There are 9 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Pesky diphthongs (was: OT coins and currency)
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: OT: Unicode 5.0
From: taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: OT: Unicode 5.0
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth - final colors?
From: taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: OT: Unicode 5.0
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: OT: Unicode 5.0
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: OT: Unicode 5.0
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: OT: Unicode 5.0
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Henrik
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:43:15 +0000
From: R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Pesky diphthongs (was: OT coins and currency)
Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>>On 1/9/06, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Back in the day, some Swedes used an English-inspired [j8\:ru], but that
>>>pronunciation, thankfully, seems to have died out.
>>
>>Yeah, thank goodness. The last thing you want is to sound like those
>>ignorant Anglophones. :)
>
>
> Indeed. :p
>
> Seriously, apart from the fact I personally find that pronunciation ugly, it's
> totally disconnected from how we pronounce related words like _Europa_,
> _eurocentrisk_, etc.
And also, being serious, we anglophones are not in fact being ignorant
in pronouncing |eu| as /ju/ [ju:]. It is historically a development of
earlier /ew/ just as modern Greek /ev/ ~ /ef/ is also a historic
development of earlier /ew/.
When the teaching of Greek was revived in England, the Byzantine
(essentially same as the modern) Greek pronunciation was used. But many
scholars in Europe realized that ancient Greek must have been pronounced
differently and there was a move to reform the pronunciation of ancient
Greek. This culminated in 1528 with Erasmus's "De recta Latini Graecique
sermonis pronuntiatate." The Cambridge scholars John Cheke and Thomas
Smith propagated the Erasmian pronunciation during the Tudor period. It
was recommended that Greek EY be pronounced as 'ew' in 'few', which at
that time was still /ew/.
A pronunciation similar to this is still used in "Welsh English" where,
for example, one hears 'few' [fIw], 'screw' [skIw] etc. But elsewhere in
the anglophone world the falling diphthong changed to a rising one /ew/
--> /ju/ (and in certain environments - which are not the same in all
English variants - the [j] onset may disappear).
The shift of a falling diphthong to a rising one is not unknown in other
languages. One obvious example is French |oi| which was originally [Oj]
but had shifted to [wE] by the end of the 13th century and is now [wa],
except when it is nasalized when it is still [wE~].
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:50:47 +0100
From: taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Unicode 5.0
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on 2006-01-10 01:54:44 +0100
> Probably the easiest way to design a useful standard is to get rid of
> the same entities. Due to accent marks, tones, etc., we have about 50
> "o" characters. If the accent mark was a separate "modifier"
> character, that could significantly reduce the number of characters
> and make it more ordered.
Ah, but erach letter needs up to three modifier characters then. Witness
Vietnamese.
t.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:51:00 +0100
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Unicode 5.0
On 1/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the accent mark was a separate "modifier" character,
But the accent mark *is* a separate "modifier" character, and Unicode
defines normalisation forms for "completely precomposed", "completely
decomposed", and two intermediate forms (the name and function of
which escapes me at the moment).
That is, the precomposed characters are, in nearly all cases, stored
*in addition* to the ability to compose them yourself.
The main reason, as I understand it, is for round-trip compatibility
with existing standards (so that you can convert, say, an ö to Latin-1
and back without having to worry about combining accents).
On 1/10/06, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's indeed nice. The usual digraph I'm using for [O] in Lower
> German is _ao_. People tend to read that as [ao] or [aU].
What about using _å_? As I understand it, that's its sound value in,
say, Walloon and whatever they speak on Guam (Chamorro?).
> And using
> _ô_ is unusual for German eyes and, therefore, not really intuitive.
Though _å_ suffers the same, perhaps.
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Watch the Reply-To!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:44:28 +0100
From: taliesin the storyteller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Conlang flag in actual cloth - final colors?
* Paul Bennett said on 2006-01-10 04:21:30 +0100
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:40:13 -0500, Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There's too
> much variation between displays and display adaptors without calibration
> to make Pantone much more effective than descriptions like "oh, no, a bit
> redder than that, and maybe with less grey in it".
There's also the difference in eyes :)
> That said, they look okay to me. I'd possibly prefer something closer to
> heraldic gold, maybe is something in the 107/108 range instead of 123,
> which seems a bit orange.
But the color is definitely more orange than yellow on the winning design.
> Why not straight-up, no messin' around,
> Pantone Black for the Black? It's the utter defintion of 100%
> pigmentation, as a Black should be, IMO.
There was one? Heh.
The original discussion took place in the last third of 2004. The purple
won out because someone thought black on red was too anarchistic
looking.
And...
Adrian Morgan, Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:44:39 +0930:
"Like the red, it's supposed to symbolise creativity - I justified this
on the grounds that colour psychologists tell us that purple (e.g. as
a paint colour on walls) inspires creativity. The main advantage over
the red is that a "more cheerful" colour was requested."
First talk of the tower of Babel:
Leland Paul, Sun, 5 Sep 2004 22:09:17 -0700:
"Against a purple sky, signifying creativity, an orange sun rises,
orange signifying energy, imagination, and communication. It sheds its
light over a dark, not-yet-seen world. Silhouetted against the sun is
the Tower of Babel, proclaiming the noble nature of the linguistic
diversity."
Color-discussion:
http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0409A&L=CONLANG&D=0&I=-3&P=41700
The fourth week of September saw the vote, which the flag we know won:
http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0409d&L=conlang#34
Here are some more size-variations:
http://www.cinga.ch/art/conflag/final/
t.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:19:50 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Unicode 5.0
Quoting Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 1/10/06, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's indeed nice. The usual digraph I'm using for [O] in Lower
> > German is _ao_. People tend to read that as [ao] or [aU].
>
> What about using _å_? As I understand it, that's its sound value in,
> say, Walloon and whatever they speak on Guam (Chamorro?).
In Swedish, were _å_ comes from, it's [O] or [o:].
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:35:59 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Unicode 5.0
On 1/10/06, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Swedish, where _å_ comes from, it's [O] or [o:].
RIght. 'Cause |o| represents [u]. What does |u| represent? :)
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:59:13 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Unicode 5.0
Hi!
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
> On 1/10/06, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's indeed nice. The usual digraph I'm using for [O] in Lower
> > German is _ao_. People tend to read that as [ao] or [aU].
>
> What about using _å_? As I understand it, that's its sound value in,
> say, Walloon and whatever they speak on Guam (Chamorro?).
>
> > And using
> > _ô_ is unusual for German eyes and, therefore, not really intuitive.
>
> Though _å_ suffers the same, perhaps.
Right, of course -- I've used that, too, yes. (It did not come to my
mind in my previous post, though). _ao_ ligature would be perfect,
because many people use _ao_ for Lower German now, I think, and making
it a ligature would only slightly change the appearance while
indicating a monophthong.
Indeed, _å_ will probably be pronounced correctly without further
explanations, at least I've heard many Germans mispronounce Swedish in
using [O] instead of [o], which shows that the character is at least
distinguished. :-)
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:02:45 +0100
From: Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Unicode 5.0
Hi!
"Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 1/10/06, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In Swedish, where _å_ comes from, it's [O] or [o:].
>
> RIght. 'Cause |o| represents [u]. What does |u| represent? :)
But sometimes, |o| is [o:], too, I think. It's polymorphic. :-)
(Or call it ambiguous.)
|u| represents [u\:] and maybe [8] IIRC.
**Henrik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:24:10 -0500
From: Larry Sulky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Henrik
Henrik, please reply to this test. --larry
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
