------------------------ 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 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: isolating is equivalent to inflected
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: isolating is equivalent to inflected
From: "David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: Isolating, Inflected, Word Building, ETC.
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: isolating is equivalent to inflected
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. cthulhu fhtagn
From: Reilly Schlaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: Isolating, Inflected, Word Building, ETC.
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Vowel Harmony
From: caotope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: isolating is equivalent to inflected
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: cthulhu fhtagn
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: Vowel Harmony
From: caotope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: cthulhu fhtagn
From: caotope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Enya's conlang
From: Thomas Wier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Words with built-in error correction
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. The WD theory
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: Words with built-in error correction
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: Words with built-in error correction
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: Words with built-in error correction
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
18. Re: Words with built-in error correction
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: Vowel Harmony
From: tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. Re: Words with built-in error correction
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: isolating is equivalent to inflected
From: "David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: Words with built-in error correction
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: The WD theory
From: Jonathan Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: Thoughts on Word building
From: Herman Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. What's a good isolating language to look at
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:09:59 -0000
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: isolating is equivalent to inflected
--- In [email protected], João Ricardo de Mendonça
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So, for example, English "played" cannot be broken down into two
>words play + did. You can't have words between them (compare: "He
>will _probably_ play with us", but not * "He play probably did").
>The fact that sometime in the past people actually spoke "He play
>did" instead of "He played" does not affect the way current English
>speakers analise their language.
Are there some who believe that the past tense in English was formed
in this way, _verb_ + _did_? IIRC, a dental bound morpheme used to
indicate past time is as old as PIE.
English: played, slept
Latin: laudatus
Charlie
http://wiki.frath.net/user:caeruleancentaur
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 10:32:03 -0800
From: "David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: isolating is equivalent to inflected
Henrik wrote:
<<
This lang seems closely related to Tok Pisin. Is it a different
lang/dialect?
>>
You know, a lot of the English-based creoles look alike, so when
I actually quote something, I quote the name of the language used
on my sources. The book I happen to have is called "A Grammar
of Melanesian Pidgin English". This may just be the old name; it
and Tok Pisin may actually be one and the same language. But,
I've never been sure, so I just wanted to cover my bases. :)
-David
*******************************************************************
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
-Jim Morrison
http://dedalvs.free.fr/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:08:48 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Isolating, Inflected, Word Building, ETC.
Hi!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> ObQuestion: How come, if language has "evolved" for so long, does it
> still have so many quirky exceptions etc.?
>...
I think it is typical to have some exceptions after such a process,
but from very few to very many, anything can happen. Natlangs
probably cover the full spectrum.
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:27:26 -0500
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: isolating is equivalent to inflected
David Peterson wrote:
> Henrik wrote:
> <<
> This lang seems closely related to Tok Pisin. Is it a different
> lang/dialect?
> >>
>
> You know, a lot of the English-based creoles look alike, so when
> I actually quote something, I quote the name of the language used
> on my sources. The book I happen to have is called "A Grammar
> of Melanesian Pidgin English". This may just be the old name...;
Likely. How old is the book?
> ...it and Tok Pisin may actually be one and the same language.
> But, I've never been sure, so I just wanted to cover my bases. :)
>
I'm not entirely sure either, but unless I'm mistaken, "Tok Pisin" is the
name of MPE as it is used in Papua-New Guinea (and probably becoming
somewhat standardized since it's one of the "official" languages). But there
are many other Melanesian areas where "MPE" might have slightly different
vocabulary, and might be developing in other directions-- though since many
of islands are tied economically to Australia, official Tok Pisin may well
be spreading. What does Wikipedia have to say about it, if anything?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:08:58 -0500
From: Reilly Schlaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: cthulhu fhtagn
ph'nglui mglw'nafh cthulhu r'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
what is the exact meaning not just the translation given in the call of
cthulhu book.
also the pronuncation.
thanks very much
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:02:24 -0500
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Isolating, Inflected, Word Building, ETC.
Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Hi!
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > ObQuestion: How come, if language has "evolved" for so long, does it
> > still have so many quirky exceptions etc.?
> >...
>
> I think it is typical to have some exceptions after such a process,
> but from very few to very many, anything can happen. Natlangs
> probably cover the full spectrum.
>
As the old saying goes, "sound change produces irregularity, analogy
restores regularity". And borrowing, esp. between related languages, can
introduce irregularity.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:58:36 -0000
From: caotope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Vowel Harmony
--- In [email protected], Tom Chappell wrote:
> I completely forgot about phonation, John!
> Thanks for reminding me.
You're welcome; and this way I also get to see your latest readings on
the subject...
> (...) That leaves the following nine phonation types as possible
> distinctive features of segments;
> Breath,
> Creak,
> Modal or Normal Voice,
> Nil,
> Whisper,
> Breathy Voice,
> Creaky Voice,
> Creaky Whisper,
> Whispery Voice.
How do these map to the usual phonation terms? I'd guess that
nil = no airflow
breath = unvoiced
breathy voice = breathy phonation
creak = creaky phonation
creaky voice = tense phonation
creaky whisper = tense unvoiced phonation
whispery voice = lax phonation
...but that leaves the problem on how regular "Whisper" is supposed to
differ from "Breath".
Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonation claims that Unvoiced,
Breathy/Murmured, Slack/Lax, Modal, Stiff/Tense, Creaky and
Glottalized simply form a series with respect to the aperture of the
glottis. The article for creaky voice mentions compression of the
larynx also being involved there. Laver's combining phonations would
have to involve additional articulators for falsetto and whisper, too;
but I don't really see what they would be...
> On pp. 278-280 (section 10.4 "Labial Elements of Vocoid Segments),
> Laver says there are actually four levels of roundedness
> available: stretched, neutral, open-rounded, and close-rounded.
> If the lips are expanded horizontally, then, no matter what happens
> vertically, the sound will be perceived as "stretched".
> If the lips are neither expanded horizontally nor contracted
> horizontally, then, regardless of what happens vertically, the sound
> will be perceived as "neutral" in regard to rounding.
I don't think any natlang makes any difference between stretched and
unrounded vowels? Stretchedness seems to remain a phonetic detail of
front vowels, unlike rounding.
> If the lips are contracted horizontally and expanded vertically,
> then the sound will be perceived as "open-rounded".
I call this "o"-roundedness, and can split it into 2-3 different
degrees of aperture (roughly equivalent with /o O Q/)
> If the lips are contracted horizontally and not expanded
> vertically -- either contracted vertically, or left in their
> neutral position vertically -- the sound will be perceived as
> "close-rounded".
And this I call "u"-roundedness.
...Now, what about the third dimension, that is, extending the lips
forwards or pulling them inwards? This is easiest if the lips are
horizontally compressed, but it is not a requisite.
The case of contrasting /y y_c/, IIRC, mentioned this as the basic
difference, tho I guess horizontal aperture may have played a part too.
> > > I don't think anyone has even proposed that Nasal vs. notNasal
> > > can be given a third value.
> >
> > How about oral vs. nasal approximant vs. nareal fricative? ...
> > Hell, I can even pronounce nareal *trills*! :)
> >
> > (Of course, I can only make these work if the oral component is a
> > stop. But nevertheless, it's certainly possible to have more than
> > two values of nasality...)
>
> Well, that's true, but fricatives and trills and stops aren't
> vowels. I was saying that nasality or the lack of it _for vowels_
> was an all-or-nothing thing.
Then again, nareal fricatives/trills aren't fricatives/trills any more
than nasal stops are approximants. It's a feature of the nasal tract,
not the oral one. Your point does stand, however.
> And I was wrong.
>
> On pp. 291-295, section 10.9 "Nasal Vocoid Articulation", Laver says
> there are two degrees of nasality of vocoids in the Applecross
> dialect of Scottish Gaelic. But his best evidence is in Palantla
> Chinantec an Otomanguean Mesoamerican language -- he quotes a
> reference whith a minimal triplet, ?e 'leach', ?e~ 'count', ?e~~
> 'chase', all identical in tone. He also mentions Breton and Bengali
> as well.
Do you know what're the articulatory phonetics in play at here? Is it
just about the degree of lowering of the velum or something more devious?
> > Couldn't the frequent POA assimilation of nasal+plosive clusters
> > (and maybe some other sorts of clusters too) be considered a sort
> > of consonant harmony?
> Nothing that happens just to clusters is really "harmony", by the
> definition I just quoted; it has to happen to separated phonemes as
> well somehow, to count as "harmony".
Yes, that's the definition. But to reverse my wording - harmony could
be interpreted as some sort of long-range assimilation. The two
phenomena are, from a single individual phoneme's view, identical:
phoneme X says to phoneme Y "You must have the same POA (or other
feature) as me". That's all I was saying.
> Thanks for writing,
>
> Tom H.C. in MI
My pleasure.
John Vertical
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 21:27:30 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: isolating is equivalent to inflected
Quoting caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> --- In [email protected], João Ricardo de Mendonça
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >So, for example, English "played" cannot be broken down into two
> >words play + did. You can't have words between them (compare: "He
> >will _probably_ play with us", but not * "He play probably did").
> >The fact that sometime in the past people actually spoke "He play
> >did" instead of "He played" does not affect the way current English
> >speakers analise their language.
>
> Are there some who believe that the past tense in English was formed
> in this way, _verb_ + _did_? IIRC, a dental bound morpheme used to
> indicate past time is as old as PIE.
>
> English: played, slept
> Latin: laudatus
Well, _laudatus_ isn't strictly speaking a past tense form - it's a perfect
participle. The imperfect is _laudabam_ and the perfect is _laudavi_, without a
dental ending.
Everything I've read would indicate that the dental morpheme in Germanic pasts
and imperfects are indeed derived from a form of the auxillary "do".
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:24:30 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cthulhu fhtagn
On 12/5/05, Reilly Schlaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ph'nglui mglw'nafh cthulhu r'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
> what is the exact meaning not just the translation given in the call of
> cthulhu book.
> also the pronuncation.
Somewhere in volume I of the Arkham House
collection of Lovecraft's letters, HPL says something
about how "cthulhu" is supposed to be pronounced
-- with an aspirated stop /th/, not fricative /T/, if I recall
correctly; otherwise I can't recall details. Not
sure about a detailed gloss on the sentence above,
though.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:27:53 -0000
From: caotope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Vowel Harmony
--- In [email protected], Tom Chappell wrote:
> I am afraid that I do not understand enough about the details of
> your questions, where they concern the differences between phonemics
> and phonetics and phonology, to see how the following examples
> answer them.
>
> However, the following examples are among the reasons I thought
> frontness/backness of vowel phonemes might have more than three
> values.
<examples snup>
The only vowels in your examples which were not strictly front,
central or back, were /I/ and /U/. Yet I'd be surprized if their
mid-centralization really were the defining feature. I'd expect the
height difference and the laxness to be more essential there - maybe
even the rounding (I know a guy who identified [2] as /U/). And since
these two phonemes seem to always have more than one feature that
distinguishes them from other vowel phonemes in the vicinity, the
existence of *phonemic* front-centralness or back-centralness is sorta
iffy. It's just never contrastive by itself.
John Vertical
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:58:01 -0000
From: caotope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cthulhu fhtagn
--- In [email protected], Reilly Schlaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ph'nglui mglw'nafh cthulhu r'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
> what is the exact meaning not just the translation given in the call
> of cthulhu book.
> also the pronuncation.
> thanks very much
I recall reading that "fhtagn" means "dead", but I don't know of the
three longer words. As for pronounciation, well, your guess is as good
as mine - which would be along the lines of /P=?N5Uj m=g5G_w=?nAf_h
kT_GU5U G=Le G_w=gA?n&gl f_htAn_G/.
I'm here assuming that velarization is evil enough and I don't have to
resort to pharyngealization or other more guttural phonetics. ;)
John Vertical
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:35:40 -0600
From: Thomas Wier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Enya's conlang
Hi all.
I've been very lurky of late; I've been busy pushing
rocks up hills, only to see them fall down again ;)
Anyways, a friend of mine sent me the following link
from the Times about a constructed language Enya made
for one of her new albums:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1892820,00.html
==========================================================================
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: 13
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:47:01 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Words with built-in error correction
Expanding on an idea that occured to me in relation to
Elomi...
A conlang design that is accent-proof:
Begin with a set of word templates which have only
consonants and places indicated for vowels, but no
specific vowels in them:
B- D- F- G- H- J- K- L- M- ....
-B- -D- -F- -G- -H- -J- -K- -L- -M- ....
-LB- -LD- -LF- -LG- -LJ- -LK- -LM- ....
-NB- -ND- -NF- -NG- -NJ- -NK- -NL- -NM- ....
-RB- -RD- -RF- -RG- -RJ- -RK- -RL- -RM- ....
-SB- -SD- -SF- -SG- -SH- -SK- -SL- -SM- ....
...
B-B- B-D- B-F- B-G- B-H- B-J- B-K- B-L- B-M- ....
B-LB- B-LD- B-LF- B-LG- B-LJ- B-LK- B-LM- ....
B-NB- B-ND- B-NF- B-NG- B-NJ- B-NK- B-NL- B-NM- ....
B-RB- B-RD- B-RF- B-RG- B-RJ- B-RK- B-RL- B-RM- ....
B-SB- B-SD- B-SF- B-SG- B-SH- B-SK- B-SL- B-SM- ....
...
-B-B- -B-D- -B-F- -B-G- -B-H- -B-J- -B-K- -B-L- -B-M-
....
-B-LB- -B-LD- -B-LF- -B-LG- -B-LJ- -B-LK- -B-LM- ....
-B-NB- -B-ND- -B-NF- -B-NG- -B-NJ- -B-NK- -B-NL-
-B-NM- ....
-B-RB- -B-RD- -B-RF- -B-RG- -B-RJ- -B-RK- -B-RL-
-B-RM- ....
-B-SB- -B-SD- -B-SF- -B-SG- -B-SH- -B-SK- -B-SL-
-B-SM- ....
...
... T-LK-M-S- T-LK-M-T- T-LK-M-V- ...
When a new word is coined a template is selected and
whatever vowels you like are inserted.
T-LK-M-T- can become talkamata, or tolkimato, or
tulkometi, or any one of 625 different words with that
consonant pattern.
Once the word is selected and added to the lexicon the
template is discarded, never to be used again. Thus
every core word in the lexicon has a unique consonant
pattern, and no matter how the pronunciation of the
vowels change with accent, the identity of the word
remains the same, because there is only one possible
word with that template. Thus the lexicon has a
built-in tolerance for different accents, and a sort
of checksum error correcting feature that preserves
the meaning of the word even under extreme distortions
of the vowel sounds within it. It is, therefore,
indifferent to, or at least very tolerant of accents.
Using a conservative set of 30 intial consonants and
consonant clusters, 30 final consonants or clusters,
and 30 medial consonants or clusters, the number of
templates for words of three syllables or less exceeds
a hundred thousand, with over three million words of
four or fewer syllables. A hundred thousand core words
of three or fewer syllables (each with a completely
unique consonant pattern) seems adequate.
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:29:28 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The WD theory
This would be funny if it didn't hit so close to home.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/q_pheevr/33337.html
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:20:46 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Words with built-in error correction
On 12/5/05, Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Begin with a set of word templates which have only
> consonants and places indicated for vowels, but no
> specific vowels in them:
>
> B- D- F- G- H- J- K- L- M- ....
> When a new word is coined a template is selected and
> whatever vowels you like are inserted.
> T-LK-M-T- can become talkamata, or tolkimato, or
> tulkometi, or any one of 625 different words with that
> consonant pattern.
>
> Once the word is selected and added to the lexicon the
> template is discarded, never to be used again. Thus
> every core word in the lexicon has a unique consonant
> pattern, and no matter how the pronunciation of the
A while ago I thought of a system for
devising morphemes such that no two morphemes
in the language would differ by only one
phoneme. In other words, there would be no
minimal pairs. I devised a script to
generate word lists given a certain input
of phoneme inventory, but
never came up with a completely satisfying
phoneme inventory to use with it.
To make it maximally redundant, I
tried to have every phoneme differ
from every other by at least two distinctive
features, which led to some interesting
but not very euphonious phonologies.
Such a system required an equal number of consonants
and vowels to work best. For instance with
8 vowels and 8 consonants you can devise
64 CVC morphemes all of which differ
from the other 63 by at least two phonemes.
I don't recall exactly how many more you
get when you go to CVCV or CVCVC
morphemes.
You can pick one series of 8 CVC morphemes
and truncate the final vowel to get a group
of CV morphemes that are just as redundant
with the other 56.
Here is the Perl script I wrote for this.
# Generate redundant morphemes given a sequence of phoneme sets.
# Resultant morpheme set will have no two morphemes which differ by
# fewer than two phonemes.
# first version will be specialized for sequence of three phonemes
# later generalize it for four or more
my $debug = 0;
my $inputfile = shift;
if ( ! $inputfile ) {
die ( "Argument: input file with phoneme lists\n" );
}
open (PHONEMES, $inputfile) || die ("Couldn't find $inputfile\n");
my @phoneme_sets;
my $phoneme_set_idx = 0;
my $phoneme_idx = 0;
my $line;
my $phoneme_set_count = -1;
while (defined ( $line = <PHONEMES>) ) {
chop ($line);
if ( $line =~ /SLOT *([0-9]+)/ ) {
$phoneme_set_count++;
$phoneme_set_idx = 0;
next;
}
if ($line !~ /^ *$/) {
print "assigning $line to row $phoneme_set_count column
$phoneme_set_idx\n" if $debug;
$phoneme_sets[ $phoneme_set_count ][ $phoneme_set_idx ] = $line;
$phoneme_set_idx++;
}
}
if ( $phoneme_set_count != 2 ) {
die ( "this version only supports 3-phoneme sequences" );
}
# now generate real morphemes.
# note this only works if we have 3 dimensions; needs extensive work
to do 4 or 5
my $i = 0, $j = 0, $k = 0;
my @dimension_size;
for ( $i = 0; $i < scalar(@phoneme_sets); $i++ ) {
my $slotref = $phoneme_sets[ $i ];
$dimension_size[ $i ] = scalar( @{$slotref} );
print "\$dimension_size\[ $i \] = " . $dimension_size[ $i ] .
"\n" if $debug;
}
$i = 0, $j = 0, $k = 0, $iter = 0;
my @morpheme_prism;
my $finished = 0;
while ( $finished == 0 ) {
print "iteration " . ++$iter . " -- values ( $i, $j, $k ) \n" if $debug;
&print_whole_prism if $debug == 2;
print "==============\n" if $debug == 2;
print "try ($i, $j, $k) \n" if $debug;
if ( $morpheme_prism[ $i ][ $j ][ $k ] != 1 && $morpheme_prism[ $i
][ $j ][ $k ] != 2 ) {
&mark_used( [EMAIL PROTECTED], $i, $j, $k );
$i = ($i + 1) % $dimension_size[ 0 ];
$j = ($j + 1) % $dimension_size[ 1 ];
next;
}
$i = ($i + 1) % $dimension_size[ 0 ];
$k++;
# double check this for off-by-one err...
if ( $k >= $dimension_size[ 2 ] ) {
$finished = 1;
break;
}
}
&print_whole_prism if $debug;
sub print_whole_prism {
my $m, $n, $o;
for ( $o = 0; $o < $dimension_size [ 2 ]; $o++ ) {
for ( $n = 0; $n < $dimension_size [ 1 ]; $n++ ) {
for ( $m = 0; $m < $dimension_size [ 0 ]; $m++ ) {
if ( $morpheme_prism[ $m ][ $n ][ $o ] == 1 ) {
print "xxx ";
} elsif ( $morpheme_prism[ $m ][ $n ][ $o ] == 2 ) {
print $phoneme_sets[ 0 ][ $m ] . $phoneme_sets[ 1 ][ $n ] .
$phoneme_sets[ 2 ][ $o ] . " ";
} else {
print "000 ";
}
}
print "\n";
}
print "\n";
}
}
sub mark_used {
my ( $arr_ref, $p, $q, $r ) = @_;
my @arr = @{ $arr_ref };
my $z;
print "previous value: [" . $arr[ $z ][ $q ][ $r ] . "] " if $debug;
print "marking " if $debug;
for ( $z=0; $z< $dimension_size[ 0 ]; $z++ ) {
$arr[ $z ][ $q ][ $r ] = 1;
print "($z, $q, $r) " if $debug;
}
print "\n" if $debug;
for ( $z=0; $z< $dimension_size[ 1 ]; $z++ ) {
$arr[ $p ][ $z ][ $r ] = 1;
print "($p, $z, $r) " if $debug;
}
print "\n" if $debug;
for ( $z=0; $z< $dimension_size[ 2 ]; $z++ ) {
$arr[ $p ][ $q ][ $z ] = 1;
print "($p, $q, $z) " if $debug;
}
print "\n" if $debug;
$arr[ $p ][ $q ][ $r ] = 2;
print "** $p, $q, $r ** " if $debug;
print $phoneme_sets[ 0 ][ $p ] . $phoneme_sets[ 1 ][ $q ] .
$phoneme_sets[ 2 ][ $r ] . "\n";
}
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:43:29 -0500
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Words with built-in error correction
On 12/5/05, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/5/05, Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Begin with a set of word templates which have only
> > consonants and places indicated for vowels, but no
> > specific vowels in them:
---SNIP---
> Here is the Perl script I wrote for this.
>
Jim, thanks for this script! We may well adapt it to our purpose, if
you don't mind.
--Larry
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:09:31 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Words with built-in error correction
I know it sounds a bit argumentative, but can't you just make the
vowels farther apart? In other words, frontal a and frontal e won't
exist, b/c they're too close.
On 12/5/05, Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/5/05, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 12/5/05, Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Begin with a set of word templates which have only
> > > consonants and places indicated for vowels, but no
> > > specific vowels in them:
> ---SNIP---
> > Here is the Perl script I wrote for this.
> >
> Jim, thanks for this script! We may well adapt it to our purpose, if
> you don't mind.
> --Larry
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:11:49 -0500
From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Words with built-in error correction
On 12/5/05, Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/5/05, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 12/5/05, Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Begin with a set of word templates which have only
> > > consonants and places indicated for vowels, but no
> > > specific vowels in them:
> ---SNIP---
> > Here is the Perl script I wrote for this.
> >
> Jim, thanks for this script! We may well adapt it to our purpose, if
> you don't mind.
Go ahead. I just realized I should have also provided
a sample input file for it. There are three
sections, each with one phoneme listed per line,
for the three slots in a three-phoneme word. This
input file will generate 36 CVC morphemes:
SLOT 0
?
q
n
r
j
z
d
b
SLOT 1
i
y
e
0
ae
u
o
a
SLOT 2
?
q
n
r
j
z
d
b
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 01:02:27 -0000
From: tomhchappell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Vowel Harmony
--- In [email protected], caotope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], Tom Chappell wrote:
>
>> I am afraid that I do not understand enough about the details of
>> your questions, where they concern the differences between
>> phonemics and phonetics and phonology, to see how the following
>> examples answer them.
>>
>> However, the following examples are among the reasons I thought
>> frontness/backness of vowel phonemes might have more than three
>> values.
>
> <examples snup>
>
> The only vowels in your examples which were not strictly front,
> central or back, were /I/ and /U/. Yet I'd be surprized if their
> mid-centralization really were the defining feature. I'd expect the
> height difference and the laxness to be more essential there - maybe
> even the rounding (I know a guy who identified [2] as /U/). And
> since these two phonemes seem to always have more than one feature
> that distinguishes them from other vowel phonemes in the vicinity,
> the existence of *phonemic* front-centralness or back-centralness
> is sorta iffy. It's just never contrastive by itself.
>
> John Vertical
>
Hi, John.
Yes; I think I see what you mean.
I believe I mentioned something like the following in one of my
former posts on this thread; and also, I think I agreed with one of
the other posters, to something also sort of like this.
As far as I can recall, the IPA handbook seems to suggest that,
although some languages do have four different frontness/backness
values of high or close vowels, none the handbook authors knew about
at the time they published it, completely elaborates every other
contrast through both of the intermediate values. For instance, one
language may have only an unrounded near-front close vowel and only a
rounded near-back close vowel, or some such thing.
I think our correspondent suggested something like that, only using
the tense v. lax, or advanced-tongue-root v. relaxed-tongue-root, or
some such distinction, instead of rounded vs. unrounded.
Now, just because the frontness/backness contrast is not the _only_
contrast in such cases; does that mean it is not a distinctive
feature, or not a phonemic one? I guess I don't understand. I am
much taller than my wife; I am also male, while she is female. The
difference in our height is not the only difference between us. I do
not think it is insignificant, however; from a distance, it is how
some people can tell us apart in certain lighting conditions.
Tom H.C. in MI
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 02:30:04 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Words with built-in error correction
Hi!
More redundancy:
Have pairs of consonants with corresponding vowels. Select the
consonants, the phonemes, in a way they don't sound too similar (e.g.
do not have both /n/ and /l/). The vowels are going to be the
checksums for the consonants:
E.g.
Consonants: p t k s x n r
Vowels: 2 y e o i a u
Now, for a word /knxrt/, you'd instead say /kinaxiruty/.
So far, so good. Now, like the error correction technique used on a
CD, shift away the checksum from the phoneme a bit to reduce the
likelyhood of a distortion to destroy both the phoneme and its
checksum at the same time. Do this by shifting forward the checksum
for some syllables. Define, say, /a/ to be the filler vowel at the
beginning and /n/ the filler consonant at the end. For different
syllable shift's, you'd get for /knxrt/:
+ 0 syl. /kenaxiruty/
+ 1 syl. /kanexarituny/
+ 2 syl. /kanaxeratinuny/
+ 3 syl. /kanaxaretaninuny/
...
And now, use a self-segregating morphology, plus additional redundancy
the way the other posters showed. Have an agglutinative language that
synchs every word the /a/ and /n/ fillers, and you'll end up with
quite an alien artlang, I think. :-)
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:21:29 -0800
From: "David J. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: isolating is equivalent to inflected
Roger wrote:
<<
I'm not entirely sure either, but unless I'm mistaken, "Tok Pisin" is
the
name of MPE as it is used in Papua-New Guinea (and probably becoming
somewhat standardized since it's one of the "official" languages).
But there
are many other Melanesian areas where "MPE" might have slightly
different
vocabulary, and might be developing in other directions-- though
since many
of islands are tied economically to Australia, official Tok Pisin may
well
be spreading. What does Wikipedia have to say about it, if anything?
>>
Why is it I always forget about Wikipedia when I need it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tok_Pisin
Sure enough, Tok Pisin and Melanesian Pidgin English are one and
the same. MPE was the old name; Tok Pisin is the current name. Tasol!
-David
*******************************************************************
"A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
-Jim Morrison
http://dedalvs.free.fr/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 02:38:00 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Words with built-in error correction
Hi!
Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> + 0 syl. /kenaxiruty/
> + 1 syl. /kanexarituny/
> + 2 syl. /kanaxeratinuny/
> + 3 syl. /kanaxaretaninuny/
> ...
>...
Those should all be in []. Sorry.
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:25:49 -0800
From: Jonathan Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The WD theory
ack! Ya gotta be kiddin' me...
/rant
First Creationism, now this funny crap! What's next???? The dinosaurs were
Fallen Angels?
on 12/5/05 2:29 PM, Mark J. Reed at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would be funny if it didn't hit so close to home.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/q_pheevr/33337.html
--
Hanuman Zhang
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because,
if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason,
then that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
"...divine chaos ...rumors of chaos have been known to enhance the mature
religious vision.... for the godhead manifests no more of its reality than
the limited grammar of each person's imagination and conceptual system can
handle.
"A second advantage is suggested by William James in _Varieties of
Religious Experience_. James affirms the possibilty of many gods, mostly
because he takes seriously his multiverse theory of personal monads, each
one of us experiencing a unique religious revelation.
"An orderly monistic and monotheistic system, he fears, might succumb to
a craving for logical coherence, and trim away some of the mystery, rich
indeterminancy, and tragic ambiguity in a complete numinous experience.
"For some temperaments, the ambivalent gentleness and savagery of fate
can be imagined effectively in a godhead split into personified attributes,
sometimes at war, sometimes in shifting alliance." - Vernon Ruland, _Eight
Sacred Horizons: The Religious Imagination East and West_
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 23:56:38 -0600
From: Herman Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Word building
Taka Tunu wrote:
> One question underlying this thread is where to stop breaking down the
> vocabulary into "roots" or "stems" or "affixes" and reversely, where to stop
> multiplying them? Criteria may vary: realism, idealism, "conciseness", poetry,
> etc.
>
> That is personal taste, granted, but shouldn't conlangers be happy to find
> that
> some natlangs have already "rounded up" their own vocabulary, not into a
> 30,000-entry dictionary, but a merely 2,000-entry one?
>
> As a matter of taste, I find this "kit" invaluable because it's well-tested
> and
> still in use and I don't understand why this is not taken as much into
> consideration than the other useful ones like the "Basic English" lexicon or
> what else.
Who says it isn't? :-)
Next to the ULD and the Lojban gismu list, Japanese kanji compounds have
been another one of the places I turn to for inspiration for new words.
Tirelat borrowed the Japanese word for "peninsula" (å島 hantou, related
to the Chinese bàndÇo) as "tanigira" (literally "half-island"). More
recently, I started creating a set of word components called "luaki"
which are used to build Minza words (each of which corresponds with a
Japanese character). A few of these were initially derived from
back-formation from existing Minza words, like na (森) and ko (æ) from
the existing word "nako" (forest, with the characters 森æ from Japanese
"sinrin" or Chinese "senlín"). I only have a tiny selection of the
Japanese characters in the luaki list so far, but I've already created
new words such as "kamu" (material) from these components.
kamu from ææ "zairyou" (Chinese cáiliào)
ka from "paka" (wood), J. æ¨æ mokuzai or Chinese mùcái
mu from "kumu" (food, a Vuki Lialia word), J. é£æ syokuryou
This is also useful for translating names from Japanese, e.g.,
dazebisan "Ivysaur" from the Japanese ãã·ã®ã½ã¦ husigisou (which I
interpreted as ä¸æè° + è)
But it's also worth remembering that lots of Japanese words and
derivational affixes are written with kana. This includes recent
borrowings from English and other languages as well as older Japanese
words and the colorful onomatopoeic expressions that Japanese has. So
the 2000 or so Joyo Kanji are only a starting point.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:11:55 -0800
From: Gary Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: What's a good isolating language to look at
I would really like to learn more about how a real
live isolating language works. I've only ever studied
Germanic and Romance languages, (and one semester of
Russian). What would be a good isolating language for
me to get a grammar for? Preferably one I can dig into
the grammar of using only the Roman alphabet, if such
a thing is possible.
--gary
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
