------------------------ 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 11 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Christmas/Holidays
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: Christmas/Holidays
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: Onomatopoeia (was: Bell)
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Glyphica Arcana Distinctions (cases?)
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: Boiling Polysemy
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: Christmas/Holidays
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Trigger/Focus - Once again
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Christmas/Holidays
From: Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: Christmas/Holidays
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. OT: Re: Christmas/Holidays
From: Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Conlang flag in actual cloth - bulk order?
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:18:33 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Christmas/Holidays
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 06:53:59 -0500, R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Paul Bennett wrote:
>> Greek, I've got as Ιησος Χριστος (Iēsos Khristos), more or less,
>
> More, actually. It is Ιησους Χριστος (Iēsous Khristos)
> and I
>> think his Aramaic/Hebrew name is something like Yeshua,
>
> Yep - with a long e (and IIRC the u is long also)
Gah! I really don't know how I'm going to cope with a long e *and* a long
u in one source word, especially since they both appear in both my primary
sources. Ordinarily, vowel harmony is based on the first vowel in the
root, but it can be overridden if a later vowel is long. If *both* are
long, I'm faced with something of a dilemma. I suppose the rule could
refer to the earliest long vowel, or the earliest vowel if none are long.
That ... hmm ... it's dissatisfying, to some extent, and I'm afraid I'll
end up with some words that no longer fit my "native" intuitions of what
is euphonious.
The basic pattern bearing all that in mind seems to be /je:Su:/ > /jESu:/
> /jeSu:/ > /j7Su:/ depending on exactly *when* the length > height >
iotification > harmony processes occurred relative to when the name was
borrowed (presumably it was a known name in the Levant prior to 1 CE).
It's impossible to tell from the Demotic script (which was quite bad at
showing vowels), but the process was clearly complete by the Alphabetic
script, which starts to appear near 600 CE, by which time the population
was almost all Christian. Iotification could be detected in Demotic, I
suppose, from the influence on consonants.
It's a minefield, to be sure. I need to apply a *lot* more brainpower, and
more a rigorous timeline, and more rigorous sound change rules. Why is it
that all my projects end up turning insanely byzantine? Even Br'ga is
starting to get less and less freeform.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:37:32 +0200
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Christmas/Holidays
R A Brown wrote:
> and I
> > think his Aramaic/Hebrew name is something like Yeshua,
>
> Yep - with a long e (and IIRC the u is long also)
It is usually יֵשׁוּעַ - in a more or less standard scientific
transliteration - yēšûª‘ - where ē and û are long, ª is an off-glide due to
the following gutural ‘ (i.e. [ʕ] in IPA) which was anyway already silent in
this position in those days.
> Merry Christmas (for the remaining 10.5 days of Christmas :)
> and Happy Hannukah and, of course, a Happy New Year
more exactly, חֲנֻכָּה - ḥănukkā, that may be rendered practicly as smth
like Chanukah or Hanukkah or half a dozen other ways, but only with one N.
Thank you for the greetings, and the same to you!
-- Yitzik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:48:49 -0500
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Onomatopoeia (was: Bell)
Jim Henry wrote:
> Roger Mills wrote:
> > Charlie wrote:
> >
> > > My source for senjecan vocabulary does not have a word for "bell," as
> > > in "ding=dong." Does anyone have a compound word for "bell" in his
> > > conlang? For that matter, how do your conlangs say, "ding-dong"?
> > >
> > Kash is based on onomatopoeia--
>
> Similarly in gjâ-zym-byn;
>
> niqnx ( /nIN/ ) "ringing"
(snips)
> It seems we all have consonant +
> vowel + /N/.
Since western style bells, at least, make a clear and percussive sound, it
figures that stops, especially, are used (ping, (td)ing(- aling), ring,
tinkle; clang). I wonder what Japanese, for ex., has for the sound of their
bells (the few I've heard, e.g. the big peace bell in Hiroshima that shows
up on TV on Aug.6)-- which seems a more "rattling" sort of sound-- different
alloy? casting technique ~thickness ~shape? overtones?
Indonesian must have words for the various sounds of their gongs (which are
usually tuned to a scale and produce a clear sound). Unlike the Chinese
"gong" that more resembles a cymbal. Very curious...:-)))
>
> On 12/22/05, Scotto Hlad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From my perspective, I am curious how others have handled the question
> > of
> > onomatopoeia in their conlangs in general.
>
> I have a few other onomatopoeic words
> in gzb:
>
> hqaxnq /G&~/ "to yell, roar, bleat"
> vxaxw /bv)aU/ "dog"
> raxm /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ "cat"
> zum /zum/ "cricket"
>
> I haven't really worked out consistent
> principles for onomatopoeia, though.
I haven't really, either-- some of my Kash words seem rather obvious (or
could it be, universal :-) ?)...
krak breaking
krek cracking, crackling
kruñ [kruN] growling
tam drumming
tap snapping
tip light tapping
trip drip
pum loud sharp noise-- explosion, gunshot, thunderclap
Others maybe less so--
çeñ [SEN] cymbal
çusu rustling
cek lightningbolt
sit scratching
tis tickling
tup bouncing (>tupatúp a humorous word for sex.intercourse)
fup fart
pom gong
prup bubbling (when pouring, also rumbling in the stomach)
nip oops! (when slipping)
And a few animal sounds--
cik, cek, cak, cok, cuk the chirping sounds made by various "lizards"
eñe bleat
ñaw(uo)ñ ['Ja(uo)N] like a "meow"
ñar roar
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 14:24:43 -0700
From: Jefferson Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Glyphica Arcana Distinctions (cases?)
Well, having made some minor changes (added vocabulary, rounding
the corners of the Seed symbols, changing some markers to display
better, changing the way symbol names are displayed on the
vocabulary page) to the Glyphica Arcana, I'm now in the process
of defining exactly what the different grammatical markers mean.
First, understand that the GA doesn't define nouns, verbs,
adjectives, and (to a degree) prepositions separately. How a
glyph is interpreted depends on the distinction markers used so
the glyph 'Blade' can mean sword, sharp, or hone depending on the
markers used. (For the current marker list and definitions see
http://www.meanspc.com/~jeff_wilson63/myths/Gly_Markers.html I
realize there are still some formatting issues with this page,
and will fix them eventually.)
Anyway, based on some earlier comments I've been considering
revising the subject/object distinction. I'd like to know what
the difference is between subject/object and agent/patient. What
other distinctions like this can people tell me about? One thing
I'm considering in particular is a distinction between volitional
(people) and non-volitional (rocks) subjects, though I'm not
exactly sure where to draw the line between the two.
All comments are welcome.
--
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/myths/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:21:18 +0000
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Boiling Polysemy
Peter Bleackley wrote at 2005-12-23 10:46:40 (+0000)
> In the sentences
>
a) > I boil water
b) > I boil the kettle
c) > I boil an egg
d) > The kettle boils water
e) > The kettle boils
f) > Water boils
>
> the word "boil" means something different each time. I'm
> thinking of having more than one word for boil in Khangaþyagon,
> and having a bit of fun with which sense I assign to each one.
>
> Pete
I'm not sure that I analyse the English in quite the same way. To my
mind there are only three senses here:
1. (Of a liquid) - to boil.* (f, e)
2. Causative of 1. (a, b, d)
3. To cook something in boiling liquid. (c)
Between (f) and (e), and between (a) and (b), I think the difference
is not in the verb "boil", but in the meaning of the subject NP - "the
kettle" in (e) simply doesn't refer to a kettle in the same way that
"water" in (f) refers to water. Rather "the kettle" stands for the
water in the kettle, by the rhetorical figure called metonymy (at
least, I think it's metonymy, I've never been quite straight on
those).
For (a) and (d), obviously there's a number of differences between the
relation of the speaker to the water and that of the kettle to the
water, but I think they both fall within the category of causation (of
boiling), and the English verb just doesn't make those distinctions of
animacy, volition, directness, instrumentality etc. that seperate the
two instances. So I don't think it really counts as polysemy in the
English case (though I'm not sure I can explain why). But of course
those are the kind of distinctions that another language, such as
Khangaþyagon, might make grammatically.
Incidentally, having defined these three senses, a fourth possibility
is suggested:
4. To cook in boiling liquid.
which stands in the same relation to 3 as 1 does to 2, so 3 is the
causative of 4 (or perhaps 4 is the middle of 3). It's harder to come
up with a good example with this sense in natural-sounding English**,
but something like
g) The sausages have been boiling in wine for the past 10 minutes.
should serve well enough to demonstrate its grammaticality.
* In principle it's not a good idea to define a word in terms of
itself, but I don't want to get into a detailed physical definition
of what "boil" means, which isn't really the issue here. The point
is that in this sense it's the subject which is undergoing the
actual process of boiling.
** In most cases I either get something which could be interpreted as
metonymy, or a passive use of sense 3 sounds much more likely.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 20:50:31 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Christmas/Holidays
On 12/26/05, Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Merry Christmas (for the remaining 10.5 days of Christmas :)
> > and Happy Hannukah and, of course, a Happy New Year
>
> more exactly, חֲנֻכָּה - ḥănukkā, that may be rendered practicly as smth
> like Chanukah or Hanukkah or half a dozen other ways, but only with one N.
> Thank you for the greetings, and the same to you!
And a Happy Boxing Day, Kwanzaa, 2nd night of Hanukkah, 2nd day of
Chirstmas, 6th day of (Northern Hemisphere) Winter (according to Western
Astronomy), 12th day before Old-Style Eastern Orthodox Christmas, day after
Newtonmas, or whatever else you may be celebrating. :)
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:25:02 +0100
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Trigger/Focus - Once again
I've re-found an explanation about Tagalog's use of focus
just last evening, compared it to Ayeri, and noticed that I
must have understood this stuff correctly in fact (I had
doubts again recently and thus wanted to check.):
1) Dinala ng doktor ang elepante sa ospital.
Carried the doctor the elephant to the hospital
TRG:P [A] TRG LOC
=> The doctor carried THE ELEPHANT to the hospital.
=> THE ELEPHANT was carried to the hospital by the doctor.
2) Dinala ang doktor ng elepante sa ospital.
Carried the doctor the elephant to the hospital.
TRG:P TRG [A] LOC
=> The elephant carried THE DOCTOR to the hospital.
=> THE DOCTOR was carried to the hospital by the elephant.
3) Dinala ng ospital ang doktor sa elepante.
Carried the hospital the doctor to the elephant.
TRG:P [A] TRG LOC
=> The hospital carried THE DOCTOR to the elephant.
=> THE DOCTOR was carried to the elephant by the hospital
The description says that the 'affix in the verb'
(presumably 'na', because Tagalog does a lot of infixing)
determines that in the first sentence the doctor carries
the elephant. Accordingly, in the second sentence the
elephant carries the doctor and in the third sentence,
the hospital carries the doctor. We know this because
_ang_ means 'focus' (and also definite article), _ng_
is the 'non-focus' article that and the noun phrase is
called 'relational' ('ng' is also the indefinite article)
and _?-na-_ means 'focused argument = undergoer'. We know
that the noun following 'ng' *must* be the agent (doer),
because there's no other possiblity (that's why I put 'A'
in square brackets above).
It's really a pity, that the grammar these examples are from
(from that seasite.niu.edu page) does not use interlinears.
In Ayeri, we have in analogy* (lacking a word for 'elephant'
and to lazy to make one up):
1) Sira maniniy� caromay�ng elepanin mgsh. nangabanyaea.
Carried the doctor the elephant to the hospital
TRG:P A TRG LOC
=> The doctor carried THE ELEPHANT to the hospital.
=> THE ELEPHANT was carried to the hospital by the doctor.
2) Sira maniniy� caromayain elepanang mgsh. nangabanyaea.
Carried the doctor the elephant to the hospital.
TRG:P TRG A LOC
=> The elephant carried THE DOCTOR to the hospital.
=> THE DOCTOR was carried to the hospital by the elephant.
3) Sira maninar� nangabany�ng caromayain mgsh. elepanea
Carried the hospital the doctor to the elephant
TRG:P A TRG LOC
=> The hospital carried THE DOCTOR to the elephant.
=> THE DOCTOR was carried to the elephant by the hospital.
_-in_ does here what in Tag. 'ang' does. _-ang_ has no
equivalent and marks the doer of an action (if you want,
'ng' in the Tag. examples), _-ea_ does the same as 'sa'.
'ng' has no real equivalent, i.e. there is no morpheme for
'non-focus' in Ayeri. The word _sira_ has the function of
_?-na-_ in that it means 'focused argument = undergoer'.
Ayeri has special markers for indefinite nouns, though. So
while in the Tagalog examples, the nouns following 'ng'
should be kind of indefinite IIUC, mine are all definite.
In the examples above the patient (undergoer) has always
been focused, but in trigger systems, you can focus any
role. Thus, there is no typical subject as in nom/acc or
erg/abs languages (i.e. S/AGT resp. S/PAT). Because the
role of the focused participant is marked on the verb,
some see the focus system as verbal modes, i.e. as part
of the verbal morphology, while others see it as part of
the nominal morphology.
If I'm wrong, please correct me. Otherwise, save this for
newbies somewhere for a quick explanation ;-)
Cheers,
Carsten
*) Putting my translations into the same structure as the
Tagalog sentences at the beginning, you receive (assumed
that an infixed focus-role-marker is right):
1) Manisiraniy� ang caromaya in elepan ea mangasaha nangabanya.
2) Manisiraniy� in caromaya ang elepan ea mangasaha nangabanya.
3) Manisiranar� ang nangabanya in caromaya ea mangasaha elepan.
I know that Tag. 'ng' is pronounce /nAN/.
--
Keywords: trigger, focus
"Miranayam cepauar� naranoaris."
(Calvin nay Hobbes)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:16:35 +1100
From: Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Christmas/Holidays
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On 12/26/05, *Isaac Penzev* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> wrote:
>
> > Merry Christmas (for the remaining 10.5 days of Christmas :)
> > and Happy Hannukah and, of course, a Happy New Year
>
> more exactly, חֲנֻכָּה - ḥănukkā, that may be rendered practicly as smth
> like Chanukah or Hanukkah or half a dozen other ways, but only with
> one N.
> Thank you for the greetings, and the same to you!
>
>
> And a Happy Boxing Day, Kwanzaa, 2nd night of Hanukkah, 2nd day of
> Chirstmas, 6th day of (Northern Hemisphere) Winter (according to Western
> Astronomy), 12th day before Old-Style Eastern Orthodox Christmas, day
> after Newtonmas, or whatever else you may be celebrating. :)
I was of the understanding that starting Winter on the solstice was an
American thing, and that Europe (or at the very least the British and
Irish) considered it to begin at least at the start of December, if not
earlier---certainly in Australia, summer is considered to start on the
first of December and last to the last of Feburary (and the simple
inverse in the northern hemisphere: if anyone asked I would say the 3rd
of December was winter in America). After all, is not an old-fashioned
name for the summer solstice "Midsummer's day"?
(BTW: Today is actually the 27th of December---though it is the Boxing
Day public holiday ;)
--
Tristan.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 07:32:03 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Christmas/Holidays
On 12/27/05, Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I was of the understanding that starting Winter on the solstice was an
> American thing, and that Europe (or at the very least the British and
> Irish) considered it to begin at least at the start of December, if not
> earlier---certainly in Australia, summer is considered to start on the
> first of December and last to the last of Feburary (and the simple
> inverse in the northern hemisphere: if anyone asked I would say the 3rd
> of December was winter in America).
I specifically said "astronomy" for that reason. In the Western tradition
of astronomy, the seasons begin on the equinoxes and solstices; this is not
an American thing but one that predates the European settling of America.
Other traditions, including Eastern astronomy and Western non-astronomical
usage, have other definitions.
After all, is not an old-fashioned name for the summer solstice "Midsummer's
> day"?
Well, sure. But if you're using old-fashioned nomenclature, old Anglo
Saxon tradition recognized no season between summer and winter, either. :)
(BTW: Today is actually the 27th of December---though it is the Boxing
> Day public holiday ;)
My greeting was a little late for ye folks on the far side of the globe from
here, 'tis true. So how come your Boxing day on the 27th while the UK's is
on the 26th?
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:03:14 +1100
From: Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT: Re: Christmas/Holidays
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On 12/27/05, *Tristan McLeay* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
> I was of the understanding that starting Winter on the solstice was an
> American thing, and that Europe (or at the very least the British and
> Irish) considered it to begin at least at the start of December, if not
> earlier---certainly in Australia, summer is considered to start on the
> first of December and last to the last of Feburary (and the simple
> inverse in the northern hemisphere: if anyone asked I would say the 3rd
> of December was winter in America).
>
>
> I specifically said "astronomy" for that reason. In the Western
> tradition of astronomy, the seasons begin on the equinoxes and
> solstices; this is not an American thing but one that predates the
> European settling of America. Other traditions, including Eastern
> astronomy and Western non-astronomical usage, have other definitions.
Okay, I think. I'm still a little confused though, because such official
sources as the Australian Bureau of Meterology considers summer to begin
the same day the rest of Oz does, and I can't really see what astronomy
has to do with the seasons, what with them being weather things.
...
> (BTW: Today is actually the 27th of December---though it is the Boxing
> Day public holiday ;)
>
>
> My greeting was a little late for ye folks on the far side of the globe
> from here, 'tis true. So how come your Boxing day on the 27th while the
> UK's is on the 26th?
I specifically said "the Boxing Day public holiday" for that reason.
Boxing Day was the 26th (the day before yesterday by now). The 27th was
the Boxing Day public holiday, because the 26th couldn't've been,
because it was the Christmas Day public holiday, because Christmas Day
couldn't've been, because Christmas Day was on the weekend. (You do of
course need to days for Christmas: One for the wife's side and one for
the husband's; I have no idea how you Americans get by with only one.)
It probably becomes clearer when you consider New Years Day. New Years
Day next year is, obviously, 1 January 2006, but the New Years Day
public holiday is 2 January 2006, the day after. (I'm not entirely sure
why there's a New Years Day public holiday in the first place. Then
again, there's a (Melbourne) Cup Day public holiday---for a horse race.
Who really needs an excuse for a day off?)
Oh, perhaps I need to digress and explain what Christmas Day means in
Australia, because I think it means something different in America. In
America I think it's basically a religious festival that's significantly
more important than most, hence "Happy Holidays!". In Australia though,
Christmas is much more of a cultural holiday fulfilling much of the role
fulfilled by Thanksgiving in America: Going and seeing your family and
having a bbq and so forth (just with Santa and presents and the more
Chritianly-inclined also throw in nativity scenes and stars). Well,
Americans probably don't have a bbq for Thanksgiving, wrong time of year
and all that, and probably an American Christmas is still more the way
*I* think of Christmas than the Internet tries to lead me to believe.
But I hear Americans, _en masse_ not just a few weird isolated cases, do
things like go see a movie as a family on Christmas day. I'll be happy
to believe you if you tell me I've been fed Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
(End first digression.)
Basically the way it works is that public holidays can't happen on a
weekend (except, by definition, Easter Saturday in the states that have
it). Christmas Day, Easter Sunday and the morning (I think) of Good
Friday and Anzac Day (a war memorial day, held both in Australia and New
Zealand) are no-trade days, when basically shops over a certain size
cannot open. But if any public holiday falls on a non-working day,
including one that is also a no-trade day, then the gazetted public
holiday is the next working day. This means that Monday-to-Friday
workers always get all public holidays (barring Easter Saturday); on the
other hand, it means people who have to work on Easter Sunday and
Christmas Day if they fall on a weekend don't get public holiday rates
or a day in lieu or whatever benefit they would've got. Also from a
business perspective having the Xmas day public holiday and no-trade day
separated is not very good: I got paid 100% for hours I didn't work on
Sunday that I normally would've and then got paid 250% for the hours I
worked on the 26th and 27th.
(Actually, I can't remember if Easter Sunday is both a no-trade day and
a public holiday, or just a no-trade day. I think it varies between the
states and over time. If necessary, read "Easter Saturday and Sunday"
for "Easter Saturday".)
Anzac Day recently fell on the weekend: I think some states, arguing
that it was Anzac Day itself that was special and that it's an
international holiday so that we must have consistency. Of course, this
had never been the case before, and the default in both Australian
states and New Zealand is to have the the Monday following the public
holiday, so by not changing it, inconsistency was caused.
I expect most of the above holds true for the UK as well. In fact, I
would expect most of the above holds true for America and almost every
other country on earth that has public holidays.
(BTW: In spite of the fact that most of the days I've mentioned are
religious, there's no established churches in Australia and in fact the
Commonwealth (federal) Government is forbidden from doing that by the
Constitution. One of the few Bill-of-Rights-style constitutional
protections we have, because of the many Irish immigrants and convicts
in the pre-federated Australian colonies. "No!" says the Commonwealth
Attorney-General to his Victorian counterpart, "you mustn't bring in a
nasty charter of Rights & Freedoms, because it will strip Victorians of
their common-law rights that you overlook! Look, the Australian Capital
Territory has completely fallen apart since *they* brought one in, I
mean, they even dared *challenge* the federal government!" But I
digress. I never really did have any reason to criticise the government,
bless their souls, did I?)
--
Tristan.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 07:03:19 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Conlang flag in actual cloth - bulk order?
While I'm looking up price quotes and the like:
Anyone else want to buy a Conlangs flag?
As long as I'm going to be ordering some, I might as well offer to the
list (and the manufacturer) to do a bulk order. You'd pay whatever
your share of the total is, plus your shipping. Would help to bring
the price down for everyone.
If answer is contingent and cost, tell me what your price range is.
I'll probably be getting 'em in about 3'x5', suitable for hanging from
the top edge or the side on a pole, of single-sided polyester.
- Sai
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
