------------------------ 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: Language in use
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: CONCULTURE: dual planets
From: "B. Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: English l and Spanish ll
From: Tristan Mc Leay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Introduction
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Xinkutlan 2- Some Grammar
From: Geoff Horswood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: Xinkutlan 1- Phonology
From: Geoff Horswood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Introduction
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: This is not a conlang and VOYNICH
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: Introduction
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: A question for the ejective gurus: strong~weak ejectives
From: rob_nierse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Introduction
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: Introduction
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: Language in use
From: Yann Kiraly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: fonts
From: Andrew Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Legratec
From: Simon Richard Clarkstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Tagalog & trigger idea: I'd like comments. :)
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. What did Rodlox do? (was: Tagalog & trigger idea: I'd like comments. :)
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. X-SAMPA confusion (was: Introduction)
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: ergative + another introduction
From: taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Unqualified Appology
From: Trent Pehrson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: Introduction
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: This is not a conlang.
From: Dan Sulani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: 2 Re: A Bit of a Flame
From: Dan Sulani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: An incomplete, but interesting, Conlang sketch
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: ergative + another introduction
From: Kit La Touche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:08:48 +0200
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Language in use
Thomas Leigh scripsit:
> Philip Newton scriveva:
> > > There's a yahoogroup called "Use your Conlang"
> > > (formerly "Conlangs in Use"
> >
> > Ooh. Link, please?
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/use_your_conlang/
Ah, I think it gives a good reason to remind about so called "workshops". I
used to give a weekly review in the past, and it looks like I need to resume
this job nowadays, for most of those groups are now silent as fish.
Those are:
for aposteriori conlangs:
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aboriconlangs/
lgs of First Nations, Black Africa, Australian Aboriginals etc.
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Celticonlang/
Celtic lgs
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eastasianconlangs/
East Asian lgs: CJK, Indochina, India (both Aryan and Dravidic), Siberia,
Pacific Ocean etc.
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/germaniconlang/
Germanic lgs
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romconlang/
Romance lgs
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Slaviconlang/
Slavic, Baltic lgs, Greek
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uraliconlang/
Uralic lgs
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/westasianconlangs/
West Asian lgs: Semitic and other Afrasian, Turkic, North Caucasian etc.
Other specialized workshops:
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/neographies/ - conscripts;
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lostlangs/ - League of the Lost Languages;
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pieconlang/ - conlangs based on PIE.
Sister groups:
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/artificiallanguages2/
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/langmaker2/
- http://espanol.groups.yahoo.com/group/ideolengua/ - in Spanish
- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ouglopo/ - in French
I also have plans to open a conlang group in Russian.
Enjoy your communication!
-- Yitzik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:29:34 -0800
From: "B. Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CONCULTURE: dual planets
This was never answered with my post about the discovery of a world
where the sentient life is extinct. So...
How big would a moon orbiting an earth sized (or slightly bigger)
planet have to be to have a visible atmosphere? Would a moon that size
cause problems?
--
You can turn away from me
but there's nothing that'll keep me here you know
And you'll never be the city guy
Any more than I'll be hosting The Scooby Show
Scooby Show - Belle and Sebastian
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:44:47 +1100
From: Tristan Mc Leay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: English l and Spanish ll
Isaac Penzev wrote:
>Simon Richard Clarkstone wrote:
>
>
>
>>J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This'd
>>>require a sign for "audible release", kind of the opposite of <_}> (sign
>>>
>>>
>for
>
>
>>>"no audible release").
>>>
>>>The minus-sign might just work for this purpose, though it's no standard
>>>anywhere.
>>>
>>>
>>Erm. shouldn't the opposite of [_}] be [_{]? Seems most logical.
>>
>>
>
>IMHO, that makes sense.
>
>
Can I be the first to nominate <_&> and <_u\>? or is it <_u\> and <_&>?
I forget.
--
Tristan.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:48:00 -0600
From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Introduction
From: Rene Uittenbogaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Geoff Horswood wrote:
> > The bizarre thing about the greetings is that although they are formed as
> > questions, most people (apart from some of the real traditionalists from
> > the villages) treat them as interjections of the "Hello", "How do you do?"
> > variety.
>
> While I was working at university, one of the people I worked with went
> on a trip to America. He found it very disturbing that so many people,
> even the supermarket personnel would ask him "How do you do?"
It's not clear to me why this should be any more bizarre than the
use of questions for polite imperatives; Russians, e.g., would find
that Western European habit particularly foreign. Such conventionalized
pragmatic implicatures abound in every language. For example, in
German one says the equivalent of "He nodded with the head", and one
knows by implicature that the head in question belongs to the subject,
even though formally, the sentence does not say as much. (In English,
of course, to be idiomatic one must be explicit about that: "He nodded
his head" is better than "He nodded with the head".)
> So, refusing to answer, but trying to acknowledge that they were just
> trying to be polite, he simply started answering "Thank you" :)
More appropriate would be "Fine, thank you" or the like.
==========================================================================
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: 5
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 04:51:27 -0500
From: Geoff Horswood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Xinkutlan 2- Some Grammar
Nothing especially unusual in the phonology, so here's some grammar:
VERBS
Verbs end in -en in the infinitive, which is also used as a gerund.
The ending modifies with tense as follows:
Tense Imperfect Perfect +Continuous +Habitual
Present -ei -ai -a -u
Immediate Past -its -ats -i -u
Recent Past -ir -ur -i -u
Distant Past -as -es -a -u
Legendary Past -ik -ek -i -u
Immediate Future -el -ul -a -o
Near Future -im -om -a -o
Far Future -ep -up -a -o
-ix- before all of these endings forms the passive.
Immediate past is used for anything from "just now" to "right this morning"
Recent past takes in "this week" to "this month"
Distant past goes all the way back to "in my eary years" or "in my father's
lifetime"
Legendary past is anything beyond living memory, or anything in living
memory but of doubtful veracity.
Immediate future is "today"
Near future goes forward to "this week"
Anything beyond a week's distant, or anything speculative, no matter what
the time frame, is far future.
Example
imen "to walk"
imei walk (present imperfect)
imeia walking (present continuous)
imeiu in the habit of walking
imeku had the habit of walking (a *long* time ago)
tepen "to dwell"
tepixatsi was being dwelt (would usually take a prefix for "in" or "on"
etc) immediate past continuous
PRONOUNS & pronounal prefixes
Letters in brackets () are added before an initial vowel
Pronoun Prefix
1 sing kir an-
2 sing inf ut u(s)-
2 sing close hon utu usal-
2 sing high hon util usin-
2 sing sacred hon uatu ua(s)-
2 sing royal hon utlama tua(r)-
3 sing inanimate ita i(t)-
3 sing animate ima im-
3 sing hon imuc ir-
1 pl inclusive rei en-
1 pl exclusive tei ein-
2 pl inf asut o(c)-
2 pl close hon asutu ocal-
2 pl high hon asutl ocin-
2 pl sacred hon asuati oi(c)-
2 pl royal hon utlama tua(r)-
3 pl inanimate ite il-
3 pl animate ika in-
3 pl hon iri irun-
The "close honorific" form is used for people like parents and good friends
of higher status.
The "high honorific" form denotes scribes, village elders, respected people
for whom the close honorific is inappropriate.
The "sacred honorific" is used for shaman-priests, when addressing spirits
and the like.
Finally, the royal honorific is used to address royalty. This includes the
royal family and some gods.
Example
akaren "to see"
anakarei I see
tuarakarats petetl you, o king, have seen (just now)
irakarats petetl the king, he has seen (just now)*
*Permissible, but unusual. Would emphasise "the king". Just "akarats
petetl" would normally be sufficient.
More to follow!
G
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 04:52:49 -0500
From: Geoff Horswood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Xinkutlan 1- Phonology
>
>Usually /wa/, /we/, /wi/ ([uj] is more fun, though :), /wo/, I'd
>expect... (That's what [w] is---a back (velar) rounded (labial) glide
>(approximate).)
>
>--
>Tristan.
OK. Thanks! :)
G
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:52:56 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Introduction
Hi!
"Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> Such conventionalized
> pragmatic implicatures abound in every language. For example, in
> German one says the equivalent of "He nodded with the head", and one
> knows by implicature that the head in question belongs to the subject,
> even though formally, the sentence does not say as much.
>...
What? I don't understand. Could you describe this in more detail or
give an example (in German)?
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:15:59 +0200
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This is not a conlang and VOYNICH
On Nov 18, 2004, at 8:40 AM, Sally Caves wrote:
> PPS.
> Speaking of the VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT, as you do below, what has been the
> latest consensus, and where can I find information about it? A friend
> told
> me, and I don't believe him, that it has been decided that it was a
> natural
> language. He couldn't supply me with a recent source.
>
A recent article in Wired Magazine interviewed someone who said that he
proved it's all gibberish:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/rugg.html?pg=1
-Stephen (Steg)
"you can confuse the enemy with syllogisms!"
~ what philosophy majors do in the army
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:13:02 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Introduction
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 12:52:56PM +0100, Henrik Theiling wrote:
> "Thomas R. Wier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >...
> > Such conventionalized
> > pragmatic implicatures abound in every language. For example, in
> > German one says the equivalent of "He nodded with the head", and one
> > knows by implicature that the head in question belongs to the subject,
> > even though formally, the sentence does not say as much.
> >...
>
> What? I don't understand. Could you describe this in more detail or
> give an example (in German)?
>
It's an example of things which are explicitly stated in language A
(English "He nodded his head." explicitly says whose head it is)
but left implied in language B (German "Er nickte den Kopf"
leaves out the fact that the head is that of the nodder). Apologies if
the German is incorrect.
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:21:17 -0000
From: rob_nierse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A question for the ejective gurus: strong~weak ejectives
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Roser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>.... I don't recall all of the
> characteristics that distinguish the two types,
> but one that I do recall is that tense ejectives have a longer gap
> between stop release and glottal release, and a longer Voice Onset
> Time, while lax ejectives have a very short gap (or none at all).
>
> While no known language makes this distinction (so far as I'm
> aware), I'm not sure that it's impossible from a phonological view
<snip>
I've always been intrigued by Yucatec Maya that has k?- (that is [k]
plus glottal stop) as first person plural prefix. Once prefixed to a
root beginning with a vowel, a minimal pair can ocur between [k'] and
[k?], as in:
k'ak' 'fire'
k?ak' 'our grapevine'
Rob
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:27:30 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Introduction
Hi!
"Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> It's an example of things which are explicitly stated in language A
> (English "He nodded his head." explicitly says whose head it is)
> but left implied in language B (German "Er nickte den Kopf"
> leaves out the fact that the head is that of the nodder). Apologies if
> the German is incorrect.
Ah! Although the sentence is awkward, it makes the point perfectly
clear now. (In that particular example, you'd simply use
"Er nickte.").
Yes indeed, German likes to not use possessive pronouns in certain
situation. A good example would be:
Er sch�ttelte den Kopf.
He shook the head
'He shook his head.'
Funny that 'shake' works, but 'nod' doesn't. :-)
Sometimes, a dative of involvement is used instead of possessives:
Mir tut der Arm weh.
Me-DAT does the arm-NOM pain(ful).
'My arm hurts.'
Some dialects (but not mine) have:
Die Mama kocht.
The mother cooks
'My/Our mother cooks/is cooking/is going to cook."
So there are several ways to find the possessor, depending on the
actual construction.
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:44:40 +0100
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Introduction
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:27:30 +0100, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes indeed, German likes to not use possessive pronouns in certain
> situation. A good example would be:
>
> Er sch�ttelte den Kopf.
> He shook the head
> 'He shook his head.'
Or:
Er steckte die H�nde in die Taschen.
literally, "He put the hands in the pockets"; in English, one'd
probably say "He put his hands in his pockets".
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Watch the Reply-To!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:55:03 -0500
From: Yann Kiraly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Language in use
How many speakers does Toki Pona have?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:27:57 -0500
From: Andrew Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: fonts
Well, I've been messing about in "Paint" with the Latin, IPA and Cyrillic
alphabets which all seem to harmonise with each other. I've done an
alternative English alphabet. (I was never happy with some of the IPA
symbols, and thought the dipthongs could have their own symbols:
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/alphadozen.GIF
I also had a go at designing a symbol for the bilateral bilabial fricative
for the post of the same name and just got carried away altering other
symbols. The result is a mishmash of symbols in no particular order. I've
added to them considerably since my last post. I just tried to make symbols
that looked good:
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/BilateralBilabialFricative.GIF
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:56:51 +0000
From: Simon Richard Clarkstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Legratec
taliesin the storyteller wrote:
> * Roger Mills said on 2004-11-10 20:44:06 +0100
>
>>* Sally Caves wrote:
>>
>>>Arthaey, what do your P and S stand for?
>>
>>Phonology and Syntax. Apparently they got added after Dan's original post,
>>as I used them on 2/14/01.
>
>
> How does S differ from G?
Actually, if you consult:
http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0102b&L=conlang&P=28091
you find S = script, not syntax, so we have:
L)exicon
G)rammar
T)exts
C)ulture
P)honology
S)yntax
--
Simon Richard Clarkstone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:15:34 +0000
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tagalog & trigger idea: I'd like comments. :)
On Wednesday, November 17, 2004, at 08:36 , H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 07:21:21PM +0000, Ray Brown wrote:
>> HELP!!
>>
>> When I saw the subject line of this thread, I was hoping for
>> enlightenment.
>> Maybe someone has posted something which clearly explains this and it is
>> waiting to be downloaded. But so far, I remain confused.
>
> My apologies, in my own confusion I've erroneously tried to
> rationalize Tatari Faran as a trigger language. This obviously is
> incorrect, and only caused more confusion that it dispels.
No matter - it is certainly helping me to crystalize ideas on what
"Philippino triggerism" really is and is not. It is a truism that we learn
from mistakes :)
[snip]
>> David Crystal does not mention 'trigger' in his "A Dictionary of
>> Linguistics and Phonetics"; but Larry Trask does give a definition in his
>> "A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics", namely:
>> "Any element in a sentence which makes some requirement elsewhere in the
>> sentence. For example, a subject NP which requires agreement in the verb
>> is said to 'trigger' agreement in the verb, or to act as an agreement
>> 'trigger', the verb being the agreement 'target'. Similarly, a verb or a
>> preposition in a case-marking language may trigger a particular case form
>> on the object NP."
>
> Interesting. So 'trigger' is a more generic term than I'd come to know
> so far?
Yes.
> But I believe 'trigger' as it is used in this thread does not
> generically refer to any trigger, but to the trigger as it is used in
> the Philippine languages.
See John's comment below.
>
> [...]
>> The other problem in the current thread that I have read so far seems to
>> be the common confusion between 'focus' and 'topic', which is not
>> helpful.
>> So let us see.
>
> I think the confusion arises from the overloaded meanings of 'focus'
> and 'topic'. At least in this thread, I believe we're using these
> terms to refer to the function of the Philippine trigger rather than
> 'focus' or 'topic' in the general linguistic senses.
I think this is probably so. This is why I pointed out to Mr Pehrson with
his "A Bit of Flame" why it is useful to define terms. Otherwise we finish
up talking at cross-purposes which does not help one bit.
I understand:
topic = "that element of a sentence which is presented as already existing
in the discourse and which the rest of the sentence ('the _comment_) is
about". Some people prefer the terms _theme_ and _rheme_ rather than
_topic_ and _comment_.
focus = "Special prominence given to some element in a sentence which
represents the most important new information in the sentence or which is
explicitly contrasted with something else."
It has not so far been clear from this current thread whether we are
talking about topic or about focus (in their conventional linguistic
senses) or about something else specifically peculiar to the "Philippino
triggerism" construction.
[snip]
>> I can understand something like this happening if there is fixed word
>> order and there is no other means of emphasis (for whatever reason). But
>> I
>> had understood that fronting was a feature of the Philippine languages. I
>> may, of course, be mistaken; but if I am not, how does this triggering
>> relate to fronting, if at all?
>
> Actually, I think I'm the one responsible for the confusion between
> fronting and triggers.
You may be :)
> They have nothing to do with each other. In
> fact, IIRC, Tagalog does NOT front the trigger NP,
So I suspected after reading Roger's mail.
[snip]
> I think the following might prove useful:
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/ego/pdf/ng/lng/how/how_wordorder.html#trigger-systems
Yes, thanks. I understood everything Pablo wrote :)
I also notice the 'focused' NP comes last, as you said. It is also
interesting to note that according to Pablo, the NP is the trigger and
therefore, I assume, the "nominalized verb" at the beginning of the
sentence is the target. Interesting.
[snip]
==================================================
On Wednesday, November 17, 2004, at 08:36 , John Cowan wrote:
Thanks for the reply. If only everyone would reply with the same clarity..
.. :)
> Ray Brown scripsit:
>
>> David Crystal does not mention 'trigger' in his "A Dictionary of
>> Linguistics and Phonetics"; but Larry Trask does give a definition in his
>> "A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics", namely:
>> "Any element in a sentence which makes some requirement elsewhere in the
>> sentence. ..."
>
> The use of "trigger" in discussing Austronesian trigger languages is a
> special case of this.
I was fairly certain that it must be.
> In a trigger language:
>
> 1) There is a distinguished NP conventionally called the "trigger" in
> every sentence:
Yes. I understand this now.
> calling it the subject, the focus, or the topic (as used
> to be often done and sometimes still is) is misleading, because its role
> is purely syntactic.
Ah!! Yes, it is a bit misleading applying semantic terms like 'topic' &
'focus' to a purely syntactic feature. "subject" on the other hand is a
syntactic label; I suppose if the NP is analyzed as the grammatical
subject, the analysis of the verb will be different from the analysis
given by Pablo and below by you.
> It may be and often is the focus, but it can also
> be the topic, or be neither topic nor focus.
Right! A bit like the grammatical subject in European languages which is
often the topic, but need not be - can also be the focus or be neither
topic nor focus :)
> 2) That NP triggers the verb (the target) to show its semantic role.
> So if the trigger is an actor, the verb is marked "trigger is actor";
> if the trigger is a patient, the verb is marked "trigger is patient",
> and so on.
OK.
> 3) The trigger NP is not itself marked for semantic role; it is either
> unmarked or it is given a semantically neutral mark meaning "this is
> the trigger".
Like Tagalog _ang_ or _si_, i guess.
> 4) Any other NPs in the sentence are directly marked for semantic role.
OK.
[snip]
>> I can understand something like this happening if there is fixed word
>> order and there is no other means of emphasis (for whatever reason). But
>> I
>> had understood that fronting was a feature of the Philippine languages.
>
> Most trigger languages are strictly verb-first, so the verb affix tells
> the listener what role the trigger NP will have.
That makes sense. The fronting was a Tatari Faran "red herring" :)
>>> Can you give an example of the various triggers in a Philippine
>>> language?
>>> Or even just a made-up one?
>>
>> AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
>
> Gives-ACTOR-TRIGGER John-TRIGGER Mary-DATIVE book-PATIENT
> Gives-PATIENT-TRIGGER John-ACTOR Mary-DATIVE book-TRIGGER
> Gives-DATIVE-TRIGGER John-ACTOR Mary-TRIGGER book-PATIENT
>
> And the three NPs can be rearranged for stylistic or pragmatic reasons,
> or any of them except the trigger can be left out if obvious. (As I
> noted above, the TRIGGER marking is zero in some languages.)
Thanks - that and Pablo's explanation are making everything fall into
place. it's simple really ;)
[snip]
> Tatari Faran is definitely not a trigger language,
I think everyone, including its author, is agreed on that.
[snip]
> Yes, and it appears that Tatari Faran has no concept of topic/focus -
> treating them both the same way, which is a tad confusing IMO.
>
> It has focus but not topic AFAICT.
Yes, I am inclined to agree - it did remind me quite a bit of Welsh in
that respect.
> Trigger languages don't have voice either, although earlier
> interpretations
> that called the trigger the "subject" viewed the verb affix as a voice
> marker.
Naturally.
> The reason that analysis doesn't work well is that in voice
> systems there is one voice that heavily predominates, and the others
> are used for special effects (demoting or preventing particular roles).
True.
> Trigger systems are more even-handed; for example, actor-trigger sentences
> are not particularly preferred.
Ok - I see this now.
>> Eh? I had always understood that German fronted the _topic_, not the
>> focus.
>
> So had I.
Glad we agree - 'twill be interesting to see what our German friends say
:)
[snip]
> I do have "Lessons in Basic Tagalog for Foreigners and Non-Tagalogs"
> dating from the 1950/60 period - but it does not mention 'triggers'!
>
> How does it label the role of nouns marked with "ang"? "Subject", I bet.
Ms Aspillera calls _ang_ the "definite" article. In the "Glossary of Terms"
at the back of the book she does gloss "subject", "object", "active" and
"passive".
=============================================================
On Wednesday, November 17, 2004, at 11:03 , Henrik Theiling wrote:
[snip]
...
>> Wird sie ihm zu Weihnachten ein Buch schenken? (Will she give him
>> a
>> book for Christmas?)
>> Nein. Ein Buch hat sie ihm zum Geburtstag geschenkt. (No. She gave him a
>> book for his birthday).
>> [In the answer "Ein Buch" is the topic; the focus is "zum Geburtstag". If
>> the focus is to be emphasized, my understanding is that the sentence
>> stays
>> in the same order thus:
>>
>> Nein! Ein Buch hat sie ihm ZUM GEBURTSTAG geschenkt.]
>
> Ah, this makes it clear! Yes, it's the way you say. A test
> paraphrasing the topic with 'was das X angeht' shows that you could
> equivalently say:
>
> Was das Buch angeht, das hat sie ihm ZUM GEBURTSTAG geschenkt.
>
> Yes. Clearly topic-fronting. Clearly focus = ZUM GEBURTSTAG.
Phew! I'm glad that at least is settled.
============================================================
Aw! Just when I thought I got this triggering business sorted as well.....
...
On Thursday, November 18, 2004, at 02:50 , B. Garcia wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:21:21 +0000, Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
[snip]
>> 1. Do I assume that what is being marked is indeed the focus?
>
> Yes. If a noun is marked with ang for nouns and si for proper names
> (in Tagalog) it IS the focus of the verb. Everything else will *not*
> be the focus of the verb.
"focus of the verb" is rather different 'focus' as I was understanding the
term. See John's comments above. I think this overloaded use of 'focus'
has been partly the source of the problem. If we are going to speak of
triggers, it might be less confusing to use the terms 'trigger' and
'target', I think.
>> 2. Is then the target the emphasized element?
>
> Yes, because the target (which i assume you mean marked with either
> ang or si) is the focus of the verb.
Oh dear. This quite the opposite that I have been understanding from Pablo'
s web-page and from John. I had understood that the NP marked with 'ang'
or 'si' was the _trigger_, not the target.
>> 3. As not all sentences have focus, do 'non-focused' sentences have a
>> trigger affixed to the verb? If so, why?
>
> Non-triggered (meaning they lack a noun that is focused) verbs can
> either have a trigger affix on the verb, or not.
Now I can see that we are in fact talking at cross purposes. I was using
'focus' in the sense of "new information", whereas you are using 'focus'
to mean the NP to which the verbal affix relates. It is clear the two
meanings are not the same.
> Those that do not have a trigger affix:.
Now should we be speaking of the 'trigger affix' or the 'triggered affix'.
I am not trying to split hairs; I am trying to make sense of the
construction.
If, as John says, the marked NP is the trigger, then the verb is the
target and the affix is triggered by the NP. This is something I can
understand because to a limited extent we have NP targeting verbs in
European languages; the subject NP triggers verbal agreement, usually a
particular suffix. In the Bantulangs we may have two NPs targeting the
same ver, one triggering subject agreement and the other triggering object
agreement. So I do not find it a quantum leap to find a NP triggering
role-agreement or role-marking in a target verb.
But you are saying the NP is the target. Are you saying the affix is the
trigger or is the verb+affix? I suppose it triggers the target by causing
the target to loose its role marking & to be marked with _ang_ or _si_.
But I must confess I find this explanation a little harder to follow.
But one can see why people get confused when there are clearly two almost
opposite explanations of the same construction and both explanations use
the term 'trigger' *sigh*
> - State a like, a desire, a want, a dislike. These are created with
> the pseudo verbs "gusto" - like, want, and "ayaw" - not like. They
> lack a trigger affix because they aren't really verbs.
So what are they?
> They can also have a focused or unfocused noun. When they have a
> focused noun, the noun is definite. Without one the noun is
> indefinite.
>
> Ex:
>
> Gusto ko ng litson - I like lechon (in general)
> Gusto ko ang litson - I like the lechon (this one in particular)
Which I suppose is why Ms Aspillera calls _ang_ the "definite article".
So _ng_ marks the patient?
[snip]
> Verbs that do have a trigger affix:
>
[snip]
> I'm a bit confused as to the use of may and wala in other ways so I'll
> leave it alone for now.
I must confess I am also somewhat confused now. I wait to read the
reaction of others.
>> OK - so the affix on the verb is the trigger and the NP is the target.
>> The
>> verbal affix triggers an affix on the NP?
>
> I made the mistake of posting in haste. Where I said "affix on the
> noun" i really meant the trigger _particle_ . ONLY the verb has the
> affix. It is that particle which marks what is being
> emphasized/focused.
Sorry, I do not follow how we can have a _trigger affix_ and a _trigger
particle_. Either the NP is the trigger or the verb is the trigger. Either
the affix or the particle is being _triggered_. I am finding the current
terminology confusing.
>> Is there no way of emphasizing any thing else than a NP?
>
> Such as? I'm a bit dim on what you're asking.
He was swimming *under the water*. (Prepositional phrase is emphasized).
I saw her *yesterday*. (Adverb is emphasized).
Yes, he actually *bought* it. (Verb is emphasized).
Probably we should not be using the term 'emphasized' when describing the
'trigger system'.
[snip]
> If you mean fronting the verb (i am unsure of what the term exactly
> means),
It would mean putting the verb first in a sentence when that is not its
normal position. So in "Buying it, is he?" the verb has been fronted. But
it is clear now that fronting, while a feature of Tatari Faran (and Welsh,
German & many other langs) is not relevant to the "trigger sustem"
discussion.
> This is why I gave up on Saalkamis being a trigger language. I get the
> fist of it, but I don't think I fully understand the thought process
> behind it all!
Oh ;)
Maybe this present thread will help us both to reach a fuller
understanding. I hope it does.
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:15:29 +0000
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: What did Rodlox do? (was: Tagalog & trigger idea: I'd like comments. :)
On Wednesday, November 17, 2004, at 07:23 , Rodlox wrote:
>>> also, I've become given to understand that a trigger doesn't simply
> modify > a word (run/ran/running), but it changes the word's entire
> meaning.
>>> 'ukku = I, you > a 'ukku ayn = I see you > o 'ukku ayn = I fear you > u
> 'ukku ayn = I seek (pursue) you >
>
> In reference to Philippine languages all a trigger is is an affix on the
> verb that indicated what part of the sentence is *emphasized* be it the
> one
> who does the action, who receives it, who it's done for, where, what was
> used to do it. The noun that the verb refers to is marked with an affix It
> does not necessarily change the entire meaning (however, various affixes
> on
> a verbal root can give that root a different flavor, from what I've been
> able to garner.) <<
>
> okay...so, what was it that I did do, with the three opening letters?
> *curious*
OK - given only the following information:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2004, at 10:38 , Rodlox wrote:
[snip]
> 'ukku = I, you
> a 'ukku ayn = I see you
> o 'ukku ayn = I fear you
> u 'ukku ayn = I seek (pursue) you
The only thing that changes is _a_, _o_ and _u_. Therefore, I would deduce
that _a_ = '(to) see', _o_ = '(to) fear' and _u_ = '(to) seek'. In other
words that what you are doing with the three opening letters is using
three different monosyllabic verbs.
Of the other two words, I would consider there are two likely analyses:
_ether_
(a) _'ukku_ = "I....you', that is denotes that _I_ is the subject & _you_
the object and is probably a contracted or compound formation; _ayn_ is a
particle denoting that the verb is present tense and affirmative in
meaning.
_or_
(b) _'ukku_ = 1st pers. + 2nd. person without distinguishing which is
subject or object; _ayn_ is a particle making it clear that the 1st pers.
is subject & the 2nd person is object (whereas, say, *_a 'ukku eyt_ might
be "You see me" and *_a 'ukku uyk_ might be "You & I see each other").
I would be wishing that there were interlinear glosses :)
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:15:14 +0000
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: X-SAMPA confusion (was: Introduction)
On Wednesday, November 17, 2004, at 11:00 , Rodlox wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Geoff Horswood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Introduction
>
>
>>>
>>> I hate to be the bearer of bad news...but some folks here are trying to
>>> replace X-SAMPA.
>
>> Aaarggh!! I just try to learn a system and they go and replace it!! ;P!
>
> that was pretty much my reaction.
No one on Conlang is in a position to replace X-SAMPA (Extended Speech
Assessment Methods Phonetic Alphabet).
SAMPA itself was drawn up between 1988 and 1991 by the SAM consortium to
form the basis of a machine-readable phonetic alphabet for international
purposes. X-SAMPA is an extension of SAMPA suggested by J.C. Wells of
University College. London, in order that all IPA symbols may be mapped
into 7-bit ASCII. Neither SAMPA nor X-SAMPA are have ever been norms on
Conlang and they cannot, therefore, be "replaced".
>
>> With what? Reasons??
>
> if I understand, so they can call it "conlang x-sampa".
With respect, that is a silly, cynical remark.
===================================================
On Wednesday, November 17, 2004, at 09:18 , Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting Geoff Horswood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Aaarggh!! I just try to learn a system and they go and replace it!! ;P!
>> With what? Reasons??
>
> The reason is that certain features of X-SAMPA are widely perceived as
> very
> annoying. The system mostly used here is called "CXS", and is in most
> respects
> very close to X-SAMPA.
Partly so, but also for historic reasons. Once upon a time there were many
systems for "IPA ASCII" (there probably still are). When long years ago I
joined Conlang, the prevailing system here was one known as _Kirshenbaum_
[sic] but it had two drawbacks:
i. it was designed principally for dealing with English and used a system
of tags between angled brackets to denote more 'exotic' sounds;
ii. Evan Kirshenbaum did not develop the system further.
Gradually over the years, especially as more non-anglophones joined the
list, X-SAMPA became more widely used. However, some Kirshenbaum features
tended to survive, especially:
> Actually, I thought you were using it, since you transcribed Kazakh 'a'
> as [&],
> which represents the the vowel of English "cat" in CXS. In X-SAMPA it is
> a low
> front rounded vowel.
Yes, in Kirshenbaum [&] is the RP English 'a' in _cat_, in both SAMPA and
X-SAMPA the symbol for that sound [{] thus in SAMPA/ X-SAMPA English _cat_
is written /k{t/.
But in X-SAMPA [&] is the IPA _capital_ OE ligature, a low front rounded
vowel, lower than the sound of French 'eu' in _neuf_ which is lower-case
oe ligature and represented in both X-SAMPA and CXS as [9]. It is the
_rounded_ version of X-SAMPA and CXS [a] and occurs in Danish _dr�mme_.
In in CXS the sound is written [&\].
The result was that *in pactice* a mixed system was being used and
occasionally misunderstanding did arise, particularly over the symbol [&]
which some read as [�] and other read as [�]. This was clearly
unsatisfactory. CXS (Conlang X-SAMPA) was codified in order to regularize
the position and to *avoid confusion*. IMHO those who are responsible for
CXS deserve praise, not sneers.
> If that really is what you meant, Kazakh phonology and
> spelling is rather weirder than I thought ...
Indeed. I had assumed _s&ljemjets1z bje_ was using CXS rather than X-SAMPA.
But now I am confused. Is Geoff really using X-SAMPA and the first vowel
of _s&ljemjets1z_ *rounded*? That would be weird vowel harmony.
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:18:37 +0100
From: taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ergative + another introduction
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on 2004-11-18 08:09:11 +0100
>
> Erich wrote:
> > What exacly constitutes ergative structure? I've seen it mentioned
> > numerous times but I am completely in the dark as far as how it
> > works. Is there perhaps a website someone could link me to, or do
> > any of you want to enlighten this poor soul about the mysteries of
> > the ergative structure?
>
> [..] from now on, if anyone asks about ergativity (that's once a month
> or so on the list), my hope is that we can point people to the
> following site: http://dedalvs.free.fr/notes.html#ergativity This is
> just a subsection of the larger page (which is also not finished).
The table between 1.1 and 2.0, is it supposed to be in magenta, blue and
brown? Red on blue and blue on red is an extremely bad idea,
readability-wise. Red often seems to float ahead of the screen/paper,
while blue seems to recede into the screen/paper. The combination makes
the text/image seem to move or oscillate and the eyes will quickly tire.
Furthermore, it seems that the colors chosen for that table have the
same saturation, this is also bad as it leaves for very little contrast.
Try to save a screenshot of the page as grayscale and you'll see what I
mean. You need to darken or lighten at least one of the colors, though
best would of course be to darken one and lighten the other.
t., dishing out expensive design advice for free again. Bad grad-student!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:02:18 -0500
From: Trent Pehrson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Unqualified Appology
Very kind and patient list members,
I want to apologize for the flame I posted a few days ago. I really enjoy
this list and the very creative people who are on it. I am very
embarrassed and regret that I posted such a message.
I fear that the only valid kernel in the whole message, namely tolerance
toward new ways of thinking about language, was defeated by the generality
and unkind mode I used.
It won�t happen again.
Sincerely,
Trent P.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:19:34 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Introduction
Henrik Theiling scripsit:
> Funny that 'shake' works, but 'nod' doesn't. :-)
It's the same in English: "He nodded", intransitive, means "he nodded his
head", but "he shook" would mean a whole-body kind of shaking, as in fear;
indeed, "he shook with fear" is a cliche.
> So there are several ways to find the possessor, depending on the
> actual construction.
My mother (native German, _Germanist_, teacher of German here in the U.S.,
among other things) always used the example "He put his hands in his
pockets", which (she said) sounds weirdly over-specific to the German ear,
as if he habitually put his hands in someone else's pockets, or habitually
put someone else's hands in his pockets, or ....
--
John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are books that are at once excellent and boring. Those that at
once leap to the mind are Thoreau's Walden, Emerson's Essays, George
Eliot's Adam Bede, and Landor's Dialogues. --Somerset Maugham
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:28:24 +0300
From: Dan Sulani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This is not a conlang.
On 17 Nov, Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon) wrote:
> This is not a conlang; it is utter nonsensical gibberish:
>
> http://web.netyp.com/member/dragon/say/gibberish1.mp3
I don't know: it doesn't sound at all strange to me.
Sounds exactly like what I hear every day on the
streets, in the busses, and in the malls here in Israel,
where there are people from all over the world
talking in their native langs!
Let alone what I sometimes hear on the TV as I flip
through the channels: our cable company sometimes
comes up with movies from very strange places! :-)
Anyhow, even if it is gibberish, I like the sound of it!
<snip>
> I have learned that it is a skill few people have developed. Most
> people find it very difficult to divorce their speech organs from the
> semantic brain and produce truly nonsense speech that is not recited.
> However, any musician with experience in improvisation is acquainted
> with the method, the only difference being that here the instrument is
> the mouth and the domain is that of phonetics, not pitch.
That's a very interesting connection!
>
> How many conlangers find it easy to produce nonsense syllables that
> mean nothing in any language, real or invented, yet have the
> appearance (e.g. the cadence and phonetical variation) of real
> speech?
I don't know about "easy", but I have done it!
Back in April 1999, I posted to this list how, back in my
university days, a friend and I walked across campus having
a "heated argument" in complete gibberish! Unlike the reaction
to Sally's "gibberish conversation", we didn't get any attention.
In my post, I chalked it up to it being the 60's in the US and that
we were the _least_ weird thing happening on campus! :-)
Improvising verbal gibberish and improvising music.
Hmmmmm! Dare I say anything about "musical gibberish"
or will that necessitate me having to grab for my own
asbestos-suit? ;-)
Dan Sulani
-------------------------------------------------------
likehsna rtem zuv tikuhnuh auag inuvuz vaka'a.
A word is an awesome thing.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:25:14 +0300
From: Dan Sulani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2 Re: A Bit of a Flame
On 17 Nov, Rodlox wrote:
>> But, to cite a favorite quote from the movie, Matrix:
>>
>> arvagi g~amxrupu! ("There _is_ no spoon!") ;-)
>
> actually, I think it was more of "There _is_no_ spoon." in which both
> *is*
> and *no* were equally emphasized, if not somehow linked.
Actually, I've just been listening to the movie at that scene
a number of times and it sounds, to my ear anyway,
like all three words were equally stressed:
"is" , "no", and also "spoon"!
But, which words were stressed or not really doesn't matter.
My post was meant as a joke on your choice of the word "spoon"
(note the emoticon) and not on your claim to exist!
I thought it would be funny. I had no intention to offend!
> ps: I Am. 4 I Am.
Of course!
Dan Sulani
-----------------------------------------------------------
likehsna rtem zuv tikuhnuh auag inuvuz vaka'a.
A word is an awesome thing.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:47:51 +0000
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An incomplete, but interesting, Conlang sketch
Geoff Horswood wrote:
>Interesting.
>
>I had an idea similar to this back a couple of years or so ago, before I
>really knew anything about the process of conlanging, but it never really
>got off the ground. :P
>
>I was kind of thinking of a way to do the verbal equivalent of a
>logographic script, but I never could work out how to make it actually work
>without massive imprecision.
>
>Good luck! Yours looks good so far!
>
>
Hell, I don't have a clue where I'm going with it. But it seems to be
fairly workable so far...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:54:56 -0500
From: Kit La Touche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ergative + another introduction
ok, ergativity is my obsession, and here's my understanding:
there are two kinds of ergativity: there's morphological ergativity,
which is much more common, and means that there is one case for
subjects of transitive verbs, and another for both subjects of
intransitive verbs and objects of transitive verbs. basically, it
means that intransitive subjects are classified as more object-like
than subject-like; if you consider it, this is a reasonable
interpretation, as intransitive verbs are often things that sort of
just happen to their subject.
syntactic ergativity, on the other hand, is much rarer - it's attested
in dyirbal (an austronesian language, pronounced like gerbil, which
amuses me *still*) and possibly in some versions of inuktitut. it means
that all that above is rooted deeper, as it were, and shows up in the
syntax. this is most evident in conjoined sentences. consider the
english sentence:
1) the man kissed the woman and left.
this can only be interpreted as "the man left". but in dyirbal, the
same structure could only be interpreted as meaning that the woman
left. why? because the woman would have the same case as subject of
intransitive "leave" as in object of transitive "kiss", and case
determines what the pivot is.
now, there are also things like split-ergative languages (i believe
hindi is?) which use morphological ergativity in certain structures -
in hindi, i think it's when the verb is in the imperfective. there are
also languages that can voluntarily switch between modes, to show how
intentional an action was. there are also *few* (known) languages with
just three different cases for each of the options - subj-trans,
subj-intrans and obj.
does this help?
-kit
On Nov 17, 2004, at 9:08 PM, Erich Kummerfeld wrote:
> What exacly constitutes ergative structure? I've seen it mentioned
> numerous
> times but I am completely in the dark as far as how it works. Is there
> perhaps a website someone could link me to, or do any of you want to
> enlighten
> this poor soul about the mysteries of the ergative structure?
>
> Thanks,
> Erich
>
> p.s. hmm, I still haven't really introduced myself. My name's Erich
> Kummerfeld, I'm an American College student, I'm 19 years old, I go to
> Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass. I've only recently gotten really
> sucked
> into linguistics and conlanging. I haven't made any conlangs of my
> own, in
> high school I spent a good year and change constructing a conworld with
> numerous concultures, drew up some detailed maps, wrote histories,
> designed
> cultures and weather patterns etc. That's essentially the limit of my
> con-
> anything experience. I took French for a few years in highschool,
> then took a
> very intensive course in Japanese for my senior year, and took a
> semester of
> Spanish recently. I'm a native speaker of English (obviously). At
> the moment
> I'm mostly trying to learn as much as I can about the different kinds
> of
> languages, both constructed and natural, as I can as well as people's
> theories
> and strategies of creating conlangs. I'm starting to compile a list of
> properties that I would like my conlang to have, if/when I make it. I
> suppose
> the primary one right now that I'm thinking about is word efficeiency
> or,
> since words can be incredibly large at times, syllable efficiency,
> i.e. a
> person should be able to communicate a variety of complex thoughts
> without
> spending a large amount of time speaking. And I'd like to figure out
> ways to
> do this without having a grotesquely large number of phonemes, as I
> have other
> ideas about what kinds of properties I'm looking for in a set of
> phonemes.
>
> that's a goodly amount of stuff. It's always fun when the postcript
> is four
> times as long as the actual message.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
