------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 4 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Survey(?) of ConLangs' Calendars and Colors and Kinterms
From: John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Ant: Re: : Shifting of title + name in English.
From: Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: Ant: Re: : Shifting of title + name in English.
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Where does everyone live?
From: Michael Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 19:08:50 +0200
From: John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Survey(?) of ConLangs' Calendars and Colors and Kinterms
Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:
>I conclude that Malay has no monomorphemic word for 'brown'
>that distinguishes it from 'red'; this leaves me to make the
>interesting claim that Malay at least represents another class,
>namely -
>
>VIII: V + blue-purple + indigo.
And later on:
>Perhaps I missed something here - were we also counting those
>monomorphemic colour terms that simpy reuse the name of some
>substance familiar to the culture?
It seems extremely unlikely to me that a language would distinguish blue,
blue-purple and indigo, but not eg. orange and brown; I would suspect that
"indigo" were also primarily the name of a substance - that is, the name of
the dye solution, not of its color. (It doesn't exactly matter that there's
a separate word for the indigo plant too. Especially since there is not a
single "the" indigo plant.)
This of course doesn't override blue-purple (could we say that it's
"phonemically" just plain purple?) being included before brown is - which is
of course interesting too.
Also:
>The most useful insights given by this classification are, I think,
...
>2. that the most basic contrast is the most extreme - between light
>and dark (white and black); and the second is between 'hot' colours
>(red) and the rest.
So, with system IIIa, you'd analyze "red" = "dark hot", "yellow" = "light
hot"? Interesting, but what about IIIb then?? Green seems to be somewhat
neutral with regards to both the light/dark and hot/cold dichotomies.
John Vertical
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 05:35:18 +0100
From: Steven Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Ant: Re: : Shifting of title + name in English.
--- Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> <snip>
>
> I thought these were analysed to be locative nouns,
> i.e. lit. 'The book is at the above of the table.'
> The preposition (or locative/directional verb) is
> still needed here. AFAIK, Japanese also uses such
> locative nouns but then suffixes a postposition.
Oh, silly me. I just started learning Mandarin. I
learned something new :).
> Anyway, the prominent word is also SVO in Mandarin
> and is SOV in Japanese.
Silly me again; I thought _both_ were SOV. Don't have
much time to study, since I'm in university and work
at the same time.
> The syntax is very different in Mandarin and
> Japanese, so I'd say it's hard to find a common
> property by which to formulate a universal for both
> of them about the name + title order.
Ahh...
> Nevertheless, I also do think there is a universal
> stating that SOV langs have name + title order, and
> Mandarin just also has name + title.
I figured as much. Was Old English SOV or verb-second?
___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden:
http://mail.yahoo.de
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 09:42:37 +0100
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ant: Re: : Shifting of title + name in English.
Steven Williams skrev:
Was Old English SOV or verb-second?
Verb-second of course. After all it is/was an Old Germanic language! :)
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
(Tacitus)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 04:38:40 -0900
From: Michael Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where does everyone live?
I do know there is alot of pages that are nothing but ADDS and the more
glitz and all are not what they need, but they do it anyways.
Why the biigger, more new toys and all, but in the process they force people
to either give up, or to upgrade and by new stuff to keep up.. The new,
bigger, faster, what ever..
But in the process they force more and more, and some just don't like it.
Why should I upgrade, or change, or buy more and more?
The division between the haves and have nots or poor vs rich or just those
who have the means to get more and faster and all, and .. how much for all
this? Lingo changes for sure, as those who have the access get online and
learn what LOL means?
But what about things like allowing for lesser access, so I don't have to
spend an hour downloading some movie on some website, so I can see the rest
of the site?
The Art of War..
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "taliesin the storyteller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 6:29 AM
Subject: Re: Where does everyone live?
> * R A Brown said on 2005-11-06 08:46:21 +0100
> > * Henrik Theiling wrote:
> > > What's the big problem about designing pages that are at
> > > least visible in all browsers? *shakes head*
> >
> > I've more than once spent considerable trying to get things to behave
> > more or less the same way in different browsers on my Mac only to
> > discover when I view the pages on my wife's PC running Windows XP that
> > at least one browser - usually IE - mangles the thing :=(
> >
> > What's the big problem with the browser designers getting them all to
> > read read code in a similar way? *shakes head*
>
> <rant>
> Ah, but you see, there are two standards. One de jure, which is defined
> to painstaking detail by w3c.org, the other de facto, defined by however
> Internet Explorer behaves this week. The former changes slowly, the
> latter each time Microsoft releases a new patch. The former can be
> learnt by reading the w3c's standards, the latter by reading the w3c's
> standards, implementing them and then see what does and doesn't work.
> Simple, really.
>
> However, the real problem is not Microsoft. The real problem is the
> attitude is "What I the designer see is what everybody ought to see."
> Why is this so hilariously wrong? Simple: You can never know in advance
> whether the content you are prettifying will be read by another
> designer, a real human, a program, a blind person, or a dog, on a tv, a
> cellphone, a monitor, by lights blinking morse code or in some fashion
> not invented yet. The most important of these is beeing readable for
> programs, if a page is not, it will not be indexed by search engines,
> thus be invisible and for some people (say, fanatic Wikipedians) this
> means the page in question does not exist. Programs can't see the pretty
> colors and the nifty left-aligned flash-scrollbar at all.
>
> What to do? Simplify. It's not the wrapping, it's the message. Use
> Occam's razor. Cut until there's nothing left that can be cut. Ignore
> the desire for pixel perfection. The lovely red won't be red and lovely
> for the large amount of color-blind people out there anyway.
> </rant>
>
> Now, I won't claim that my pages are perfect, I know that the frontpage
> is all wrong for the color-blind for instance, and font-sizes vary like
> crazy. The Taruven-pages can't even be read comfortably on extremely
> small screens because the examples are set in <pre>-tags. BUT: Strip
> away all the colors and effects and it's only the color-coded examples
> that lose information. (I'm still working on how to improve the encoding
> of examples in (x)HTML.) I used to test *all* my html in Lynx, because
> if it looks good in Lynx, it'll be readable everywhere, but currently
> Lynx seems to have a problem with UTF8.
>
>
> t., who unfortunately averages one typo per line these days.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
