will be
> found that no single
> coherent system can be constructed from his
> writings.
What strikes me when reading Ancient Greeks, and even
philosophical literature up to, say, XVIIIth century,
is the terrible lack for methodology. Has it gone
better now ? Well, by now, philosophical works are so
hermetical that you cannot give any more judgement.
BTW, I had an idea (of course, many people will prove
me that somebody else had the same one a long time
ago). One of the main problems when writing about
philosophy, and probably even more about linguistics,
is the confusion between language and meta-language,
and the real meaning the words used by the author are
suppose to carry. But the concept of domain names (is
this the term ? I mean "espaces de noms", like in XML)
has arosen already, so why not, when writing such a
book, prefix all specific words that are supposed to
be clearly defined somewhere by a special character
representing the names domain ? For ex, all terms
prefixed by $ would be defined on some particular URL,
all prefixed by #, on some other URL, etc, the list of
the definition URLs being given at the head of the
book. And all words used in their current, common
meaning would not be prefixed. Imagine how much time
we would spare instead of arguing about what the
author really meant !
(snip)
>
=====
Philippe Caquant
Ceterum censeo *vi* esse oblitterandum (Me).
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 07:17:43 +0000
From: Rodlox R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: what makes a con-script a Con-Script?
*curious*
if you had five or fewer tablet (each the size of your palm), which had
symbols etched in them...how would you know that it was a written
language?...as opposed to random slashes in the rock...or something else?
just wondering.
_________________________________________________________________
Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and
more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 08:56:57 +0100
From: Keith Gaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OOPs!! When is a class not a class? (Re: Number/Specificality/Archetypes
in Language)
Ray Brown wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2004, at 08:29 , Philippe Caquant wrote:
>
>> --- Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> OK - Philippe, if your only experience of using
>>> objects is JavaScript,
>>> maybe we had better not continue using the class ~
>>> object analogy
>>> otherwise we are very likely to be talking at
>>> cross-purposes, which won't
>>> help anybody.
>>
>> As I understood from Flanagan's "JavaScript" (I'm
>> currently at page 344 of the French edition, and there
>> are 955 in all), JavaScript in not a real OOP, but it
>> more or less behaves like an OOP.
>
> Either your Flanagan ain't the David Flanagan who wrote "JavaScript: the
> Definitive Guide" or he's changed his mind or something has gone awry in
> the translation. In "JavaScript: the Definitive Guide" (page 137 of the
> Third edition) he writes:
> "The truth is that JavaScript is a true object-oriented language. It draws
> inspiration from a number of other (relatively obscure) object-oriented
> languages that use prototype-based inheritance instead of class-based
> inheritance."
Nudge to Philippe: take a look at those links I posted up earlier in the
thread. There're well worth the read. They explain prototype-based OO,
and closures, the mechanism that make OO possible in many
prototype-based languages.
>> As I don't know Java
>> neither C++, it's hard for me to explain it smartly.
>> What I know is that JS has no types
>
> Is this your first experience of an untyped language? You've a lot to
> learn :)
And worth it it is.
>> and confuses "+"
>> and "concatenate" (well, it doesn't really confuse
>> them, it only makes it very likely that you will have
>> problems with that some day),
>
> Eh?? But "+" is commonly used for concatenation. I've used it for years
> and so far have had no problems.
What happens in JavaScript is a weaker version of what happens in
Python. Python, as anybody who's used it (and it comes highly
recommended), is a dynamically typed language with strong typing. The
interpreter intuits what the variable type is at the time of first
assignment, and that variable *keeps* that type. So, you won't end up
having problems concatenating two strings that just happen to be made
up solely of digits.
JavaScript does something similar. That's why '+' doesn't screw up in
the language and why it doesn't need a seperate concatenation operator
like VBScript, PHP, Perl, and others.
>> So, when I'l be through with JavaScript, I'll learn
>> Java (probably at least 1500 pages ?) and C++, and a
>> dozen of other things, including DHTML, XTHML, XML,
>> XSL, PHP, MySQL, Perl, Unix, vi, Apache, Tomcat, etc,
Learn Python. It's a dream to use, and you won't regret it. And stick
with JavaScript: it's got a lot of good ideas.
K.
--
Keith Gaughan -- talideon.com
The man who removes a mountain begins
by carrying away small stones...
...to make place for some really big nukes!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:50:42 -0500
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Contemporaneous protolanguages
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Suppose you could go back in time to when Proto-Indo-European
> was spoken in the Caucasus or wherever we think it was these days.
There are still lots of people who think that PIE was spoken in
the Ukrainian steppe, or somewhat south of that, but these people
have never given a plausible explanation for how the language
actually spread. Maria Gimbutas' vision of patriarchal warlike
hordes sweeping off the steppes into the Balkans and thence to
Anatolia is thankfully dying off, but nothing entirely convincing
has arisen to replace it. IMO, the homeland must be somewhere
situated near the Caucasus to explain very early borrowings
into Kartvelian and Northwest Caucasian; these are convincing
enough that some people (e.g. John Colarusso) posit a Pontic
family consisting of PIE and PNWC. Of course Renfrew and Gamqrelidze
have said the Urheimat is in Anatolia about 7-9k years BP, but they
are still the minority.
> Would a quick trip down to the Middle East find a culture of people
> speaking Proto-Afroasiatic at the same time? And what would the
> people in Eastern Asia be speaking at this point?
My understanding is that PAA is usually situated far to the South,
somewhere near the Red Sea. It's clear that Akkadian started
arriving from southward into Sumerian-speaking lands, and the
overall center of gravity of PAA is along the Red Sea, but other
than these facts I don't know anything very specific about it.
As far as Anatolia, many people (most notably Diakonoff and Starostin)
have proposed connections between Hattic, spoken in or around Hattusas,
and NWC, and the same have suggested that Hurro-Urartean, spoken in
an area centered on modern Armenia, are related to NEC. I can't
speak with any authority about the link between Hattic and NWC,
but I can say that the similarities between HU and NEC are rather
striking. To this protofamily, D-S have given the name Alarodian
after the Alarodii in Herodotos. OTOH, in a list of about 100 or so
putative cognates D-S came up with, many are weird semantically, and
it should in principle make an honest historical linguist uncomfortable
to posit the collapse of 80-someodd distinct consonant protophonemes
into about 25-30 of HU without very strong evidence to that effect.
Gene Gragg, Ilya Yakubovich and I came to the conclusion last year that
the best evidence comes from the morphology of the verb and from the
pronominal system. If there is any reality to this proposal (and it
has drawn howls from Caucasologists), I think Alarodian must have split
into P-HU and then into PNEC, contrary to what D-S say. Given that
PNEC is usually said to be about as old as PIE, then that must put
Alarodian at at least 7-10ky BP.
Another family about which I am almost totally unqualified to speak
is Elamite. All I know is that they say it's not related to any known
language (with the possible exception of Brahui).
> Presumably there wouldn't be anyone at all in the Americas yet . . .
I think others have already pointed out that they were probably there
for a long, long time.
==========================================================================
Thomas Wier "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally,
Dept. of Linguistics because our secret police don't get it right
University of Chicago half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of
1010 E. 59th Street Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter.
Chicago, IL 60637
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:23:49 -0500
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Basque Gender Marking (was Re: Further language development Q's)
From: Tamas Racsko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 24 Sep 2004 "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Our understanding of its phonology and morphology are based
> > almost entirely on how Sumerian words borrowed into Akkadian
> > were pronounced, sometimes centuries after Sumerian ceased to
> > be spoken as a living language. It is therefore difficult if
> > not impossible to know whether these kinds of collocations that
> > you mention are not just cliticized forms, and we can therefore
> > not know whether to call Sumerian polysynthetic (to the extent
> > that that term has any real meaning).
>
> As for the phonetics, maybe you are true. However we make
> statements even on PIE phonology that is also a reconstruction.
> IMHO therefore this argument is not enough to preclude the theory-
> making.
(1) I didn't say that we can't make claims about Sumerian. I said
we must be wary about it.
(2) Deriving phonetic properties via the comparative method is
not at all like trying to figure out phonetic properties of
phonemes based solely on a writing system we know to be very
ill-suited to the language. The large number of homophonous
words in Sumerian suggest that it may have been a tone language
of some kind. If so, so crucial a facet of the language is
completely irrecoverable from the writing system alone.
> As for the morphology, I see things differently. We do not have
> to reach phonetical level to form morphological analysis (it is
> much more explicit in a logographic language).
On the contrary: Sumerian is notorious for lacking special
determinatives for morphological information through much of
its history. Let me quote from Thomsen's grammar of the language:
"The Sumerian language never attempted to render the language
phonetically correct, exactly as it was spoken. The very
first stages of writing as attested in Uruk and Gemdet Nasr
(about 3000 BC) were pictographic or ideographic in nature,
thus rendering only the most important words like catchwords
of an account or a literary text. This principle was never
totally abandoned in Sumerian writing, although more and more
grammatical elements and phonetic complements were gradually
added. [...] Thus when we try to find out the morphophonological
structure of the Sumerian language, we must constantly bear in
mind that we are not dealing with a language directly but are
reconstructing it from a very imperfect mnemonic writing system
which had not been basically aimed at the rendering of morpho-
phonemics. [...] ... we must state that strictly speaking the
only thing that we can do on this basis [of the writing being
used as mnemonics] is to try to describe how some grammatical
relations are expressed **in the writing** [Thomsen's emphasis].
Since we cannot take the texts at their face value a detailed
grammatical description of the language as presumably spoken
would be a rather uncertain task of reconstructing. As stated
by M. Civil one of the pitfalls facing the Sumerologist is the
assumption that 'what is not written in the texts is not in
the utterance', and other pitfalls are erroneous reconstructions
of grammatical elements where they perhaps never were present."
[Marie Louise Thomsen _The Sumerian Language_ pp. 20-22]
Sumerian may well have been polysynthetic, and these formatives
you mention may thus not have been clitics. The point I was trying
to make is that whenever you talk about Sumerian, you can't get
around the fact that much of our understanding is and always will
be conjectural. Thomsen says so many times in her book, of which
the above quotes are just a fairly representative selection. There
are much better examples (e.g., Georgian) of verbs agreeing with
all arguments, so you need not have cited Sumerian.
> (Btw, in English literature, is there distinction between terms
> "polysynthetic" and "incorporating"?)
I believe others have already answered this better than I could
have, so I'll let their answers stand.
==========================================================================
Thomas Wier "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally,
Dept. of Linguistics because our secret police don't get it right
University of Chicago half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of
1010 E. 59th Street Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter.
Chicago, IL 60637
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:26:19 +0200
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fijian gender
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:24:26 -0400, Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Language Training Mission) 1973, Te re'o Tahiti no te mau misionare.
> Provo Utah [That's probably BYU]
I imagine this is (was?) a text used at what's now called the
Missionary Training Center (then the LTM) - though it may have been
developed at BYU rather than, say, at the MTC by returned missionaries
to give the next "generation" an easier time of learning the language.
(I know that when I was on my mission, part of the materials I
received were handwritten notes from previous generations of
missionaries, though we also had a "proper" textbook - which I didn't
like much and largely ignored, preferring instead one in German I had
brought with me - but that's another story.)
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Watch the Reply-To!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:42:35 -0500
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 1st, 2nd, 3rd - 4th person POV??
From: Carol Anne Buckley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm new! I have been lurking for a few days. I have a BA in Linguistics
> and Cognitive Psych and an MA in Linguistics (emphasis on Oceanic languages)
> and am interested in language in general and Polynesian languages in
> particular. I write futurist fiction (as yet unpublished). I have no
> pressing need to develop a conlang at the moment, and, perhaps quixotically,
> feel rather confident about doing it if I ever need to.
Welcome to the list! We have a number of professional linguists on
the list, in addition to participants who certainly have an above-average
understanding of linguistics, so I think you'll feel at home here.
==========================================================================
Thomas Wier "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally,
Dept. of Linguistics because our secret police don't get it right
University of Chicago half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of
1010 E. 59th Street Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter.
Chicago, IL 60637
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 11:01:27 +0200
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Inventing names
Ei) d_0u {vr\iwAn , hm_0_h_t_<: ! *)
I have a bit of a cold since yesterday, but that doesn't
keep me away from working ;-)
On Wednesday 22 September 2004 17:49, Jeffrey Henning wrote:
> For ideas on creating a naming language, check out this
> old essay of mine: http://www.langmaker.com/ml0102.htm
Nice ideas with that proto-lang. Hey, I haven't remembered
that you don't need a full-blown language to name things.
Hm, there is no relative to Ayeri yet, so it should be very
easy to create roots by some nice sound changes. That'd
save me indeed much time as for creating words for relative
languages! What'd be interesting is creating a/some naming
language/s from scratch. Shouldn't be that
difficult ... what I have typed up yesterday evening can be
found at http://www.beckerscarsten.de/conlang/naming/.
*) ::sniff:: -- I think it's [h] + voiceless aspirated
breathy voiced bilabial nasal ingressive fricative. I
assumed breathing in (reverse airstream, into the lungs) is
_< in X-Sampa. There's no "fricativized" diacritic in IPA
as it seems :-(
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: 12
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:04:57 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: what makes a con-script a Con-Script?
Rodlox R wrote:
> *curious*
>
> if you had five or fewer tablet (each the size of your palm), which had
> symbols etched in them...how would you know that it was a written
> language?...as opposed to random slashes in the rock...or something else?
>
> just wondering.
>
> __
Not an expert but:
a)Are any of the symbols repeated? If so, how accurately.
b)How complicated are the symbols? Are the majority made of more than
one stroke?
c)How many different symbols are there? If more than about 400, it's
a)A logographic script, b)Random slashes. If less than 10, it's
unlikely to be a script, though it could be a language with very few
phonemes.
a)+b), not c) - probably logographic script
All of them - probably a syllabic or alphabetic script
b)+c), not a) - probably not a script
a)+c), not b) - Quite hard to tell.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 12:55:46 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Contemporaneous protolanguages
----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas R. Wier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Contemporaneous protolanguages
> enough that some people (e.g. John Colarusso) posit a Pontic
> family consisting of PIE and PNWC. Of course Renfrew and Gamqrelidze
> have said the Urheimat is in Anatolia about 7-9k years BP, but they
> are still the minority.
'Urheimat'...um, does that mean "ancestral language homeland" or something
like that? *curious*
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:56:50 +0100
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Contemporaneous protolanguages
Rodlox wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Thomas R. Wier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 9:50 AM
>Subject: Re: Contemporaneous protolanguages
>
>
>
>>enough that some people (e.g. John Colarusso) posit a Pontic
>>family consisting of PIE and PNWC. Of course Renfrew and Gamqrelidze
>>have said the Urheimat is in Anatolia about 7-9k years BP, but they
>>are still the minority.
>>
>>
>
> 'Urheimat'...um, does that mean "ancestral language homeland" or something
>like that? *curious*
>
>
>
Yes, basically. 'ur-'=indigenous, original.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
