There are 10 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: can we hear X-Sampa?
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: Minza spelling reform
From: Keith Gaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: Minza spelling reform
From: John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: Minza spelling reform
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Minza spelling reform
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: project Beta: Numbers
From: John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: Minza spelling reform
From: John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. More Gwr sound changes
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:37:16 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
On 1/25/06, R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks - that's a tall order :P
I try.
> To be _fully_ 2D it must be at least a network, and something *that
> cannot be recomposed in linear form _without loss of meaning_*.
I think this is a pretty good summary.
With of course the clause that everything can be linearized (viz. all
digitization) with no actual loss of data; it's just that they loose
*comprehensibility*. (E.g. arrays -> lists still preserve their data,
but
> Secondly, there must be positive reason for using two dimensions. It
> should not be just linear stuff, recomposed, with a few extra 'fancy bits'.
>
> What, I think, we are attempting is to represent thought without having
> to process the thoughts through linear language. It is an attempt to
> represent thought(s) as, say, a 'thought-web'.
>
> > I ran into a similar problem a few days ago, when talking to a
> > linguistics prof about this - she got stuck on the idea that it was
> > 'non-temporal',
>
> I suppose time as we perceive is linear. But to say the thing is
> non-temporal is, I think, missing the point. Temporality is not what
> this about. We are creatures of time & and thoughts occur in time.
>
> > and kept overstating my position
>
> IME a common habit of those who disagree with one another :)
>
> > I think I left that conversation
> > with her still thoroughly convinced that what I was talking about was
> > completely impossible by everything she knew from linguistics and
> > cogpsych -
>
> Yes, an overstatement - to say something is _completely_ impossible is
> often rash. I don't know how realizable such a non-linear full-2d
> writing system is - perhaps it may prove impossible. But until we try we
> will not know.
>
> > and me with the impression that she didn't understand what
> > I was trying to describe.
>
> Probably a correct impression.
>
> > But then, Lakoff said the same thing when he gave me a F on my paper
> > about it. It'll probably be one of those nice things to frame and put
> > on my wall, once (if? nah, 'once') I succeed in making such a system.
> > :-P
>
> Yep - one must be positive.
>
> > Yahya -
> [snip]
> >>.......... And your latest posts on
> >>this topic are more concerned than ever with the
> >>idea of writing expressing a gestalt, with higher-
> >>level connections.
>
> Gestalt - yep, that's the sort of idea, I think.
>
> >> Sometimes I thinnk the ideal
> >>poem would be like that - a simple, integrated whole.
>
> Yep - that's the sort of thing!
>
> >>Indeed, I hadn't yet joined this list in May, so I
> >>had better follow Ray's advice and look up the
> >>original thread.
> >
> > No offense taken. Please do read those, and let us know what you think
> > about the idea once you have.
>
> Quite a bit of reading - but, yes, I too would be interested in what you
> think.
>
> > I (and others here most likely) could
> > use some more inspiration / ideas about how this could be done.
>
> Count me in as one of those others.
>
> > I'm currently a bit stuck on it - pending, as you say, the gestalt.
> > It's like poetry-writing for me; I can't really force myself to do it
> > is. And in this case, while I have a few ideas of how I want it to
> > work, and various angles at it, I don't have a good feeling of the
> > gestalt.
> >
> > I figure that once I do, the rest will come pretty quickly though.
>
> 'Tis a nice thought - let's hope it's true :)
>
> --
> Ray
> ==================================
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:37:43 -0800
From: Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)
(Grr mail problems.)
On 1/25/06, R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks - that's a tall order :P
I try.
> To be _fully_ 2D it must be at least a network, and something *that
> cannot be recomposed in linear form _without loss of meaning_*.
I think this is a pretty good summary.
With of course the clause that everything can be linearized (viz. all
digitization) with no actual loss of data; it's just that they loose
*comprehensibility*. (E.g. arrays -> lists still preserve their data,
but are not nearly as easy to read as a NxN grid.)
So perhaps, "without loss of comprehensible meaning"?
> Secondly, there must be positive reason for using two dimensions. It
> should not be just linear stuff, recomposed, with a few extra 'fancy bits'.
*nod*
> What, I think, we are attempting is to represent thought without having
> to process the thoughts through linear language. It is an attempt to
> represent thought(s) as, say, a 'thought-web'.
This point I would quibble about.
I think it is definitely a subpart of the larger problem, but it is
not equal. Expressing thoughts is only one purpose to which language
(including this one) can be put; the language / writing system itself
is a (ahem) content-free grammar.
The general purpose of language is to communicate, period. So it is a
dangerous exaggeration to say that all communications / writings in
this language need be of the scope and detail (and form) of
thought-representation.
Of course, that brings up the question of what you *are* trying to
communicate (if not the entirety of the thought, which would be rather
'tall order' indeed)... and how much you leave unstated under the
assumption that the reader can figure out, or already has, the
necessary extra info.
> > and kept overstating my position
>
> IME a common habit of those who disagree with one another :)
I try not to do it. It's irritating, and distracting. Makes me think
that someone is a bit too ego-scared, requires coddling and firmness
to get anywhere. A distraction.
> > I think I left that conversation
> > with her still thoroughly convinced that what I was talking about was
> > completely impossible by everything she knew from linguistics and
> > cogpsych -
>
> Yes, an overstatement - to say something is _completely_ impossible is
> often rash. I don't know how realizable such a non-linear full-2d
> writing system is - perhaps it may prove impossible. But until we try we
> will not know.
OK, that was an overstatement on *my* part. What she said more
precisely was that she believed firmly that it would not be
*practicable*, useful by normals, or useable even by specialists
except with great difficulty.
And expressed major ethical qualms over the idea of having it be
taught to a child (even one with access to common L1s as well).
- Sai
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:06:09 +0100
From: Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: can we hear X-Sampa?
Rodlox R wrote:
> if I may ask, are there yet any sites that allow us to
> hear the sounds of X-Sampa?
>>Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 03:58:51 +0100
>
>> > >One is: http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/ipa/full/
>
> that one still doesn't have an audible portion, sadly.
>
> thoughts?
It *has* "audible portions". All you need is to click on a
symbol in the chart. Of course, you should have an audio
player installed that is capable of WAV. Or was it MP3 or
AI? It works, however, but people have complained here that
some pronunciations aren't completely right.
Carsten
... from -3°C cold Korbach/Germany (Yesterday morning we
had -10°C, though.)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:36:48 +0000
From: Keith Gaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Minza spelling reform
Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> The most well-known use of g-wedge is as a device in transliterating
> Arabic, since the letter pronounced [dZ] in other places is pronounced
> [g] in Egyptian Arabic, so from that perspective g-wedhe for [G] is
> dead wrong. Semiticists and Indologists generally use g with a dot
> above
Which was also used in the old gaelic orthography to represent [G], I
might add.
K.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:46:15 +0200
From: John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Minza spelling reform
>Paul Bennett wrote:
> > Isn't there a g with a bar through the descender?
>
>Something like this, you mean?
>http://www.eki.ee/letter/chardata.cgi?search=g+with+stroke
>
>Also used only in Skolt Sámi, to the best of that database's knowledge.
>--
>Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skolt_Sami , the language uses
g-caron for /J\/ and g-stroke for /G/.
By the way, have a good look at what the wikipedia article says about the
phonology. Contrasting /c J\/ with /tS dZ/ is a first for me - and the vowel
system is simply batshit insane: there's EIGHT central vowels alone,
apparently all with contrastive lenght! And here I thought Germanic systems
were byzantine.
Also, what's the fixation on expressing /G/ as some variant of <g>? There's
plenty of other letters too. "Backed /j\/" is equally valid as a description
- I could imagine using something like y-circumflex or j-stroke. "Voiced
/x/" would work too, except I'm not sure if there are any diacritics that
convey voicedness. Then there's "unrounded /w/" - maybe with a macron... and
finally, at a stretch, "velar /R/": maybe r-acute...?
Yes, I know most of these aren't common symbols. I'm just brainstorming.
AFMCL - in uwjge, I have no palatals at all, so I simply assigned <j> for
[M\] / [G] (soft allophones of /g/).
John Vertical
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:06:45 +0200
From: Isaac Penzev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Minza spelling reform
Keith Gaughan jazdy:
> Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
>
> > Semiticists and Indologists generally use g with a dot
> > above
>
> Which was also used in the old gaelic orthography to represent [G], I
> might add.
I would vote for |g| G WITH DOT ABOVE, too. It seems pretty natural for me.
-- Yitzik
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:25:21 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Minza spelling reform
Quoting John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Paul Bennett wrote:
> > > Isn't there a g with a bar through the descender?
> >
> >Something like this, you mean?
> >http://www.eki.ee/letter/chardata.cgi?search=g+with+stroke
> >
> >Also used only in Skolt Sámi, to the best of that database's knowledge.
> >--
> >Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skolt_Sami , the language uses
> g-caron for /J\/ and g-stroke for /G/.
> By the way, have a good look at what the wikipedia article says about the
> phonology. Contrasting /c J\/ with /tS dZ/ is a first for me - and the vowel
> system is simply batshit insane: there's EIGHT central vowels alone,
> apparently all with contrastive lenght! And here I thought Germanic systems
> were byzantine.
English aside, what's so byzantine about Germanic vowel systems?
> Also, what's the fixation on expressing /G/ as some variant of <g>? There's
> plenty of other letters too. "Backed /j\/" is equally valid as a description
> - I could imagine using something like y-circumflex or j-stroke. "Voiced
> /x/" would work too, except I'm not sure if there are any diacritics that
> convey voicedness. Then there's "unrounded /w/" - maybe with a macron... and
> finally, at a stretch, "velar /R/": maybe r-acute...?
>
> Yes, I know most of these aren't common symbols. I'm just brainstorming.
>
> AFMCL - in uwjge, I have no palatals at all, so I simply assigned <j> for
> [M\] / [G] (soft allophones of /g/).
In my Kalini Sapak, /G/ is written |j|.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:55:37 +0200
From: John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: project Beta: Numbers
Jeff Jones wrote:
>For one of my new sketches, I've come up with a set of number words
>that can handle cardinals from 1 to 9999. Comments are encouraged.
>
>1. da
>2. sóci
>3. kóli
>4. scíri
>5. zóbi
>6. dazbi
>7. skózbi
>8. klizbi
>9. scirózbi
>10. zbíri
>11. zbirge dai
>12. zbirge sóci
> etc.
>20. sókrou zbíri
>21. sókrou zbirge dai
> etc.
>30. klírou zbíri
>40. scírou zbíri
>50. zóbrou zbíri
>60. dazbrou zbíri
> etc.
>100. zózbi
>
>6789 = dazbrou zbirge skózbrou zózboge klizbrou zbirge scirózbi
Very nicely translucent. Is there any meaning to the c<>k alternation or is
it purely decorative?
If I were you, I'd regularize the tens marker of 11-19 from -ge to -ou (it
seems like a fairly European thing in the first place), but that's just my
opinion there.
>I'm not sure I like it, looking at it a second time; too many z's.
>
>Jeff
Well, all the z's apparently stem from "zóbi". If there's some phoneme you
*can* stand in abundance, you could just change that there. Or am I missing
something?
John Vertical
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:07:36 +0200
From: John Vertical <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Minza spelling reform
Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > and the vowel
> > system is simply batshit insane: there's EIGHT central vowels alone,
> > apparently all with contrastive lenght! And here I thought Germanic
>systems
> > were byzantine.
>
>English aside, what's so byzantine about Germanic vowel systems?
Dutch and Danish also spring to mind as fairly complex, and most of the
others have at least in some dialects some fairly creative complications.
Standard Swedish and German I find comparatively simple, but they're still a
notch up from the "standard" /i e a o u/.
John Vertical
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:50:42 -0500
From: Roger Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: More Gwr sound changes
A revised (but still prelim) pdf has been uploaded to my site--
http://cinduworld.tripod.com/gwr_soundchange.pdf -- containing some new
introductory material (a bit of history/development), plus it now covers all
CVCV forms, initial/final stress. (final stress begins on p.10). As before,
comments welcome.
Am hard at work on the CVCVC forms, but it's causing extreme brain-pain
:-)))
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
