------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: NATLANG: icelandic, finnish, english
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: German style orthography
From: bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: The Need for Debate
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: LLL Weekly Update #22/2004
From: bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: "Istinksy"?
From: "B. Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: The Need for Debate
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: The Need for Debate
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: The Need for Debate
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: NATLANG: icelandic, finnish, english
From: Ian Spackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: German style orthography
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. USAGE: Vowel recordings
From: "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: USAGE: Vowel recordings
From: Tristan Mc Leay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. OT: Mail encoding (was: German style orthography)
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: NATLANG: Icelandic
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: USAGE: Vowel recordings
From: taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: USAGE: Vowel recordings
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: The Need for Debate
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: The Need for Debate
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: NATLANG: icelandic, finnish, english
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Addendum again! The Need for Debate
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: USAGE: Vowel recordings
From: "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: NATLANG: icelandic, finnish, english
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: NATLANG: icelandic, finnish, english
From: Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Tatari Faran Update
From: "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 22:48:45 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NATLANG: icelandic, finnish, english
Tristan Mc Leay scripsit:
> A lot of older English texts with otherwise apparently modern spelling
> spell 'diverse' as 'divers'. When did the final -e become usual?
>From the jokebook I had as a kid:
Q. Why does a duck go under the water?
A. For divers reasons.
Q. Why does the duck come up again?
A. For sundry [i.e. sun-dry] reasons.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarves."
--Murray Gell-Mann
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 19:53:15 -0800
From: bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: German style orthography
> Here's my try for a German-style orthography of the
> language Tüësë:
>
> (plosives)
> /p/ p
> /b/ b
> /t/ t
> /d/ d
> /k/ k
> /g/ g
> /q/ q
> (nasals)
> /m/ m
> /n/ n
> /N/ ng
> (fricatives)
> /P/ f
> /B/ w
> /T/ þ
> /D/ đ
> /s/ s
> /s_m/ sh
> /z/ ſ
> /z_m/ ſh
> /C/ ch
> /j\/ jh
> /x/ χ
> /X/ ħ
> /h/ h
> (laterals)
> /l/ l
> /L/ ł
> (approximate)
> /j/ j
> (rhotic)
> /rR\)/ (This is a simultaneous r and R\... it is fun
> to pronounce.) r
> (affricatives)
> /tT)/ tþ
> /dD)/ dđ
> /ts)/ z
> /dz)/ ds
> /tC)/ tch
> /dj\)/ dj
> /kx)/ kχ
> /qX)/ qħ
> ("whistlized")
> /s_m_W/ (_W represents "whistlization") schü
> /z_m_W/ shü
> /C_W/ chü
> /j\_W/ jü
> /x_W/ chü
> /t_W/ tü
> /d_W/ dü
> /k_W/ kü
> /g_W/ gü
>
> Vowels are:
>
> /i/ ie
> /I/ i
> /e/ e
> /&/ ä
> /@/ ë
> /u/ u
> /O/ o
> /A/ a
>
> gryəsː
> j. 'mach' wust
>
This is the mail as I received it, excepting my own
frippery. Please do tell me what the doodlyjiggers are
that weren't shown.
=====
-The Sock
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 23:07:35 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Need for Debate
Chris Bates scripsit:
> Why can't people just try to
> take things less personally, to not interpret a critism of american
> foreign policy as an attack on individual americans, to not interpret an
> argument about the Bible as a personal attack on Christians? I might
> argue about contradictory aspects of the Bible as I see them, but since
> I am not omniscient I could be wrong and I know that, and you are free
> to either ignore me if you choose, or debate the issue with me, and you
> may convince me or I may convince you.
Here's a quotation for all to think about, *not* addressed directly to
you necessarily:
"That question, as phrased, is both inflammatory and inaccurate.
I can stand a little inflammation, or a little inaccuracy; but the
combination is poison."
--Ursula K. Le Guin
> It is very easy when there is no tone of voice, no facial expressions,
> as in email, to see the worst in what someone has written. Will everyone
> please please just try to assume the best, and then (since a lot of us
> happen to be argumentative, as several people have pointed out) maybe we
> can all just talk happily and not have the constant angry replies to
> what was probably not intended to be offensive in the first place.
It's not up to the offender to decide what is and what is not offensive,
unfortunately. Only the offended can forgive.
I was attending a lecture by Marion Woodman (Jungian psychoanalyst,
author of many books, lecturer) on Friday night. A man, a minister,
asked her for her advice on the problem he was having talking to
narrow-minded co-religionists, how angry they made him. I spoke to him
at the break and gave him two quotations, one from Pauline Oliveiros,
"Speak your experience as your truth", and one from William Blake,
"We become what we behold", or as Stephen R. Donaldson phrased it,
"We become what we hate".
"But what can I do in my persona as a teacher, when talking with my
brother -- and these people?" he asked me. I said, tentatively, "Mercy,
pity, peace, and love?" He tapped me on the shoulder, and I gave him
a hug.
I didn't see him at the second part of the lecture. I wondered whether
he had gone off somewhere to weep.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"In the sciences, we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side
with the giants on whose shoulders we stand."
--Gerald Holton
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 20:25:18 -0800
From: bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LLL Weekly Update #22/2004
--- J�rg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> Today is my birthday, and because it's Sunday,
> here's the weekly update
> on the League of Lost Languages.
>
> Not much has happened on the lostlang mailing list
> in the past week;
> the only post was my own, a repost of an old CONLANG
> post on degrees
> of volition in Old Albic. I hoped it would stir a
> discussion and
> attract traffic, but it didn't.
>
> Greetings,
>
> J�rg.
>
Sorry, I would to post, but I am currently trying to
grok polysynthetic languages, and other ideas have
been jumping about in my head in the meanwhile,
leading to /[EMAIL PROTECTED]@/, and various others loitering
about in my brain and on pads in my room.
=====
-The Sock
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 22:16:31 -0800
From: "B. Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Istinksy"?
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 16:29:41 +0100, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender: Constructed Languages List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Poster: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: "Istinksy"?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I was told today that "Istinsky", a nickname I have for one of my sisters,
> means
> "truthful" in some language. Can anyone confirm? And if so, what language -
> I'm
> guessing Russian?
Well, supposedly in serbo-croat "Istinski" means:
istinski - authentic, pucka, pukka, real, simon-pure, sterling, true
--
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: 6
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 07:23:16 +0000
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Need for Debate
>
>Here's a quotation for all to think about, *not* addressed directly to
>you necessarily:
>
>"That question, as phrased, is both inflammatory and inaccurate.
>I can stand a little inflammation, or a little inaccuracy; but the
>combination is poison."
> --Ursula K. Le Guin
>
>
>
Even if an article is both, unless its aimed at you personally you don't
have to take it to heart. That's what I really don't understand... I'm
really quite thick skinned, and I don't understand people who get so
worked up about such things. I think that's where things so wrong, for
me anyway: maybe sometimes I do overgeneralize a little unintentionally,
but what I expect is a rebuttal and what I get sometimes is a personal
attack, which (unlike some) I can shrug off, but which I do think seems
far more offensive than anything I might have written, if I were the
kind to take offense.
>>It is very easy when there is no tone of voice, no facial expressions,
>>as in email, to see the worst in what someone has written. Will everyone
>>please please just try to assume the best, and then (since a lot of us
>>happen to be argumentative, as several people have pointed out) maybe we
>>can all just talk happily and not have the constant angry replies to
>>what was probably not intended to be offensive in the first place.
>>
>>
>
>It's not up to the offender to decide what is and what is not offensive,
>unfortunately. Only the offended can forgive.
>
>
>
No, but its not the offender's fault or responsibility either. If what
was said was not intended to be offensive, then for the most the there
is no blame on the part of the offender is someone takes it that way.
It's not up to him or her to somehow "fix" the situation or apologize.
There are some exceptions, but generally if you are offended by a
message that wasn't intended to offend you, then it's your problem and
not that of the person who wrote the message. That's freedom of speech
after all: the freedom to express your views even when they might
(coincidentally) upset other people. Deliberately inflamatory speech is
on the other hand banned in many countries: "inciting to riot",
"inciting religeous hatred", etc.
>I was attending a lecture by Marion Woodman (Jungian psychoanalyst,
>author of many books, lecturer) on Friday night. A man, a minister,
>asked her for her advice on the problem he was having talking to
>narrow-minded co-religionists, how angry they made him. I spoke to him
>at the break and gave him two quotations, one from Pauline Oliveiros,
>"Speak your experience as your truth", and one from William Blake,
>"We become what we behold", or as Stephen R. Donaldson phrased it,
>"We become what we hate".
>
>"But what can I do in my persona as a teacher, when talking with my
>brother -- and these people?" he asked me. I said, tentatively, "Mercy,
>pity, peace, and love?" He tapped me on the shoulder, and I gave him
>a hug.
>
>I didn't see him at the second part of the lecture. I wondered whether
>he had gone off somewhere to weep.
>
>
>
My solution would have been: simply avoid talking to them as much as
possible outside of work. If they're not willing to hear what you have
to say then what's the point? I have an uncle who's a real maniac who
can talk for hours about how bad the EU is and the kids now a days and
fifty million other things, and who gets immensely angry if you disagree
with him on any of these things, and I simply avoid him.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 07:57:46 +0000
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Need for Debate
On Sunday, December 5, 2004, at 06:20 , Chris Bates wrote:
> Recently there have been more accusations of flames etc on the list.
etc.
[snip]
To a large degree I agree with what Chris has written :)
There is only one bit I really disagree with and not for any personal
reasons.
>
> I would go further and argue that debate is a good thing. Why was there
> little progress during most of the Middle Ages? Because the Church and
> Governments repressed dissenting voices and prevented debate,
No - there were quite vigorous debates during the Middle ages. The debates
between Scotists and Thomists come to mind immediately. There was in fact
considerable between the 8th & 15th centuries - it was the heady
atmosphere of the Reformation that made dissent so dangerous.
Oddly, in fact, it was the very existence of the medieval tradition of
debate that meant the pope of the day paid so little attention to Luther -
it was regarded as yet another one of these quarrels between different
religious orders; this time between the Augustinians (Luther was an
Augustinian monk at the time) and the Dominicans. By the time it was
realized in Rome that things were a bit more serious, it was too late.
But the idea of stagnant Middle Ages where all debate was suppressed was
part of the post-Reformation anti-Catholic propaganda which grew up in the
UK (alongside other silly myths like "Columbus & the flat-earthers"). It
was the 'history' I was taught at school in the 1950s. I thought things
had improved and history teaching was more enlightened now. But maybe not
:=(
[snip]
> It is very easy when there is no tone of voice, no facial expressions,
> as in email, to see the worst in what someone has written.
This is certainly part of the problem. Also in face-to-face debate you
know who is who. It is so easy in email debates to lose track - as I did
very recently. There are, as I see it, two other problems:
- these debates tend to split up into different threads and traffic
becomes heavy. It is only too easy to finish up skimming rather than
reading carefully (because time is limited) and simply get confused
between what is being said in one thread and what in other related threads.
- there is a time lapse; someone says something which causes me to raise
my eyebrows, but before I have chance to say "What exactly do you mean?"
several other people have waded in, the debate has moved on and my
perception of the original remark has changed.
This is why IME over the years off-topic debates on politics & religion
have tended to prove unsatisfactory IMO.
[snip]
> unfairly generalized. I'm perfectly happy to accept that there are good
> translations I simply haven't come across, and that the priesthood isn't
> simply happy with the Bible being difficult to interpret. I was wrong
> and I'm perfectly happy to say so. :)
And I was quite out of order in my response to Fr Charlie - a great pity,
I realize now, as I could have said "That does not seem right to me, could
you explain further?"
> I hope no one takes offense at this, since it really isn't meant to
> offend,
I for one have not. I agree with Chris about the usefulness of debate - I
just wonder if the Conlang List is the best forum.
But I'll make a deal with Chris - if you try to be less cynical, I will
try even harder to be less fiery :-)
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: 8
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 08:34:13 +0000
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Need for Debate
I guess I was just thinking of things like galileo and the church when I
talked of the church and state preventing debate. :) But since my
knowledge of that period of history is limited to trying to remember
what I learned in school years ago, I guess I'll probably have to go
read up on it. But I certainly got the impression from my teacher in
school that the church especially supressed progress for centuries,
indeed I'm sure he gave this as the reason why there was so little
advancement in a lot of areas. *shrugs* I think there's always the
problem of propaganda in history: old lies develop strong roots and then
its very difficult to get rid of them. There's also often the problem of
perspective: for instance, the "barbarians" (Goths, Vandals etc) who
eroded the roman empire near the end. Were they really that bad? Was
there nothing important that was good to say about them? Surely there
was something more to them than going around killing romans and creating
chaos. But I've never heard anything about them apart from that fact.
Their claim to fame for most people is as destroyers. That was a little
random, but I often tend to ramble. :)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 10:14:52 +0000
From: Ian Spackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NATLANG: icelandic, finnish, english
>
> > A lot of older English texts with otherwise
> > apparently modern spelling spell 'diverse'
> > as 'divers'. When did the final -e become usual?
>
>I think it's still spelled as /divers/ in British
>English. /diverse/ has pretty much always been the
>American standard.
'Divers' and 'diverse' are two different words; the former is obsolescent,
and means roughly 'several'.
Ian
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:48:51 +0100
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: German style orthography
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 19:53:15 -0800, bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is the mail as I received it, excepting my own
> frippery. Please do tell me what the doodlyjiggers are
> that weren't shown.
Apparently, his email was in UTF-8 but it was marked as iso-8859-1
instead. Here's an attempt to send it legibly -- I presume Gmail will
make UTF-8 out of it, and I hope the list won't mangle it too badly.
(Though it may decide to use MIME encoding, either QP or Base-64,
rather than 8-bit.)
[begin quote]
Here's my try for a German-style orthography of the language Tüësë:
(plosives)
/p/ p
/b/ b
/t/ t
/d/ d
/k/ k
/g/ g
/q/ q
(nasals)
/m/ m
/n/ n
/N/ ng
(fricatives)
/P/ f
/B/ w
/T/ þ
/D/ đ
/s/ s
/s_m/ sh
/z/ ſ
/z_m/ ſh
/C/ ch
/j\/ jh
/x/ χ
/X/ ħ
/h/ h
(laterals)
/l/ l
/L/ ł
(approximate)
/j/ j
(rhotic)
/rR\)/ (This is a simultaneous r and R\... it is fun
to pronounce.) r
(affricatives)
/tT)/ tþ
/dD)/ dđ
/ts)/ z
/dz)/ ds
/tC)/ tch
/dj\)/ dj
/kx)/ kχ
/qX)/ qħ
("whistlized")
/s_m_W/ (_W represents "whistlization") schü
/z_m_W/ shü
/C_W/ chü
/j\_W/ jü
/x_W/ chü
/t_W/ tü
/d_W/ dü
/k_W/ kü
/g_W/ gü
Vowels are:
/i/ ie
/I/ i
/e/ e
/&/ ä
/@/ ë
/u/ u
/O/ o
/A/ a
[…]
The suggestions I posted for the whistled consonants are mistaken. The
following are consistent:
/z_m_W/ ſhü
/x_W/ χü
gryəsː
j. 'mach' wust
[end quote]
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Watch the Reply-To!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:35:17 +1030
From: "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: USAGE: Vowel recordings
I've just uploaded a recording of vowel and diphthong phonemes (plus a
couple of key allophones) in my subdialect of Australian English:
This version is the original:
http://web.netyp.com/member/dragon/say/vowels.mp3
This version has been artificially slowed down by a factor of 33% so
that it can be heard more clearly:
http://web.netyp.com/member/dragon/say/vowelstretch.mp3
In the future I may get around to downloading phonetic analysis
software so that I can play with extracting formants and so on. Is
this sort of inexpensive home recording adequate for that purpose?
I would really love to see my vowels transcribed over an illustration
of the vowel diagram for easy comparison with such as
http://www.ling.mq.edu.au/units/ling210-901/phonetics/vowelgraphs/
Wordlist:
soy; stone; stifle; stout; stay; stare; steer; soon; stool (allophone);
stood; storm; stall (allophone); stop; star; stun; stern; steam; stint;
extend; stand.
The only thing I wasn't completely happy with was that 'stool' sounded
too close to 'stall', but maybe it really does sound that way. (OTOH,
I'm aware that the nervousness associated with the awareness one is
being recorded has the potential to influence pronunciation).
Yell out if there's anything interesting or remarkable here.
Adrian.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 23:55:23 +1100
From: Tristan Mc Leay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: USAGE: Vowel recordings
Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon) wrote:
> Wordlist:
>
> soy; stone; stifle; stout; stay; stare; steer; soon; stool (allophone);
> stood; storm; stall (allophone); stop; star; stun; stern; steam; stint;
> extend; stand.
Perspective from a Melburnian...
Your 'stall' sounds too low to me ;) Also, I dunno about your
pronunciation, but for me the vowel in 'steer' turns up more often than
not as a monophthong, but I'm never able to work out exactly when. It
has at least three pronunciations depending on context---two
monophthongs, a diphthong, or a monophthong, all phonemically the same.
In that context for me [EMAIL PROTECTED] (no matter its origin) is forbidden,
and I'd
say [Ia)]; using a [EMAIL PROTECTED] makes it sound like you're beginning to
say /Ie)/
to me and I'm forever suprised you never actually make it to the [e],
and it's very unnatural. Your 'stare' is I think diphthongal, but you're
from SA so conservativeness is to be expected.
Also, I dunno about you, but I have a noticeably phonetically different
pronunciation of the vowel in 'stone' and 'pole' and I think there's a
difference between 'stout' and 'how'---I think maybe only the latter
ends on a rounded element.
Your 'steam' seems to be a monophthong, or at least not diphthongal
enough, but I'm not sure if I put that down to recital mode or Adelaide.
Your 'stood' sounds off---too central, too front? I'm not sure. Couple
of other minor quibbles too (e.g. your 'stone'), that I can't quite say
anything about and I'd probably miss if I weren't looking for em.
I'd be interested to hear a bunch of /U@/ words, like 'pure', 'purest',
'tour', 'tourist'. Though the difference seems slight in the first of
each pair for me, it's much more noticeable in the second, probably
because the vowels last for longer.
I'll give you a recording of mine sometime soon too if you want.
(You also seem to have gone about looking for syllables starting in st-,
any particular reason? I would've thought you'd try to homogenise the
codas, not the onsets, considering most allophonic variation in AuE is
condition based on the ending.)
--
Tristan.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 09:10:13 -0500
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT: Mail encoding (was: German style orthography)
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:48:51 +0100, Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 19:53:15 -0800, bob thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> This is the mail as I received it, excepting my own
>> frippery. Please do tell me what the doodlyjiggers are
>> that weren't shown.
>
>Apparently, his email was in UTF-8 but it was marked as iso-8859-1
>instead. Here's an attempt to send it legibly -- I presume Gmail will
>make UTF-8 out of it, and I hope the list won't mangle it too badly.
>(Though it may decide to use MIME encoding, either QP or Base-64,
>rather than 8-bit.)
I'm writing my mails online at the listserv.brown.edu site, and I have my
browser default set to UTF-8 (so I saw Bob's reply exactly the way I had
sent it). Is there any way of telling that site that it should use UTF-8
encoding?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 14:08:06 +0000
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NATLANG: Icelandic
Tristan Mc Leay wrote at 2004-12-06 12:48:41 (+1100)
> I just have a couple of questions about Icelandic, Finnish and English.
>
> How is <v> pronounced in Icelandic? I gather that <kv> is
> pronounced [kw], but listening to an Icelandic band with it seems
> less than brilliant clarity (Sigur Rós), some other cases of <v>
> seem to be [v], some [w] and some silent. (I suppose I shouldn't
> complain too much---some cases of English <w> are [v], some [w],
> others silent, and some participate in digraphs. But on the other
> hand, all our <w>=[v] are borrowings.)
>
Well, I don't speak Icelandic, but here's what Stefán Einarsson[1] says
in _Icelandic: Grammar, Texts, Glossary_:
| _v_: _v_ is a voiced short spirant [v], like English _v_ in _vat_,
| _have_ (but less energetic): _vera_ [vE:ra] to be, _svara_ [sva:ra]
| answer, _því_ [þvi:] therefore, _höggva_ [hög_0:va} hew, _sökkva_
| [sö_hk:va] sink. In _hvað_ (after _h_) _v_ sounds like [w_0], but
| the combination _hv_ may also be pronounced _kv_ [k_hv] :
| [k_hva:ð_v].
| _Note_: _v_ is lost (a) after _á_, _ó_: _sjávar_ [sjau:(v)ar_0]
| of the sea, _sljóvan [sljou:an_v] acc. of _sljór_ [sljou:r_v] dull;
| (b) in unstressed particles: _svo_ [sO:] so, _því_ [þi:] therefore.
Note that the IPA in the book is slightly unusual, and I may not have
been entirely succesful in translating it into CXS. I've used the
voiced diacritic, [_v], to indicate "half-voiced consonants", which
are italicised in the text - I don't know what the proper way of
representing these is in the IPA. "[þ]" is [T], of course, and I
think "[ö]" is [2].
Also note that this was written in the 1940s - I can't say how well it
corresponds to modern pronunciation.
[1] Under other circumstances, I'd probably just say "Einarsson", but
I don't know the convention for Icelandic names.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 15:09:52 +0100
From: taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: USAGE: Vowel recordings
* Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon) said on 2004-12-06 12:05:17 +0100
> In the future I may get around to downloading phonetic analysis
> software so that I can play with extracting formants and so on.
I recommend Praat for this. Complex, but worth it.
<http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/>
> Is this sort of inexpensive home recording adequate for that purpose?
The most important trick is to avoid noise and background humms in the
recording, it is quite possible that the noise the computer itself makes
would be detrimental to the quality. This can be solved by instead
taping the sounds on your stereo (if you have one), then running a cable
from the headphone-outlet to the mic-in or audio-in on your computer and
rerecording. There are also various software-tools for working directly
on recordings, namely "wave-editors" (or .wav-editors), and with these
you can filter out noise and otherwise improve the signal, but if you
have a good recording to begin with you save quite a bit of time.
t.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 09:14:51 -0500
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: USAGE: Vowel recordings
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 15:09:52 +0100, taliesin the storyteller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>* Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon) said on 2004-12-06 12:05:17 +0100
>> In the future I may get around to downloading phonetic analysis
>> software so that I can play with extracting formants and so on.
>
>I recommend Praat for this. Complex, but worth it.
><http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/>
I was going to recommend this as well!
>> Is this sort of inexpensive home recording adequate for that purpose?
>
>The most important trick is to avoid noise and background humms in the
>recording, it is quite possible that the noise the computer itself makes
>would be detrimental to the quality. This can be solved by instead
>taping the sounds on your stereo (if you have one), then running a cable
>from the headphone-outlet to the mic-in or audio-in on your computer and
>rerecording. There are also various software-tools for working directly
>on recordings, namely "wave-editors" (or .wav-editors), and with these
>you can filter out noise and otherwise improve the signal, but if you
>have a good recording to begin with you save quite a bit of time.
I'm using Praat for recordings as well, though these wave-editors may have
some advantage on it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 09:57:07 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Need for Debate
Chris Bates scripsit:
> No, but its not the offender's fault or responsibility either. If what
> was said was not intended to be offensive, then for the most the there
> is no blame on the part of the offender is someone takes it that way.
> It's not up to him or her to somehow "fix" the situation or apologize.
> There are some exceptions, but generally if you are offended by a
> message that wasn't intended to offend you, then it's your problem and
> not that of the person who wrote the message. That's freedom of speech
> after all: the freedom to express your views even when they might
> (coincidentally) upset other people.
You're applying rules for fully public forums to this semi-private one.
Here there is no "freedom of speech" as such; there is a revocable
permission to speak. (I can do that because I'm not a government agency.)
If you drop too many social bricks in private space such as someone's
house, you may very well be excluded even if you are simply socially inept
rather than malevolent. (Been there, done that, had it happen to me.)
> My solution would have been: simply avoid talking to them as much as
> possible outside of work.
"Work" for a minister of the Gospel is not quite like work for other
people. It is one of their functions to talk to people who don't -- at
least initially -- want to hear it.
(.sig chosen by hand this time)
John Cowan, Lord of the Instrumentality of Conlang
--
Unless it was by accident that I had John Cowan
offended someone, I never apologized. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--Quentin Crisp http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 10:07:59 -0500
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Need for Debate
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It's not up to the offender to decide what is and what is not offensive,
> unfortunately. Only the offended can forgive.
True, but it's a little up to the offender, especially if the offender sets
out to be offensive. He or she might consider whether this is the wisest
course to take--offend. Fortunately, I don't believe there are many people
on this list who are deliberately offensive.
> I was attending a lecture by Marion Woodman (Jungian psychoanalyst,
> author of many books, lecturer) on Friday night. A man, a minister,
> asked her for her advice on the problem he was having talking to
> narrow-minded co-religionists, how angry they made him. I spoke to him
> at the break and gave him two quotations, one from Pauline Oliveiros,
> "Speak your experience as your truth", and one from William Blake,
> "We become what we behold", or as Stephen R. Donaldson phrased it,
> "We become what we hate".
How beautifully put, and how absolutely true. "We become what we behold,"
and "we become what we hate."
Kwe tobre omtso ke, uoantso etsa.
Kwe tobre omtso uaja, uoantso etsa.
It reminds me of the Gospel of Philip:
You saw the Spirit, you became Spirit.
You saw Christ, you became Christ.
You saw the Father, you shall become Father.
So here you see everything and not yourself,
But there you see yourself,
And what you see you will become.
I even translated it into Teonaht in my (now vanished) Wyrlorf story:
Il Ispro elfy ke uo il Ispro elfy uoan.
Il Kerresto elfy ke uo il Kerresto elfy uoan.
Il Pantor elfy ke uo il Pantor esfy uoan.
Harym pottywem omfy ke uo felletsa vera,
Ma hova felletsa esfy lumkke;
Send kwe tobre omfy ke, uoanfy etsa.
> "But what can I do in my persona as a teacher, when talking with my
> brother -- and these people?" he asked me. I said, tentatively, "Mercy,
> pity, peace, and love?" He tapped me on the shoulder, and I gave him
> a hug.
>
> I didn't see him at the second part of the lecture. I wondered whether
> he had gone off somewhere to weep.
>
> --
> John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ccil.org/~cowan
> www.reutershealth.com
> "In the sciences, we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side
> with the giants on whose shoulders we stand."
> --Gerald Holton
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 16:20:29 +0100
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NATLANG: icelandic, finnish, english
Tristan Mc Leay wrote:
> I just have a couple of questions about Icelandic, Finnish and English.
>
> How is <v> pronounced in Icelandic?
[v\], though devoiced next to aspirated stops.
> I gather that <kv> is pronounced
> [kw],
[kv\_0]
> but listening to an Icelandic band with it seems less than
> brilliant clarity (Sigur R�s), some other cases of <v> seem to be [v],
> some [w] and some silent. (I suppose I shouldn't complain too
> much---some cases of English <w> are [v], some [w], others silent, and
> some participate in digraphs. But on the other hand, all our <w>=[v] are
> borrowings.)
You are victim to the common English-speakers fallacy of hearing [v\]
sometimes as [v] and sometimes as [w]. In reality it falls between.
>
> Are Finnish unvoiced stops aspirated?
No.
> Has its pronunciation been
> influenced particularly under the influnce of Germanic languages and
> Swedish in particular?
Only negatively, in that pre-Finnish lost sounds that lacked
a counterpart in proto-germanic.
>
> A lot of older English texts with otherwise apparently modern spelling
> spell 'diverse' as 'divers'. When did the final -e become usual?
Late 17th early 18th century,probably, as it was then
the present spellings became fixed.
> --
> Tristan.
>
>
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
(Tacitus)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 10:24:50 -0500
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Addendum again! The Need for Debate
Darn these buttons and my sloppy mouse hand! I sent this before I was
finished with it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Caves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> William Blake,
>> "We become what we behold", or as Stephen R. Donaldson phrased it,
>> "We become what we hate".
>
> How beautifully put, and how absolutely true. "We become what we behold,"
> and "we become what we hate."
>
> Kwe tobre omtso ke, uoantso etsa.
> Kwe tobre omtso uaja, uoantso etsa.
> It reminds me of the Gospel of Philip:
>
> You saw the Spirit, you became Spirit.
> You saw Christ, you became Christ.
> You saw the Father, you shall become Father.
> So here you see everything and not yourself,
> But there you see yourself,
> And what you see you will become.
>
> I even translated it into Teonaht in my (now vanished) Wyrlorf story:
>
> Il Ispro elfy ke uo il Ispro elfy uoan.
> Il Kerresto elfy ke uo il Kerresto elfy uoan.
> Il Pantor elfy ke uo il Pantor esfy uoan.
> Harym pottywem omfy ke uo felletsa vera,
> Ma hova felletsa esfy lumkke;
> Send kwe tobre omfy ke, uoanfy etsa.
I was prepared to add, before I aimed for the "cut" button and got the
"send" button instead, that I have loved this passage for a long time, and
often pondered it when I was angry about something or someone. "You become
what you hate"; "what you see you will become." The wise thing is to turn
away from what you hate, and pursue and deal with what you love, because
hate involves you in hate, resentment in resentment, spite in spite. The
reverse is also true: what you see will become what you are. If you are
angry, what you see is anger. If you are defensive, what you see are
attackers. It's worth thinking about. Thanks, John.
On the other hand, a nice, very brief, very witty response to a deliberate
offense has its purposes! ;) But it's best, and more disabling to the
offender, either to ignore it, or to pour "coals of fire upon his head" in
your kindness.
Sally
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 02:16:37 +1030
From: "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: USAGE: Vowel recordings
Tristan McLeay wrote:
> In that context for me [EMAIL PROTECTED] (no matter its origin) is forbidden,
> and I'd
> say [Ia)]; using a [EMAIL PROTECTED] makes it sound like you're beginning to
> say /Ie)/
> to me and I'm forever suprised you never actually make it to the [e],
I am not aware of any dialect of Australian English with a /Ie/ diphthong!
> Your 'steam' seems to be a monophthong, or at least not diphthongal
> enough, but I'm not sure if I put that down to recital mode or Adelaide.
I am not aware of any dialect of Australian English in which 'steam'
has a diphthong! It's always /sti:m/ as far as I know.
> Also, I dunno about you, but I have a noticeably phonetically different
> pronunciation of the vowel in 'stone' and 'pole' and I think there's a
Yes. It's a regular modification before [5]. What's interesting is
that for some speakers the same modification occurs in words where the
/l/ constitutes a syllable boundary such as "cola", "holy", "polio",
etc, whereas for other speakers it doesn't. I'm in the second
category, i.e. "holy" is like "goatee" and not like "oldie". I think
it's because for me /l/ in that position does not become [5] (because
it is at the beginning of the second syllable, not the end of the
first) whereas for many other speakers it does.
> I'd be interested to hear a bunch of /U@/ words, like 'pure', 'purest',
> 'tour', 'tourist'. Though the difference seems slight in the first of
> each pair for me, it's much more noticeable in the second, probably
> because the vowels last for longer.
I will make another recording based on your requests sometime. But
there is no such diphthong as /U@/ in my dialect.
> I'll give you a recording of mine sometime soon too if you want.
I'm certainly interested, but do you not have the space to put them
online for the facilitation of discussion?
I've standardised on 96kbps as the resolution for all my mp3 files.
It's an adequate resolution for all home use purposes (including music)
while also resulting in respectably compact file sizes.
> (You also seem to have gone about looking for syllables starting in st-,
> any particular reason? I would've thought you'd try to homogenise the
> codas, not the onsets, considering most allophonic variation in AuE is
> condition based on the ending.)
Some introspection convinced me that 'st' was a good onset for
mimimising glides. But I didn't want to make the words too regular
in case it resulted in a tongue-twister effect, so I allowed the codas
to vary. Having said which, I used dental codas wherever possible.
In reply to Taliesin and J: I've looked at Praat (i.e. I've looked at
the online documentation) and thought that I should give it a go, but
not - yet - actually done so. Also, I already have a popular sound
editor tool, but getting rid of noise often has detrimental
side-effects (such as making the speech sound more electronic). I use
a long microphone lead, so I'm always in the next room from my
computer when I record. The loudest audible sound is the fridge and I
don't believe that influences the recording.
Adrian.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 17:38:35 +0000
From: Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NATLANG: icelandic, finnish, english
Steven Williams wrote:
>
>
>
>>A lot of older English texts with otherwise
>>apparently modern spelling spell 'diverse'
>>as 'divers'. When did the final -e become usual?
>>
>>
>
>I think it's still spelled as /divers/ in British
>English. /diverse/ has pretty much always been the
>American standard.
>
>
>
>
No, very definitely not.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 20:00:35 +0100
From: Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NATLANG: icelandic, finnish, english
--- Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev:
> Steven Williams wrote:
>
> >>A lot of older English texts with otherwise
> >>apparently modern spelling spell 'diverse'
> >>as 'divers'. When did the final -e become usual?
> >
> >I think it's still spelled as /divers/ in British
> >English. /diverse/ has pretty much always been the
> >American standard.
>
> No, very definitely not.
D'oh! I just read a translation of the Oddessy by an
American translator, who used 'divers' more than once
and never, as far as I can remember, used 'diverse'. I
could have sworn it was a dialectical thing, though.
Stupid me.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 10:56:28 -0800
From: "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Tatari Faran Update
It appears that the recent lack of status updates on Tatari Faran has
left so much despair on the list that people (including myself :-P)
have been driven to religious/political flaming. To counteract this
sad state of affairs, allow me to bring you this latest news from the
volcanoes of Fara. ;-)
The latest major change to Tatari Faran was the addition of relative
clauses and infinitive clauses.
As you may (or may not) know from previous updates, Tatari Faran NP's
have 3 core cases: originative, conveyant, receptive. These are
normally indicated by a case clitic appended to the end of the NP. For
example, _kiran_ ["ki4an] means "young man", and _kiran ka_ is the
corresponding originative, _kiran sa_ the corresponding conveyant, and
_kiran na_ the receptive. The case particles inflect for gender; hence
_amaa_ [a"ma:], which means "mother", has the forms _amaa kei_
(originative), _amaa sei_ (conveyant), and _amaa nei_ (receptive).
Now, because case marking is indicated by clitics rather than
suffixes, this means that adjectives, demonstratives, and other
modifiers appear *between* the head noun and the clitic. For example,
_kiran kirat sa_ - the young man who is tall and swift (conveyant).
This includes relative clauses.
But if you think about it, that introduces potential confusion: if the
NP's inside the relative clause use the same clitics to mark case, the
result would be a jumble where it is very difficult to tell which
clitic modifies which noun, and what is in a relative clause and what
is in the main clause. Tatari Faran deals with this problem by
introducing a *second* way to mark core cases. This I call the
'auxilliary case forms'. We shall see in a moment how these are used,
but for now, let's compare the possible forms of _kiran_, our young
man:
Main clause Relative clause
(Auxilliary case forms)
Originative kiran ka akiran
Conveyant kiran sa ikiran
Receptive kiran na nikiran
Hence, _akiran_ and _kiran ka_ both mean the same thing: "young man"
in the originative case. However, the former belongs to a relative
clause, whereas the latter belongs to the main clause.
The structure of an NP containing a relative clause is:
<head_noun> <args ...> <relativised_verb> <case_clitic>
The relativised verb is an inflected verb form which marks the case
role of the head noun in the relative clause. For example:
kiran ahuu tsanan sa
young_man AUX_ORG-1sp speak-REL_RCP CVY
The young man to whom I spoke.
kiran nihuu tsanakan sa
young_man AUX_RCP-1sp speak-REL_ORG CVY
The young man who spoke to me.
kiran ahuu itsana sa
young_man AUX_ORG-1sp speak-REL_CVY CVY
The young man about whom I spoke.
kiran ihuu tsanan sa
young_man AUX_CVY-1sp speak-REL_RCP CVY
The young man to whom I was spoken about.
Here are some examples of full sentences containing a relative clause:
1) kiran nihuu itsana ka hamra huu na aram.
young_man AUX_RCP-1sp speak-REL_CVY ORG see 1sp RCP COMPL
The young man about whom I was spoken to was seen by me.
(Or, "I see the young man about whom I was spoken to.")
2) tiki nijibin hamrakan sei tiras huinin.
rabbit AUX_RCP-child see-REL_ORG CVY white pure-COMPL
The rabbit that the child saw is (pure) white.
Infinitive clauses are formed in much the same way, except that there
is no head noun, and the verb is inflected for the infinitive. The
infinitive is formed from the bare verb by suffixing -i (for
consonant-final verbs) or -'i (for vowel-final verbs). The arguments
to the infinitive are inflected using the auxilliary case forms.
Here are examples of infinitive clauses:
ihuu tsana'i.
AUX_RCP-1sp speak-INF
To speak about me.
nitse ahuu hamra'i.
AUX_RCP-2sp AUX_ORG-1sp see-INF
(For) you to see me.
Infinitive clauses in Tatari Faran are actually nominalized clauses,
since they inflect for case by having an appropriate case clitic
appended. Here are some examples of full sentences containing an
infinitive clause:
1) huu na hamra nidiru abata' tsana'i so aram.
1sp RCP see AUX_RCP-girl AUX_ORG-chief speak-INF CVY COMPL
I see the chief speaking to the girl.
2) samat sa tapa itsan no nitsaritas juerati no bata.
man CVY walk cinder_cone RCP AUX_RCP-monkey look-INF RCP COMPL
The man walked to the cinder cone to look at the monkey.
3) huu ka uenai niparat buaras tapa'i no ia.
1sp ORG desire AUX_RCP-crater volcano-PART walk-INF RCP COMPL
I want to walk to the crater of the volcano.
(Or, I like walking to the crater of the volcano.)
This last example shows that infinitive clauses can also act like
gerundive clauses.
T
--
This is a tpyo.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:36:09 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pater Noster (purely linguistically)
Hi!
Shaul Vardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't want to say anything about the religious wars that have broken out
> here, except that:
> a) They are making me regret my recent decision to rejoin the group (albeit
> in an essentially lurking capacity).
Hmm, that's sad. Please stay.
> b) To continue to use the heading "Pater Noster (purely linguistically)"
> long after pure linguistics (or anything pure) have been thrown in the
> garbage seems... well, slightly disingenuous.
Well, the postings still answer linguistical questions about the
pronunciation of certain words, so it is not really totally off-topic.
I was very thankful for the information from Steg that |amen| was
probably [a'men], because this would mean that the rendering in
Qthen|gai would be more like /haNin@/ (with /i/ instead of /@/).
Not that that is a close rendering...
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
