There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: YAESRT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
From: Tristan Alexander McLeay
1b. Re: YAESRT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
From: Philip Newton
1c. Re: YAESRT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
From: Philip Newton
1d. Re: YAESRT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
2. Re: Translation challenge: Fiat lingua
From: Paul Bennett
3a. Re: YAEPT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
From: Mark J. Reed
3b. Re: YAEPT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
From: daniel prohaska
4a. Re: Reinventing NATLANGs
From: Jim Henry
4b. Re: Reinventing NATLANGs
From: daniel prohaska
5. Fwd: Re: YAEPT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Speling
From: caeruleancentaur
6. Re: Invitation to new 'conlang' wiki
From: Jim Henry
7a. Re: Anti-telic?
From: Sally Caves
7b. Re: Anti-telic?
From: Eldin Raigmore
7c. Re: Anti-telic?
From: R A Brown
8. Carmina Burana (was help with medieval Latin)
From: Sally Caves
9. Re: medieval Latin translation help needed/ Re: Carmina Burana (was
From: Hanuman Zhang
10a. [p]>[m]?
From: Joseph B.
10b. Re: [p]>[m]?
From: Henrik Theiling
10c. Re: [p]>[m]?
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
10d. Re: [p]>[m]?
From: Steven Williams
11. (no subject)
From: Roger Mills
12a. Megdevi Book (was Re: What is it we are saying in our languages?)
From: David J. Peterson
12b. Re: Megdevi Book (was Re: What is it we are saying in our languages?
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
12c. Re: Megdevi Book (was Re: What is it we are saying in our languages?
From: Jim Henry
12d. Re: Megdevi Book (was Re: What is it we are saying in our languages?
From: Roger Mills
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: YAESRT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
Posted by: "Tristan Alexander McLeay" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:26 am (PDT)
(Yet another English spelling reform thread.)
On 11/07/06, Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In [email protected], daniel prohaska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Dalmátian Romanss and becám extinct when its lâst spéker Tuone
> Udaina díd in
> > a ród acsident in the 1890s.
>
> I must say I find this spelling rather easy to read, and less
> ugly to the eye than many others I've seen. "Díd" required a
> double-take, though.
I think Benct's got something similar going? Tho I think it looks more
Old English/Icelandic. (Or am I confusing him with someone else? In
which case I apologise to you both.)
I personally can't get over that spelling of "Romance". "Rómance"
should adequately indicate the pronunciation, particuly given
"Dalmátian" (but "Dalmácian" would be an improvement too). The many
values of "c" really doesn't strike me as the worst part of our
orthography. (Maybe it should even be "Rómânce", at least in some
places, too? I don't know if anyone says it that way, but some people
pronounce "dance" with the broad vowel.)
> Unfortunately, this reform wouldn't remove spelling mistakes.
> For example, Americans would have to guess whether it's "lâst"
> or "last", since this distinction is purely British.
And Australian, South African, Kiwi, NYC American, and New England
American. Probably others besides (tho I understand it's on its way
out in NYC and the American New England?). On the other hand, the
Scots and Irish would have as much trouble as your average
Californian.
(Still, given that probably every dialect with more than one low
unrounded vowel has a different distribution, it's my opinion that the
best solution to this problem is either to leave the spelling alone,
or to allow people to spell exactly the way the pronounce but using
the same spelling rules. And only one of them is practicalbut it's
still fun to create improved orthographies.)
>Also,
> you wrote "to some" as "tu sum", which is clearly not phonemic
> spelling...
The orthography already seems to be partially positional (e.g.
"Dalmátian"), but "tú sum" would've been more consitant. Maybe a
spelling error?
--
Tristan.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: YAESRT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:17 am (PDT)
On 7/11/06, Tristan Alexander McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The orthography already seems to be partially positional (e.g.
> "Dalmátian"), but "tú sum" would've been more consitant. Maybe a
> spelling error?
|ú| appears to encode /ju/, as witness the spelling |fú|.
Otherwise, it would seem a natural choice, yes.
(I presume that |á|, for general vowel values of "a", represents "the
sound that is the same as the name of that letter", hence /ju/ for |ú|
since that's the name of the letter "u".)
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: YAESRT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:24 am (PDT)
On 7/11/06, Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |ú| appears to encode /ju/, as witness the spelling |fú|.
and |ús|, where I would have expected |úz| (more context-dependency?
But for me, /ju:s/ and /ju:z/ are distinct, a minimal pair -- so how
to represent the first? |úss|?)
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: YAESRT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:45 pm (PDT)
Tristan Alexander McLeay skrev:
> (Yet another English spelling reform thread.)
>
> On 11/07/06, Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> --- In [email protected], daniel prohaska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Dalmátian Romanss and becám extinct when its lâst spéker Tuone
>> Udaina díd in
>> > a ród acsident in the 1890s.
>>
>> I must say I find this spelling rather easy to read, and less
>> ugly to the eye than many others I've seen. "Díd" required a
>> double-take, though.
>
>
> I think Benct's got something similar going? Tho I think it looks more
> Old English/Icelandic. (Or am I confusing him with someone else? In
> which case I apologise to you both.)
I do. See a rather unfinished sketch at
<http://wiki.frath.net/New_AngloSaxon_Spelling>.
I try to be panlectal by omitting some distinctions
like /&/~/A/. I'm considering also to omit the three-
way /V/~/U/~/u/ distinction since it has a low functional
load and varying lexical incidence in different lects,
with some missing the /V/~/U/ distinction entirely.
If I've understood things right the /V/~/U/ distinction
arose when EME /u:/ < ME /o:/ shortened in some contexts
and formed a new phoneme with the [U]/[u] allophone of /V/.
And yes, my system aims at looking Old English. That way
it at least doesn't look like a row of spelling mistakes
to my eyes.
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
a shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot
(Max Weinreich)
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. Re: Translation challenge: Fiat lingua
Posted by: "Paul Bennett" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:59 am (PDT)
Please reply on-list in defiance of the mangled Reply-To.
After some agonizing over the various forms this might take in my conlangs, I
have exercised a little executive fiat to homologate the most appropriate
Jiggoghiid translation:
ji!
/J\i/
Language!
I'm still procrastinating over the sound changes for Thagojian, but it will
probably be simply "language exist.inceptive.imperative" in the interlinear. I
might be able to dummy up a Br'ga version if I don't over-think it. The
interlinear will be something like "speak.NOMINA_ACTIONIS.SYSTEM.make.UNDERGO",
give or take the exact set of derivational suffixes available.
Paul
Messages in this topic (52)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: YAEPT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:10 am (PDT)
Hate it when I hit send before I'm done... time to say hello to my
quota ("Hi, Quota! How's the wife and kids?")
On 7/11/06, Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Unless you take the step of
> unifying /u/ and /U/, as argued e.g. in 7.1 of
> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/accents_spellingreform.htm . But
> then I'm not sure what cue signifies that |u| = /u or U/ rather than
> /V/.)
Indeed. Almost all, if not all, English speakers have distinct vowels
in "luck" and "Luke". Most have yet a third vowel in "look", but some
pronounce it the same way as either of the first two. So a partial
merger is possible, but you still need at least two symbols for the
vowels in those three words. Daniel's message seems to use the
spelling "u" for all three.
One may argue that e.g. "Luke" has a phonemic glide (phonetically
masked by the lateral onset), but while that is defensible in the case
of the words currently spelled with a <u..e>, it's not in the case of
the words spelled with an <oo>; nobody argues that the proper
pronunciation of "mood" is /mjud/ (although I suppose some folks
pronounce *all* the <oo> words with /U/, such that "mood" rhymes with
"good").
I definitely think you need at least two phonemic vowels (and
therefore two spellings) for this group of sounds.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: YAEPT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
Posted by: "daniel prohaska" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:00 pm (PDT)
Dér aul,
Ferst ov aul, thanks for luking intu my litl propósl. I didnt think it wud
spark eny interest. Further coments belo:
..................................
From: Christian Thalmann
--- In [email protected], daniel prohaska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Dalmátian Romanss and becám extinct when its lâst spéker Tuone Udaina díd
> in a ród acsident in the 1890s.
"I must say I find this spelling rather easy to read, and less ugly to the
eye than many others I've seen. "Díd" required a double-take, though."
Wud <dy> ~ <dýd> be beter in yor opinion?
.................................
Unfortunately, this reform wouldn't remove spelling mistakes. For example,
Americans would have to guess whether it's "lâst" or "last", since this
distinction is purely British.
No, ov corss not. Pépl wud stil hav tu lern tu spel corectly. It just
minimises a fú potencial problems.
The níss thing about the acsents and réjional pronunssiácion is, that the
acsent can be left of whár it is not néded. E.g. an American or Northern
Inglish spéler can rít <last>, whíl a Suthern Inglish, South African,
Austrálian etc. spéker cud rít <lâst>.
Nacional editions ov buks wud ónly hav difering acsents râther than diferent
leter combinácions.
.................................
Also, you wrote "to some" as "tu sum", which is clearly not phonemic
spelling..."
This is positional. <u> finally is /u:/ while in closed syllables its /U/
or /V/. I speak Northern Inglish so Iv got [U] for bóth /U/ and /V/ (and
thus no /V/ at all). Agen thár cud be the option ov distingwishing /U/ by
ríting <ü> (or the uther wa round).
-----------------------------------------
Philip Newton wrote:
However, the spelling "luking" for "looking" doesn't fit since here I, at
least, have not /u/ nor /V/ but /U/. (Unless you take the step of unifying
/u/ and /U/, as argued e.g. in 7.1 of
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/accents_spellingreform.htm . But then
I'm not sure what cue signifies that |u| = /u or U/ rather than /V/.)
Cheers,
So du I.
<u> finaly = /u:/
<u> in clósd sylables = /U/ or /V/
(<ü> is optional for /U/ if won (wun) wishes tu mák the distinction)
<û> = /u:/ non-final
<ú> = [ju:]
i.e.:
USE = <nu> new
BE = <nú> new
................................
---------------------------------------
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, but making /u/ and /V/ allophones of one phoneme makes no istinction
between a wide variety of pairs like "bub"/"boob", cut"/"coot",
"dud"/"dude", "FUD"/"food", "gun"/"goon", "hup"/"hoop",lust"/"loosed",
"mutt"/"moot", "knucks"/"nukes", "run"/"rune", "sup"/"soup", "tut"/"toot" .
. .
And it makes little sense to argue that [V] (or whatever) is sometimes its
own phoneme and other times an allophone of a different one...
Not tru. /u:/ is distinct from /U ~ V/ with and option to distingwish /U/
from /V/ as well.
...............................
---------------------------------------
Tristan rót:
I personally can't get over that spelling of "Romance". "Rómance" should
adequately indicate the pronunciation, particuly given "Dalmátian" (but
"Dalmácian" would be an improvement too).
<Romanss> wos a misták and shud hav bén <Rómanss>, <ss> becos fínal <-s>
indicáts voissd (unless in a voissd environment). Nót aulso that <-d> is
morfémic hér.
I agre about <Dalmácian>. Its a far beter speling. Thanks.
................................
The many values of "c" really doesn't strike me as the worst part of our
orthography. (Maybe it should even be "Rómânce", at least in some places,
too? I don't know if anyone says it that way, but some people pronounce
"dance" with the broad vowel.)
I wonted to du awá with majic-é. Henss, wurd-fínal <c> wud indicát /k/
râther than /s/.
dance with /&/ = <danss>
dance with /A:/ = <dânss>
péss oc cák!
[pi:s @v keIk] not [pEs @v k&k]
................................
(Still, given that probably every dialect with more than one low unrounded
vowel has a different distribution, it's my opinion that the best solution
to this problem is either to leave the spelling alone, or to allow people to
spell exactly the way the pronounce but using the same spelling rules. And
only one of them is practicalbut it's still fun to create improved
orthographies.)
Se my ídea with the úss ov acsents whár rejional voul distribution difers.
..................................
>Also,
> you wrote "to some" as "tu sum", which is clearly not phonemic
> spelling...
The orthography already seems to be partially positional (e.g.
"Dalmátian"), but "tú sum" would've been more consitant. Maybe a spelling
error?
No, <tú> wud indicát [tju:] râther than [tu:].
....................................
-------------------------------------------
On 7/11/06, Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Unless you take the step of
> unifying /u/ and /U/, as argued e.g. in 7.1 of
> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/wells/accents_spellingreform.htm . But
> then I'm not sure what cue signifies that |u| = /u or U/ rather than
> /V/.)
Mark J. Reed rót:
Indeed. Almost all, if not all, English speakers have distinct vowels in
"luck" and "Luke". Most have yet a third vowel in "look", but some pronounce
it the same way as either of the first two. So a partial merger is possible,
but you still need at least two symbols for the vowels in those three words.
Daniel's message seems to use the spelling "u" for all three.
I, personaly, merj /U/ and /V/, but tha can be kepd distinct if desírd, <ü>
and <u> respectively. /V/ dusnt ocur wurd-fínaly, so <u> can be úsd for
/u:/ whíl <ú> signifýs [ju:].
................
---------------------------------
On 7/11/06, Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |ú| appears to encode /ju/, as witness the spelling |fú|.
and |ús|, where I would have expected |úz| (more context-dependency? But
for me, /ju:s/ and /ju:z/ are distinct, a minimal pair -- so how to
represent the first? |úss|?)
Cheers,
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----------------------------------------
Yess, Im stil not quít shor (shûr) about this. Thár is a cáss for
distingwishing betwén a lexical [z] in a stem lík /ju:z/ from the morfémic
plûral/3rd sg/genitiv {s} ~ {z}. I.e. I cud rít <úz> vs. <ús>. But for
consistencys sák Iv opted for <ús> vs. <úss>. I dónt think its ídéal
íther (éther), but it cânt (cant) be helpd.
Won further nótiss: this speling system is not intended tu be 100% fonémic,
as U can se, just a litl mor consistent than tradicional speling is tudá.
Thanks for lissning,
Dan
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Reinventing NATLANGs
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:31 am (PDT)
On 7/7/06, Damien Perrotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for Esperanto, I suppose many conlangers toyed with it (I did) but I
> am unsure about how many can actually use it (I can't). From a
> conlanging point of view, Esperanto is rather dull. Nobody knows for
Esperanto is one of those languages whose true spiffiness doesn't
become apparent until you have learned enough to attain some
little fluency, and see how people are actually using it. The contrast
between the apparently tame and conventional descriptions of the
language and the way it's used in practice is something that makes
it far from dull, even from a conlanging point of view.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.esperanto-atlanta.org
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Reinventing NATLANGs
Posted by: "daniel prohaska" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:59 pm (PDT)
Some terminology:
- Hochdeutsch = Standard Written German;
- Plattdeutsch = Northern and north-Central German dialects that
havent or have only partially undergone the 2nd German consonant shift; A
more official designation <Niederdeutsch> is used as well.
- Oberdeutsch: the collection of dialects, or the dialect continuum
that has completely or for the most part undergone the 2nd German consonant
shift: Allemannic (Allemannisch, Schwäbisch), Bavarian
(Bairisch-Österreichisch), Upper Franconian (Oberfränkisch); moribund:
Cimbrian (Zimbrisch), Gottschee-Carinthian;
- Mitteldeutsch: The central belt of dialects that have partially
undergone the 2nd German consonant shift: Palatinate (Pfälzisch), Hessian
(Hessisch), Rhine-Franconian (Rheinfränkisch), Moselle-Franconian
(Moselfränkisch), Saxon (Sächsisch), Thuringian (Thüringisch), moribund:
Silesian (Schlesisch), Upper East Prussian (Hochpreußisch);
- Niederdeutsch: Northern German dialects that havent or have only
partially undergone the 2nd German consonant shift: East Frisian Low Saxon
(Ostfriesisch), Northern Low Saxon (Nordniedersächsisch), Eastfalian
(Ostfälisch), Westfalian (Westfälisch), Brandenburgian (Brandenburgisch),
Mecklenburgian (Mecklenburgisch), Pommeranian (Pommersch), (Alt-Ostelbisch);
moribund: Niederpreußisch;
----------------------------------
Althochdeutsch = Old High German
Mittelhochdeutsch = Middle High German
Neuhochdeutsch = Modern High German (Standard German)
Altsächsisch = Old Saxon
Mittelniederdeutsch = Middle Low German (language of the Hanse)
Neuniederdeutsch = Modern Low German dialects
Dan
From: Wesley Parish
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:33, Carsten Becker wrote:
> From: "Michael Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 10:39 PM
>
> > Body of literature helps, as seen by Martin Luthers
> > translating
> > the Bible into HochDeutsch, and then with Gutebburgs
> > printers help, spread it around..
>
> Misconcepton here: Luther didn't translate the bible into
> _Hochdeutsch_ but into German in general -- he took features
> from a number of dialects (as far as I know, don't quote me
> on that!) and created some kind of "normalized" German. The
> problem is that the German speaking area is a continuum of
> dialects more or less mutually intelligible, in Luther's
> times this was even more the case than today, though, where
> we have regiolects rather than local dialects due to the
> omnipresence of _Hochdeutsch_. The actually correct term for
> what is commonly known as 'Hochdeutsch' should be
> _Standarddeutsch_, since historically, 'Hochdeutsch' refers
> to the Upper German dialects such as the Bavarian, Frankish
> and Allemanic. Having lived in Saxony and Thuringia, Luther
Saxony - wouldn't that be the kingdom now comprising most of the federal
state
of Saxony-Anhalt? Thuringia was - to some degree, if I understand the
history of German dialects properly - where Plattduutsch was spoken. That
was on the east side of Ostphalia and bordered on Bohemia?
> thus spoke neither a Lower German nor Upper German dialect
> (which are not mutually intelligible!) but a Middle German
> one, and Middle German is -- well -- a 'middle' thing. As
Mittelhochdeutsch was the language I was taught in High School. So it would
be a "Standarddeutsch" with a predominance of "Hochdeutsch" features? If it
had been the other way around, I expect it would've been named
"Mittelplattdeutsch" - which would be the standardized form of the languages
spoken from Lower Saxony to Gronigen.
> for Luther and Hochdeutsch -- by his translation of the
> Bible into German, he levelled the way for what later
> emerged into the current standard. Even in Goethe's and
> Schiller's time, there was no Standard Language, but the
> so-called _Bühnensprache_ (stage language) caught on more
> and more as well outside of theatres.
Courtesy of Goethe and Schiller, no doubt. Like Shakespeare's language
became
the basis for written English, along with the language of the Bible
translation authorized by King James for use in churches.
>
> Carsten
>
> And the guy with the types is known as _Johannes Gutenberg_
> /jo.'[EMAIL PROTECTED] 'gu:tn=.bE6k/.
>
> --
> "Miranayam kepauarà naranoaris." (Kalvin nay Hobbes)
> Pinena, Rayam 20, 2315 ya 06:43:33 pd
--
Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
-------------
Mau ki ana, he aha te mea nui?
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku ki ana, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5. Fwd: Re: YAEPT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Speling
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:40 am (PDT)
>"Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...nobody argues that the proper pronunciation of "mood" is /mjud/
>(although I suppose some folks pronounce *all* the <oo> words
>with /U/, such that "mood" rhymes with "good").
Are you palatalizing the "m"? Are you saying that <mood> /mjud/
rhymes with <cued> /kjud/? If so, then I would argue. I pronounce
the word /mud/.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6. Re: Invitation to new 'conlang' wiki
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:55 am (PDT)
On 7/10/06, Herman Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Paul Bennett <[log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Invitation to new 'conlang' wiki
> >I'd suggest that someone or ones with a stern hand but a fair eye go
> >over the extant conlang Wikis, and combine them into a single, slightly
> >more de-jure, source. I suspect it would be a legthy as well as
> >difficult task, though. I suggest instead that we hold some kind of
> >referendum to determine our preferred Wiki (or indeed whether a unified
> >Wiki is desirable), and each take responsibility to move our own
> >content to a unified new home, if needed.
> >
> >Alternatively, the process could probably be automated with wget,
> >expect, and perl, though that might be a nightmare to actually
> >implement.
>
> Any Wiki that accepts Unicode characters (particularly IPA) would be
> acceptable. Some of the Wikis I've seen didn't handle Unicode characters
> properly or at all in the past. They may have improved since then. But
> ASCII is such a severe limitation for language-related pages.
The Conlang Wikia ( http://conlang.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page )
is also run on MediaWiki, so I reckon it should handle Unicode -
though I am not sure. It hosts a list of derivational methods and a
list of self-segregating morphology methods, along with information
on a number of specific conlangs (including, especially, conlang
articles that got deleted from Wikipedia).
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. Re: Anti-telic?
Posted by: "Sally Caves" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:16 am (PDT)
Perhaps the language in question would set its sites (sights?) a little
lower, and have something continue, like a machine, long after one was dead.
But that is already be covered by the atelic. The eternal nature of God
might suit the anti-telic, which would be used for spiritual purposes. In
such a culture, though, perhaps God is seen as continuing within time. The
"timelessness" of God is a Christian concept. Maybe these people have a
different theology.
Sally
----- Original Message -----
From: "R A Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: Anti-telic?
> Sai Emrys wrote:
>> I'm re-re-watching Pearson's talk, and wonder... there's telic, and
>> atelic... is there an anti-telic?
>>
>> This would be a verb that not just doesn't have a *necessary*
>> endpoint, or *can* continue indefinitely, but *must* continue
>> indefinitely. (Aspect would also be a bit weird with it.)
>
> But can _anything_ continue indefinitely in a temporal universe?
>
> Even the universe itself will end, according to some, in the the 'Big
> Crunch'; tho according to others it just goes on, and on, and on... In
> which case, a verb describing an ever enduring universe might qualify for
> 'anti-telic'. But what else?
>
> When we come to concepts of the eternity of God, of the soul etc, we are,
> as I understand it, dealing with the concept of *timelessness*, in which
> case the telic/atelic business is irrelevant.
>
>>
>> Any natlang or conlang examples of this?
>
> Indeed. I cannot see that it is possible.
>
>> (This relates to another thing mentioned by John Q quoting me at the
>> talk, about having a verb tense that denotes some sort of cyclical
>> tense - e.g. it happened in the past and will happen in the future,
>> but isn't happening right now.)
>
> Sort of like Vesuvius erupting or Yellowstone Park blowing itself apart?
> Interesting idea - but altho natlangs show interesting variety in the way
> they organize tenses, I don't know any examples of a "once did & will do
> again" tense.
>
> --
> Ray
> ==================================
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
> wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
> "A mind that thinks at its own expense
> will always interfere with language".
> J.G. Hamann, 1760
>
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
7b. Re: Anti-telic?
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:04 am (PDT)
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:58:51 +0100, And Rosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>'Anti-telic' sounds very much like 'eternal', which could obviously be
>used for 'platonic' statements like "2+2=4" or "a square has four sides",
>but could conceivably be used for things like "I am/was born in 1967"
>or "I am father of Edwin", both of which statements arguably will be true
>forever and slighly more arguably have been true forever.
How are those remarks related to the term "gnomic" and its meaning?
"Gnomic" applies to general background knowledge that the speaker knows,
and thinks many people know, and thinks the addressee _should_ know -- at
least from the moment of speaking onward. So the gnomic clause, in the
speaker's opinion, has been true for a long time (if not necessarily
forever) and will remain true for a long time (if not necessarily forever) -
- probably for the speaker's and addressee's entire lifetimes.
>Or, more
>poetrically, "X and Y are soulmates". Or statements about other
>worlds: "Sherlock Holmes is a detective". Or even "Achilles kills Hector"
>(with tense in our world, not the Iliad's).
>
>I'm sure(ish) I've read somewhere of an 'eternal' tense/aspect in some
>natlang, but Comrie's _Tense_ and _Aspect_ do not list 'eternal' in the
>index.
"Aorist" comes from words meaning "without boundary" or "without horizon".
Usually we see "aoristIC" used to mean "perfectIVE"; but aren't gnomic
clauses often aorist or aoristic? The Wikipedia article lists three "gnomic
tenses"; "gnomic present", "gnomic future", and "gnomic aorist". (Which
means they think "aorist" is a "tense", whereas "aoristIC" is an "aspect".)
>>Sai Emrys wrote:
>>>On 7/11/06, R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>But can _anything_ continue indefinitely in a temporal universe?
>>>Hey mon, that's your belief system.
>
>(1) Even in a worldview in which time is bounded, 'eternal' could be
>defined as 'coextensive with all time'.
Good point.
>(2) We can easily conceive of the eternal, so there is no reason why a
>human language (whether con or nat) cannot have a tense/aspect for it.
If they don't often speak of it, they are unlikely to _grammaticalize_ it;
there is unlikely to be _morphology_ for it unless either they speak of it
often, or the morphology for it is an "accidental side effect" (so to
speak) of combining morphologies for other tenses and/or aspects of which
they _do_ often speak.
Do most peoples frequently speak of the eternal? Have most peoples
frequently spoken of the eternal?
>--And.
------
Thanks,
eldin
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
7c. Re: Anti-telic?
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:19 pm (PDT)
Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
>>And even 'big crunch' ways, AFAIK it's just that we have no way to
>>know what'd happen afterwards (ditto pre-'big bang'). Might be
>>cyclical on a grand scale.
>
> I'll just add that in orthodox theory, there *is* no before the big
bang, and
> similarly no after the big crunch. Time itself starts and ends in
these points.
That is my understanding of the theory also. But I have heard
speculations like Sai's as well. But, as I have already written, even
the 'cyclic on the grand scale' still limits time and space in _our_
universe to one cycle.
================================
Eldin Raigmore wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:58:51 +0100, And Rosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>'Anti-telic' sounds very much like 'eternal',
It does, doesn't it? Which was the point I was asking about. Tho my
_question_ was strangely interpreted as my foisting my belief system
onto a grammar. Bizarre.
>>which could obviously be
>>used for 'platonic' statements like "2+2=4" or "a square has four sides",
Tho strictly that assumes a Platonic view of reality_ :)
>>but could conceivably be used for things like "I am/was born in 1967"
>>or "I am father of Edwin", both of which statements arguably will be true
>>forever and slighly more arguably have been true forever.
>
> How are those remarks related to the term "gnomic" and its meaning?
Good question! "I was born in 1967" arguably remains true while the
earth lasts. In a sense, I guess, it would remain true even if the sun
becomes a red giant and swallows up the earth.
> "Gnomic" applies to general background knowledge that the speaker knows,
Gnomic:
"Denoting an aspectual form expressing a general or universal truth."
[Trask]
But telic and atelic is about _goals_, that's what the words mean (Gr.
telos = goal). I assumed that by introducing a third term 'anti-telic'
Sai was suggesting an action/event/circumstance that could specifically
have no goal that would ever bring it to a conclusion. But what has "
expressing a general or universal truth" got to do with the presence or
absence of a goal?
I'm confused.
We have aspectual labels 'telic', 'atelic' & we have 'gnomic'. So what
is exactly is 'anti-telic'? (NB - a genuine question!)
[snip]
>
>
>>Or, more
>>poetrically, "X and Y are soulmates". Or statements about other
>>worlds: "Sherlock Holmes is a detective". Or even "Achilles kills Hector"
>>(with tense in our world, not the Iliad's).
The last example is surely the narrative use of the present, as tho the
action is happening before the listener's eyes, so to speak. It's
ancient and found in many (all?) cultures. It does not seem to me
relevant to this argument, especially as 'killing' must be telic :)
>>I'm sure(ish) I've read somewhere of an 'eternal' tense/aspect in some
>>natlang, but Comrie's _Tense_ and _Aspect_ do not list 'eternal' in the
>>index.
Of 'gnomic' Trask writes: "Very few languages seem to have a distinctive
form exclusively for expressing gnomic aspect; most often, as in
English, the morphologically simplest form of verbs and sentences are used."
It does imply that a few languages may have specifically gnomic forms.
But did Sai mean simply 'gnomic' when he said 'anti-telic'? I do not
know. If he did, then I've been "boxing shadows" again ;)
>
> "Aorist" comes from words meaning "without boundary" or "without horizon".
> Usually we see "aoristIC" used to mean "perfectIVE"; but aren't gnomic
> clauses often aorist or aoristic? The Wikipedia article lists three "gnomic
> tenses"; "gnomic present", "gnomic future", and "gnomic aorist". (Which
> means they think "aorist" is a "tense", whereas "aoristIC" is an "aspect".)
Yes, "aorist" is a confusing term and I agree with Comrie that in
linguistic discussion it is best avoided. "Aorist(ic)" does mean
'perfective' _aspect_ when we are speaking of the aorist subjunctive of
modern & ancient Greek, and of the aorist optative, aorist imperative,
aorist infinitive & aorist participle of ancient Greek. But when we
speak of the 'aorist indicative tense' of Greek (ancient or modern) we
mean the past perfective tense.
When 'aorist' is used in the description of any other language it
appears to mean just about any verbal feature the describer chooses!
In ancient Greek, the most common tense used for gnomic statements was
the present indicative. But the aorist indicative was also used - known
as the 'gnomic aorist' - but is normally translated into a simple
English present. There are some rare instances of the perfect indicative
(perfect aspect, present time) being used gnomically. I am not sure
where the Wikipedia writer got the 'future' from; I am not aware of the
future indicative being used this way in Greek.
[snip]
>>(1) Even in a worldview in which time is bounded, 'eternal' could be
>>defined as 'coextensive with all time'.
>
> Good point.
It could be, but that is not the way it is understood in some
philosophic and religious systems. But 'anti-telic', as I understand it,
would only be appropriate if "all time" is limitless, i.e. goes on for
ever, and ever, and ever .........
But even if 'eternal' is so defined as 'coextensive with all time', then
we would still need another term to define the notion of 'not bound by
space or time' even if one thought that such a notion was nonsense. If
the second meaning is "not allowed" then some one is foisting their view
point onto the semantics of a language.
>
>>(2) We can easily conceive of the eternal, so there is no reason why a
>>human language (whether con or nat) cannot have a tense/aspect for it.
But what is meant by 'eternal'? If we mean 'gnomic' then it would seem
that a few natlangs (and probably conlangs) do have such forms, but it
is not common.
> If they don't often speak of it, they are unlikely to _grammaticalize_ it;
> there is unlikely to be _morphology_ for it unless either they speak of it
> often, or the morphology for it is an "accidental side effect" (so to
> speak) of combining morphologies for other tenses and/or aspects of which
> they _do_ often speak.
Quite so.
> Do most peoples frequently speak of the eternal? Have most peoples
> frequently spoken of the eternal?
No.
Come to that, how many languages actually mark telicity? I read that
Finnish does in that the object is accusative if the verb is telic and
partitive if it is atelic. I do not know how true this is; but if
Finnish does mark telecity, has it ever felt felt the need for
'anti-telic' verbs?
What about other natlangs that mark telicity?
--
Ray
==================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".
J.G. Hamann, 1760
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8. Carmina Burana (was help with medieval Latin)
Posted by: "Sally Caves" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:20 am (PDT)
I love Carl Orff's musical rendition of these poems. My favorite one is
about the forlorn swan ("Olim lacus colueram!) once beautiful, who has been
killed and cooked, served by the dapifer, and who now approaches the
gnashing teeth. Oh where is my LP? With all the lyrics?
The collection combines sin and love (stetit puella!) in the most exquisite
way, and medieval German and Latin.
Sally
----- Original Message -----
From: "R A Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 3:04 AM
Subject: Re: medieval Latin translation help needed
> Hanuman Zhang wrote:
>> I would like to know if any one can/would have a translation of the
>> following:
>
> OK
>
>> O Fortuna
> O Fate,
>
>> velut luna
> like the moon
>
>> statu variabilis,
> changeable in state,
>
>> semper crescis
> you are always waxing
>
>> aut decrescis;
> and waning;
>
>> vita detestabilis
> hateful life
>
>> nunc obdurat
> is at one moment hard
>
>> et tunc curat
> and the next moment watches over
>
>> ludo mentis aciem,
> the mind's sharpness in gambling;
>
>> egestatem,
> poverty [direct object]
>
>> potestatem
> (and) power [DO}
>
>> dissolvit ut glaciem.
> it melts like ice.
>
>> Sors immanis
> Luck, monstrous
>> et inanis,
> and empty,
>
>> rota tu volubilis,
> you whirling wheel,
>
>> status malus,
> evil state,
>
>> vana salus
> vain salvation
>
>> semper dissolubilis,
> (which is) always dissolvable,
>
>> obumbrata
> overshadowed
>
>> et velata
> and veiled
>
>> michi quoque niteris;
> you harass me also;
>
>> nunc per ludum
> now because of gambling
>
>> dorsum nudum
> (my) naked back [direct object]
>
>> fero tui sceleris.
> I bring to your villainy.
>
>
>> Sors salutis
> The luck of heath
>
>> et virtutis
> and of strength
>
>> michi nunc contraria,
> (which is) now against me,
>
>> est affectus
> is troubled
>> et defectus
> and ruined
>
>> semper in angaria.
> always in (your) service.
>
> [The poet now address his listeners - 2nd pers. plural]
>> Hac in hora
> In this hour
>
>> sine mora
> without delay
>
>> corde pulsum tangite;
> strike the strumming of the string;
>
>> quod per sortem
> for that which by chance
>
>> sternit fortem,
> lays a strong man low,
>
>> mecum omnes plangite!
> you all weep with me!
>
>>
>> - "CARMINA BURANA 1. FORTUNA IMPERATRIX MUNDI"
>
> FATE/LUCK EMPRESS OF THE WORLD
>
> --
> Ray
> ==================================
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
> wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
> "A mind that thinks at its own expense
> will always interfere with language".
> J.G. Hamann, 1760
>
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
9. Re: medieval Latin translation help needed/ Re: Carmina Burana (was
Posted by: "Hanuman Zhang" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:15 am (PDT)
on 7/11/06 5:33 AM, caeruleancentaur at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Hanuman Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I would like to know if any one can/would have a translation of the
>> following:
>
>> O Fortuna
>> velut luna
>> statu variabilis,....
>
>> - "CARMINA BURANA 1. FORTUNA IMPERATRIX MUNDI"
>> by Carl Orff
>
> Carl Orff did not write the "Carmina Burana." He wrote a musical
> setting for a selection of some 200 songs from a 13th century
> codex. [...]
on 7/11/06 5:59 AM, Mark J. Reed at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> MUSIC by Carl Orff, lyrics not so much. [...]
Thanx you two, too. I knew that. I was just over-simplifying the
"reference."
---------------------------
on 7/11/06 7:47 AM, Sally Caves at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I love Carl Orff's musical rendition of these poems. My favorite one is
> about the forlorn swan ("Olim lacus colueram!) once beautiful, who has been
> killed and cooked, served by the dapifer, and who now approaches the
> gnashing teeth. Oh where is my LP? With all the lyrics?
>
> The collection combines sin and love (stetit puella!) in the most exquisite
> way, and medieval German and Latin.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't most of these texts/songs/poems by
defrocked monks & nuns?
--
Hanuman Zhang
What a b what a b what a beauty
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a b what a b what a beauty
What a b what a b what a a
What a beauty beauty be
What a beauty beauty be
What a beauty beauty beauty be be be
What a be what a b what a beauty
What a b what a b what a a
What a be be be be be
What a be be be be be
What a be be be be be be be a beauty be be be
What a beauty.
- Kurt Schwitters
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
10a. [p]>[m]?
Posted by: "Joseph B." [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:04 am (PDT)
Given a pre-bronze people whose L1 contains [m] as the only bilabial but is
rich in aspirated & non-aspirated dentals, velars, and uvulars: how would
they most likely hear and reproduce initial [p] & [p_h] and terminal [p_}]
on first encountering a foreign language with all 3? Would [p] & [p_h]
collapse to [m]? and [p_}] to [?]?
Thanks
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
10b. Re: [p]>[m]?
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:42 am (PDT)
Hi!
Joseph B. writes:
> Given a pre-bronze people whose L1 contains [m] as the only bilabial but is
> rich in aspirated & non-aspirated dentals, velars, and uvulars: how would
> they most likely hear and reproduce initial [p] & [p_h] and terminal [p_}]
> on first encountering a foreign language with all 3? Would [p] & [p_h]
> collapse to [m]? and [p_}] to [?]?
I think final [p_}] would quite probably become [m] as it is very
close. One distinction between [p] and [m] is the release and when
it's missing, I have no doubts [m] could be perceived as [m]. Try
pronouncing final [p_}] vs. final [m_0] -- they are almost
indistinguishable.
As to initial [p] and [p_h], I think it would not be infeasible either
to collapse into [m], but I could also imagine them being mimicked by
velars [k] and [k_h]. Switches do happen in natlangs, although I
can't come up with a pure switch (without labial context), but e.g. g
> b, in Rom. and Sard.(some dialects) lingua > limba, by influence of
-u-.
As a side note, Korean borrowed Chinese [v] or [w] as [m],
e.g. 'Taiwan' is /t&man/ in Korean (maybe this is a bit antiquated,
however, and nowadays it is really /taiwan/).
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
10c. Re: [p]>[m]?
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:05 am (PDT)
Henrik Theiling skrev:
> As a side note, Korean borrowed Chinese [v] or [w] as [m],
> e.g. 'Taiwan' is /t&man/ in Korean (maybe this is a bit antiquated,
> however, and nowadays it is really /taiwan/).
>
> **Henrik
This is probably a case of Middle Chinese palatalized
labial stops and nasal becoming labial fricatives in
modern Chinese, while becoming plain labial stops/nasal
in Sino-Korean.
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
a shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot
(Max Weinreich)
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
10d. Re: [p]>[m]?
Posted by: "Steven Williams" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:31 am (PDT)
--- Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a side note, Korean borrowed Chinese [v] or [w]
as
> [m], e.g. 'Taiwan' is /t&man/ in Korean (maybe this
is
> a bit antiquated, however, and nowadays it is really
> /taiwan/).
I believe this is because Middle Chinese had a
nasalized bilabial fricative or something like that
(perhaps [B_n]?).
A good illustration of the descendants of this phoneme
are the various Japanese words for 'horse' borrowed
from Chinese --- 'ba', 'ma', etc. [B_n] became [P] in
some dialects, and [m] in others, and Japanese shows
this.
(the Modern Mandarin for this is [ma])
No idea about Korean, tho'.
___________________________________________________________
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail:
http://mail.yahoo.de
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
11. (no subject)
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:46 pm (PDT)
> Henrik's http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/ (free)
I downloaded their mono font; but it won't install-- I'm told the file is
"invalid or damaged". Wha????
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
12a. Megdevi Book (was Re: What is it we are saying in our languages?)
Posted by: "David J. Peterson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:41 pm (PDT)
The discussion about writing in conlangs reminded me that I have
a scanner, and that scanners can be used to scan documents. As
such, I scanned a book I wrote in Megdevi and have linked to it
on the Megdevi site:
http://dedalvs.free.fr/megdevi.html
It's bullet X, "The Golden Knight: An Attempt at Megdevi Literature".
It's a 30 page illustrated book that was written all in Megdevi,
inspired by Spenser's _The Faerie Queene_ (which will be apparent,
if you take a look at it and have read at least some of _The Faerie
Queene_).
-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/
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
12b. Re: Megdevi Book (was Re: What is it we are saying in our languages?
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:21 pm (PDT)
Hallo!
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:26:41 -0700, "David J. Peterson" wrote:
> The discussion about writing in conlangs reminded me that I have
> a scanner, and that scanners can be used to scan documents. As
> such, I scanned a book I wrote in Megdevi and have linked to it
> on the Megdevi site:
>
> http://dedalvs.free.fr/megdevi.html
>
> It's bullet X, "The Golden Knight: An Attempt at Megdevi Literature".
> It's a 30 page illustrated book that was written all in Megdevi,
> inspired by Spenser's _The Faerie Queene_ (which will be apparent,
> if you take a look at it and have read at least some of _The Faerie
> Queene_).
Beautiful, rock'n'roll! I like it!
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
12c. Re: Megdevi Book (was Re: What is it we are saying in our languages?
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:30 pm (PDT)
On 7/11/06, Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:26:41 -0700, "David J. Peterson" wrote:
>
> > The discussion about writing in conlangs reminded me that I have
> > a scanner, and that scanners can be used to scan documents. As
> > such, I scanned a book I wrote in Megdevi and have linked to it
> Beautiful, rock'n'roll! I like it!
Quite. It almost makes me want to learn Megdevi, in spite of
everything you say against it re: first-time mistakes. I've been
working on gzb for eight years and haven't written anything that
long in it (except the journal, which is intermittently in English,
Esperanto and gzb, with all the gzb sections over the last
6-7 years probably totalling >10K words).
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/gzb/gzb.htm
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
12d. Re: Megdevi Book (was Re: What is it we are saying in our languages?
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:19 pm (PDT)
> http://dedalvs.free.fr/megdevi.html
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT, DAVID!!!! Loved your commentaries, too.
<color=green> envy envy :-(
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
