There are 18 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Going NOMAIL
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: Going NOMAIL
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Fwd: Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. Re: Attic months
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: Thoughts on Word building
From: Yahya Abdal-Aziz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. The Christmas Invasion
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: The Christmas Invasion
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: The Christmas Invasion
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: The Christmas Invasion
From: Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 17:03:33 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
On 1/2/06, John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First off, I confess that I not sure if you'll recognize "numeral" as a word
> for the class of "number words" (never seen it used in that way in English;
> only Finnish.) If it actually is something else instead, do tell.
I've never seen it used that way in English, either. But I don't know
of another English word for what you describe; I just call them
"number words". As far as I know, the English "numeral" is reserved
for non-word representations of numbers.
Which are therefore what I thought your mail was about when I saw the
subject ilne. I figured you were going to talk about different
numeral systems, like the Greek/Hebrew vs Roman style alphabetic-based
ones, the Arabic and Indic place-value systems with distinct glyphs,
etc. :)
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:45:18 +0000
From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
Mark J. Reed wrote at 2006-01-02 17:03:33 (-0500)
> On 1/2/06, John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > First off, I confess that I not sure if you'll recognize
> > "numeral" as a word for the class of "number words" (never seen
> > it used in that way in English; only Finnish.) If it actually is
> > something else instead, do tell.
>
> I've never seen it used that way in English, either. But I don't know
> of another English word for what you describe; I just call them
> "number words". As far as I know, the English "numeral" is reserved
> for non-word representations of numbers.
I _have_ seen it used that way in English, if not often. In old
grammars, mainly, particularly where "number" could be confused with
the grammatical category.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 20:07:47 -0500
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
John Vertical wrote:
> I've been thinking about numerals lately.... >
> .:DEFINITIONS:.
>
> First off, I confess that I not sure if you'll recognize "numeral" as a
> word
> for the class of "number words" (never seen it used in that way in
> English;
> only Finnish.)
I'm not totally sure what you're getting at here, but-- in Engl., I feel
that "numeral" refers mainly to the written form of the number, and it
sounds rather grade-school-ish at that: "All right, children, write down
the numeral "five"...." in which case it's simply a synomyn for "number" but
with rather limited usage. One does not hear, "There was a _numeral_ of
people at the party..."
I should mention that my knowledge of math (~theory) is quite limited.
> Does any
> language have ordinals as the unmarked series instead?
Don't know, but it seems somehow counter-intuitive.
>
> One could then split the class of numerals into "cardinal-derived" vs.
> "ordinal-derived" - maybe even contrasting other series purely by their
> roots. This is almost trivial to extend into mathematical series (half vs.
> halfth), but it might be possible to carry it over to grammatical series
> too
> - eg. contrasting the (cardinal-derived) word "trio" with an
> (ordinal-derived) word meaning maybe something along the lines of "third
> member of a trio".
IIRC Teoh's Ebisedi was obsessed with threes; I don't recall if it had such
a word, but I could see it happening.
>
>
> There are also often a handful of numbers which have an original name in
> addition to a derived one. Most of the ones I know have been used as units
> of measure (eg. Finnish "tiu" is a unit of 20 eggs), but are there others?
Perhaps these: Ml/Indonesian has a non-derived term for "-teen", belas;
almost all related langs. AFAIK use a combo of ten + unit. Javanese,
uniquely AFAIK, has a special term for 20. All other decades, there and in
AFAIK all related langs., use Unit + ten. A sub-family in Eastern Indo. has
special words for "10 ears of grain" and "10 pigs", unrelated to the word
for 10. Fijian has: vola 'war canoe', vola-vola '100 war canoes', and
possibly others of that ilk. (ObConlang: Kash does not yet have such things,
but ought to....archaic, however; their analogues for dozen/gross refer to
quantities of ten/hundred resp.)
> Eg. is the Latin prefix sesqui- really a *root* morpheme? If yes, I could
> imagine lexicalizing other simple fractions too, like 2/3 and 3/4.
Don't know of any, but it's a neat idea. Again, Malay/Indo. se/tengah
'half' derives from the word for 'middle' + a pfx. meaning 'one'. Kash has
angunjo [aN'gundZo] derived from kunjo 'to divide'
> Also I might add the golden [ratio]....
The golden is 8:5, right? derived from the Fibonacci series? Kash has that--
moyot nakuweyu "Nakuweyu pattern" named after the Gwr version of Mr.
Fibonacci who first formalized the concept, also called moyot maci < Gwr maq
dzi "ten five [octal]". But only because I once read a book on Fibonacci and
got fascinated by the whole idea; the Greeks and all that; also it's used
in some (rather far-out) stock-market analysis :-))
> and silver ratios (the latter is sqrt(2)) to uwjge...
Please explain more fully. WTF is "uwjge"???? (Is my math. ignorance
showing, or is that a typo of some sort..........:-)) )
Beyond that, the Kash have a word for "pi"-- onjiyur [on'dZijur] < om
'basis' + ciyur 'circle', called omi by mathematicians and symbolized with
the letter "m". We also have words for the basic geometric figures (no
solids yet, however), basically "side + (number)".
Was this at all on-topic? :-)))
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 20:28:48 -0500
From: Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:07:47 -0500, Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The golden [ratio] is 8:5, right? derived from the Fibonacci series?
Close to 8/5. As you rightly say, it's derived from the Fibonacci series,
being F_n/F_(n-1), so the higher the numbers used, the better the
approximation. IIRC, after about the 20th term it starts to get pretty
much invariable for day-to-day purposes, i.e. 1.6180339, give or take.
Also, for my money, "numeral" means a representation of a number that is
not spelled out in words. "7" is both a number and a numeral, whereas
"seven" is just a number.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 21:00:25 -0500
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Going NOMAIL
Sorryall.
I'm doing what i never thought i'd have to do.
I'm working now and just don't have enough time to read any significant
amount of all the Conlang mails that come to me. So i'm having to go
NOMAIL for a bit. I haven't really been participating much the last
few months, and now i've got a backlog of more than 3000 emails to get
through, so, it's been fun, hopefully it'll be fun again in the future.
You can still contact me at this email address, and i'm not leaving the
lower-density related lists yet.
Seeyall, and have fun!
Emze-aole elikuh-tub! (create well!)
-Stephen (Steg)
"You will begin to touch heaven, Jonathan, in the moment that
you touch perfect speed. And that isn't flying a thousand
miles an hour, or a million, or flying at the speed of light.
Because any number is a limit, and perfection doesn't have
limits. Perfect speed, my son, is being there."
~ _jonathan livingston seagull_ by richard bach
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 02:50:59 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
Hi!
Paul Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:07:47 -0500, Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The golden [ratio] is 8:5, right? derived from the Fibonacci series?
>
> Close to 8/5. As you rightly say, it's derived from the Fibonacci
> series, being F_n/F_(n-1), so the higher the numbers used, the better
> the approximation. IIRC, after about the 20th term it starts to get
> pretty much invariable for day-to-day purposes, i.e. 1.6180339, give
> or take.
And the exact value is computed by (sqrt(5)+1)/2 =
1.6180339887498948482045868343656381177203091798057628621354486227053...
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 21:11:24 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
On 1/2/06, Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not totally sure what you're getting at here, but-- in Engl., I feel
> that "numeral" refers mainly to the written form of the number, and it
> sounds rather grade-school-ish at that: "All right, children, write down
> the numeral "five"...." in which case it's simply a synomyn for "number" but
> with rather limited usage. One does not hear, "There was a _numeral_ of
> people at the party..."
IME, one distinguishes digits from numerals from numbers.
A "digit" is a single symbol representing a numeric quantity whose
value is dependent upon its location in a place-oriented
representational system. So 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 are all digits.
In hexadecimal, so are the letters A-F. The number "10" is not a
digit, nor is the Roman numeral "I", although it occupies a role in
the Roman numeral system similar to that of the digits in place-value
systems. The informatics term "bit" is a contraction of "binary
digit".
A "numeral" is a symbolic representation of a number, which may
comprise one or more digits or some non-digital mechanism.
0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9 are also numerals; for that matter, so are
10, 2006, MMDCCLIX, and ,βψπβ´.
A "number" is the most general term, used for both of the above
meanings as well as the basic concept of quantity itself.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 21:25:42 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
On 1/2/06, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And the exact value is computed by (sqrt(5)+1)/2 =
> 1.6180339887498948482045868343656381177203091798057628621354486227053...
Beat me to it. It is usually denoted ϕ, and it is exactly equal to
(√5 +1)
----------
2
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 04:27:02 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Going NOMAIL
Hi Steg!
Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> I'm doing what i never thought i'd have to do.
> I'm working now and just don't have enough time to read any
> significant amount of all the Conlang mails that come to me. So i'm
> having to go NOMAIL for a bit. I haven't really been participating
> much the last few months, and now i've got a backlog of more than 3000
> emails to get through, so, it's been fun, hopefully it'll be fun again
> in the future.
That's quite something!
Hope to see you back soon!
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 05:39:21 -0000
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
--- In [email protected], "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>IME, one distinguishes digits from numerals from numbers.
>A "digit" is a single symbol representing a numeric quantity whose
>value is dependent upon its location in a place-oriented
>representational system. So 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 are all
>digits.
That is what the AHD says. It doesn't include A-F, although I agree
that they would be numerals also. Senjecan has a vigesimal system,
so there would be 19 digits.
>A "numeral" is a symbolic representation of a number, which may
>comprise one or more digits or some non-digital mechanism.
AHD: "A symbol, such as a letter, figure, or word used alone or in a
group to denote a number." Letter: the Roman numerals, Greek
letters. Figure: 1, 2, 3, etc. Word: pi; would this include words
like "three"?
Charlie
http://wiki.frath.net/user:caeruleancentaur
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 04:36:36 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
On 1/3/06, caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Senjecan has a vigesimal system, so there would be 19 digits.
I believe you mean twenty. A base N system has N digits, which
represent either 0 through N-1 (as in the customary decimal system) or
1 through N.
> AHD: [definition of 'numeral'] "A symbol, such as a letter, figure, or word
> used alone or in a
> group to denote a number." Letter: the Roman numerals, Greek
> letters. Figure: 1, 2, 3, etc. Word: pi; would this include words
> like "three"?
My intuition and experience (same thing, I suppose) say no, but the
definition would seem to include it.
And "figure" is a good word I didn't include in my earlier list, but
I'm not sure of its precise meaning. Outside of set phrases (like a
"figure eight" in ice skating), the use of that word for digits and/or
numerals (not sure which) is quite unnatural in my 'lect. It sounds
archaic, but it could also be British - same thing, really. ;-) It's
in the same category as "nought" for the digit zero - as opposed to
"ought" with the same meaning, which is restricted in my personal
experience to use by Jethro Bodine and kin.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 11:37:18 +0000
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Attic months
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On 1/2/06, R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes - the Greek world generally seems to have used a lunisolar calendar
>>in which each month began with the new moon, as in Jewish & Muslim
>>calendars; and, like the Jewish calendar, a 13th lunar month was
>>intercalated at regular intervals to keep the calendar in line with the
>>solar year.
>
>
> Or at irregular ones, at any rate.
The earlier systems appear to have used an 8 year cycle of 99 lunations,
i.e. three years in the cycle had an extra intercalated month. But as
this is about a day and half out of sync with the solar year at the end
of the eight-year period, I guess there must have been ad hoc
arrangements from time to time to modify the intercalation to bring the
months back in line with the solar year.
> Based on what I've read so far,
> the Athenian calendar seems to have been administered in a somewhat ad
> hoc fashion during the classical period, despite Meton's work.
Yes, Meton's 19 year cycle was more accurate, but even his cycle was not
100% accurate (it is one day adrift after 219 years). In the 4th cent
BCE a guy called Kallipos sought to remedy the defects of the Metonic
cycle by using a cycle of 76 years. But even his system gets a day out
of sync after 553 years.
But while the Metonic cycle caught on (it is still used for the modern
Hebrew calendar and for determining Easter in both the Old and the New
style calendars), the Callipic cycle did not catch on. I guess a 76 year
cycle was felt just too long for practical use.
> While
> never quite as badly out of sync as the Roman calendar became before
> Julius's reform, there are several references with two dates, one
> "according to the gods" (based on the season) and the other "according
> to the archons" (based on the calendar).
The "according to the gods" is the traditional 12 or 13 lunation system
of the lunisolar calendar, "according to the archons' must surely refer
to the civil calendar brought in under Kleistenes in the 5th cent BC in
which the civil year consisted of 360 days, divided into ten 'prytanies'
of 36 days each. The councilors of each of 10 'tribes' took it in turns
to act as administrators during each prytany.
Kleisthenes attempted to keep the two systems in sync thus:
(a) the civil year began as close to the 1st Hekatombaion as possible.
(b) the lunisolar year had a 13th month in the 1st, 3rd & 6th years of
an eight-year cycle;
(c) the civil year had a cycle of five years, and intercalated an extra
prytany of 30 days within this period. The intercalation does not seem
to have been at a set point, but determined, it would seem, when the
start of the civil had moved too far from the 1st Hekatombaion.
A simple calculation (5 x 8) shows the civil & religious systems came
back together after 40 years. But even so, neither system was correct
(presumably when the Metonic cycle became normal for the lunisolar year,
the Athenian prytany system had fallen into disuse) - so I guess there
would always have been some ad hoc tinkering when things got noticeably
out of alignment.
As for the Romans - the intercalation was determined by the Pontifex
Maximus, and in the turmoil of the long period of civil wars which
followed the Punic Wars of the 3rd century BC (when the rich got richer
& the poor got even poorer), intercalation was often neglected (the
Pontifex no doubt more concerned at saving his own neck than worrying
about the calendar) or manipulated for purely political purposes
(changing dates of elections etc), so that when Gaius Julius Caesar
assumed control of the Empire and, among other things, was created
Pontifex Maximus, the calendar was in a complete mess.
>
>>>Any help reconstructing the native spelling would be appreciated.
>>
>>Done - see below:
>
>
> Wow! Not only the spellings, but the pronunciation and etymology.
> As the Athenians would no doubt say, you da andros!
>
>
>>>Hekatombaion (Cancer)
>>
>>As above, but the final 'o' is long: ἑκατομβαιών /hekatombaj.O:n/
>
>
> Wait, wait, what? In Greek, *short* O's are /o/ and *long* O's are
> /O/? My little Romance-centric brain tells me that's just . . .
> wrong. :)
Forget Romance - think Middle English :)
There is only one short 'o'; whether it tended towards [o] or [0] we
cannot tell, tho the fact that long o which developed in Greek itself
was [o:] as opposed to the inherited IE long o which was [0:]. It seems
that in the classical pronunciations, the mid vowels /e/ and /o/ had,as
in Middle English, _two_ long pronunciations, one high & the other low.
Before the Athenians adopted the Ionian alphabet, all three sounds were
denoted by the same letters E and O. After the adoption of the Ionian
alphabet, the sounds were written thus:
ε /e/; ει /e:/; η /E:/
ο /o/; ου /o:/; ω /O:/
Thinks: it might be better to represent the thing _phonemically_ thus:
ε /e/; ει /e_r:/; η /e_o:/
ο /o/; ου /o_r:/; ω /o_o:/
By the Hellenistic period, the long vowels had shifted upwards, so that
ει = /i:/ and was identical in sound with long ι, while η had become
/e:/; likewise, ου had become /u:/ and ω was just /o:/.
For a reasonable description of ancient Greek pronunciation, I suggest
Sidney Allen's "Vox Graeca", ISBN 0521335558 (paperback) or 0521040213
(hardcover). But better still IMO, if you read French, is Michel
Lejeune's "Phonétique historique du Mycénien et du Grec ancien", ISBN
2-252-03496-3
>>In modern Greek such nouns become masculines ending -ώνας
>
>
> And how is Zeta pronounced in modern Greek?
[z]
But the final letter of -ώνας is sigma [s].
>
>>>Mounichion (Aries)
>>
>>μουνιχιών /mo:nikhiO:n/ --> /mu:nikhiO:n/
>
>
>>But the Attic spelling with iota between the nu and khi, instead of the
>>expected upsilon, is odd.
>
>
> I did see it transliterated elsewhere with a |y| instead of an |i|
> there. Is there a hypothesis to explain the oddity?
Not that I know of.
> Many thanks!
You're welcome.
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 11:58:21 +0000
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Theory] Types of numerals
John Vertical wrote:
[snip]
>
> There are also often a handful of numbers which have an original name in
> addition to a derived one. Most of the ones I know have been used as
> units of measure (eg. Finnish "tiu" is a unit of 20 eggs), but are there
> others? Eg. is the Latin prefix sesqui- really a *root* morpheme? If
> yes,
No, it is not a root morpheme. In fact in Latin _sesqui_ or _sesque_
could be a separate word, but it is nearly always prefixed as sesqui-.
As the prefix means "more by one half". It almost certainly derives from
_semis que_ (and a half) thus: /se:miskwe/ --> */se:mskwe/ --> /se:skwe/
or /se:skwi/.
So we have, among others:
sesquidigitus = a digit and a half
sesquimensis = one & half months
sesquipes = one foot, six inches.
sesquiopera = one a half day's work
There was even a guy who got nicknamed 'Sesquiculus' "One a half
buttocks" - we are not told why!
But it developed an interesting use when prefixed to ordinals, cf.
sesquitertius = containing one and a third (four thirds)
sesquioctauus = containing one and one eighth.
etc
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 01:01:49 +1100
From: Yahya Abdal-Aziz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Word building
Hi!
Just catching up on my reading after a holiday ...
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Taka Tunu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why not consider that any root word is a potential, valid "derivational
affix"?
> See Chinese,Japanese, Khmer lexicons. Indonesian uses both a very small
set of
> affixes and loads of compounds. The so-called "power" of affixes is their
> fuzziness. For instance "invention" is either an process or a result.
Affixing
> and compounding are different in the sense that affixing requires making a
whole
> kind of lame second lexicon. With compounds, "Esthetics" may be more
evocative
> "beauty feeling", "beauty yearning", "beauty concept", etc.
>
> Other posts give lists of material. I have a list of 1450 Tunu concepts
that I
> made by criss-crossing the kanjis and the words I encountered most often
when
> translating languages. ...
I'd be very interested to see this list! As a person
who loves both language and philosophy, I find any
lexicon of root concepts worth study, even meditation ...
Can you provide me with a link to it?
Regards,
Yahya
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.11/219 - Release Date: 2/1/06
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:04:31 +0000
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The Christmas Invasion
The episode of Doctor Who shown at Christmas contained the first use of a
conlang for significant amounts of dialogue in the history of the
programme. Previously, the TARDIS' telepathic circuitry has always
translated whatever alien languages are encountered (apart from a few lines
of a Venusian lullaby, sung by the Doctor in "The Curse of Peladon", which
went to the tune of "God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen"). However, this time,
with the Doctor's regeneration failing, the circuit broke down, and Rose
found herself unable to understand the language of the Sycorax.
Fortunately, UNIT were able to program some sort of translator (it was
implied that this was based on alien technology). When Rose found herself
able to understand Sycoraxian, she realised that the Doctor had revived.
It would be interesting to track down a copy of the script and analyse the
Sycoraxian dialogue, but unfortunately it may take a while to do this -
I've tried contacting the BBC's Doctor Who website, but unfortunately they
aren't able to track down and transcribe the script. The scripts may be
published in book form later this year, though.
Pete
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:25:12 -0000
From: caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Christmas Invasion
--- In [email protected], Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>The episode of Doctor Who...
I always enjoyed that series!! I wonder if the episodes are on DVD
yet, or ever will be.
Charlie
http://wiki.frath.net/user:caerulean
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:48:42 +0000
From: Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Christmas Invasion
At 14:25 03/01/2006, you wrote:
>--- In [email protected], Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
> >The episode of Doctor Who...
>
>I always enjoyed that series!! I wonder if the episodes are on DVD
>yet, or ever will be.
The last series (with Christopher Eccleston as the Doctor) is available.
Pete
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 02:10:13 +1100
From: Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Christmas Invasion
caeruleancentaur wrote:
> --- In [email protected], Peter Bleackley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>The episode of Doctor Who...
>
>
> I always enjoyed that series!! I wonder if the episodes are on DVD
> yet, or ever will be.
Do you mean of Doctor Who generally, or the ones with the current
Doctor? Certainly the ABC Shop's website turns up a number of DVDs (the
ABC being the government-owned Australian Broadcasting Corporation, who
broadcast a lot of BBC stuff including Doctor Who) ... and for that
matter, Amazon.com does too.
I dunno if any of these are of the current series, but I would expect
they'll come eventually. (Actually, I thought to look at Wikipedia, and
get the following enlightening page:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_DVD_releases>.)
(Is it broadcast on tv in America? I understand a lot of great British
telly is hard to get over there---something about not finding a market
in nearly 300 million people. If there's market in 20 million, there
*must* be one in 300...)
I quite enjoyed the new season. The first time I heard the theme music
it sent shivers down my spine, remembering watching it mostly from
behind the couch in what I suppose was the late 1980s (and perhaps early
1990s). Haven't seen the Christmas special though: Forgot about it, and
the Wikipedia article on it doesn't even say if it's been broadcast in
Australia yet anyway.
--
Tristan.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
