------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 17 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Musical language phonology
From: René Uittenbogaard
2a. Re: YAEPT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
From: Tristan Alexander McLeay
2b. Re: YAEPT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
From: Mark J. Reed
2c. Re: YAEPT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
From: Philip Newton
3. Re: USAGE: "anthropomorphic"
From: Joseph B.
4. Re: none
From: Roger Mills
5. Re: medieval Latin translation help needed/ Re: Carmina Burana (was
From: Sally Caves
6. Re: NATLANGS: What's that writing system?
From: Carsten Becker
7. Gnomic vs eternal; also, telic vs atelic. (was: Re: Anti-telic?)
From: Eldin Raigmore
8a. Re: Reinventing NATLANGs
From: daniel prohaska
8b. Re: Reinventing NATLANGs
From: daniel prohaska
9. Re: Anti-telic?
From: Sai Emrys
10a. (not really "Re: Anti-telic?:" any longer)
From: Eldin Raigmore
10b. Re: (not really "Re: Anti-telic?:" any longer)
From: Andreas Johansson
11. Re: [OT] Books for sanskrit self-study
From: Michael Adams
12. Re: Whatever
From: Jeffrey Jones
13. Re: Invitation to new 'conlang' wiki
From: Keith Gaughan
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1. Re: Musical language phonology
Posted by: "René Uittenbogaard" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:29 am (PDT)
On 7/12/06, Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> The language (let's call it X-4 for the
> moment) has seven phonemes transcribed a, b, c, d, e, f, g; these can be
> realized as the seven steps of the diatonic scale, but also pronounced as
> the sounds [a], [b], [c], [d], [e], [f], [g]. There are thus two vowels
> /a/ and /e/, and five consonants /b/, /c/, /d/, /f/, /g/.
>
Have you seen the Bogomol system? It seems a more versatile starting
point. Though Bogomol only has one-syllable words.
http://terengo.tdonnelly.org/ameratsu/bogomol.html
René
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: YAEPT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
Posted by: "Tristan Alexander McLeay" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:02 am (PDT)
On 13/07/06, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/12/06, Tristan Alexander McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> > Reading that looks like reading an American accent!
>
> Er.
I'm not sure in what sense this "Er." is meant, but I was referring to
reading IPA of American accents, or eye-dialect spellings, spelling
reforms designed only to suit AmE, or the like.
...
> I was only trying to avoid having to pick a symbol for schwa, figuring
> I could let the full vowels stand for their reduced counterparts as
> well. There's no obvious vowel to use for /@l/, /@m/, /@n/, and /@r/,
> though, so I let the vocalic consonant stand in...
One option is not to give unstressed vowels a defined spelling
(potentially even where it's actually clear what it is), and allow all
possible options (so "uthr, uthar, uther, uthir, uthor, uthur" etc.
are all valid spellings). It'd make spell checkers a lot more fun, but
would make spelling a lot easier and wouldn't significantly impede
spelling.
> > I also think it's only fair to distinguish /Vr/ from /3:/.
>
> I don't. I'm already *not* making several distinctions that are
> present in my own 'lect, such as /&/ vs /a/ - my goal was to minimize
> distinctions in the spelling. I'd rather have one letter stand for
> two different sounds (in some 'lects) than have to remember which
> letter to use to write what is, to me, the same sound.
Yeah... I kinda knew that, but I think I got so court up in reacting
against "krrent" which is so completely counter-intuitive &
american-centric that it's not funny. I would actually be happy-enough
with "kurent", "curi", "furi"[*] if it came down to that (which is,
after all, what our current orthography does), and generalised to at
least "uthur", if not also "litul" and so forth. Or retaining the
current orthography's -er, -el/-al, -en/-an, -om, probably regularised
to just one (in any case, I've usually got a vowel in all those
contexts). -rn would also be theoretically ambigous in a word like
"Satrn" or "petrl" (I can't think of a closer pair, and ambiguity
isn't one of your concerns, but you know where I'm coming from here?).
[*]: It's not so much the fact that Americans don't distinguish the
qualities in "curry" and "furry" that doesn't cease to suprise me:
it's the fact that they don't distinguish the lengths. Are you sure
it's not something like [kr=i] vs [fr=ri]?
...
> > the argument against low functional load hear goes
> > something along the lines of "'sih' or 'nginch'?")
>
> ..uhm...what's a "hinch"?
As you just said (and I cruelly snipt):
> Although I'm rethinking the /tS/+/dZ/ unification. That may still be
> too functional.
Probably you're right! :) (That distinction is definitely one I would
maintain; it's more analogous to /t/ vs /d/ than /S/ vs /Z/. But I
think /Z/ is better unified with /z(j)/ than /S/, with which it
alternates: /[EMAIL PROTECTED]:m/ vs /[EMAIL PROTECTED]@n/, and I can't think
of any
minimal pairs.)
> And while I'm heartily opposed to any analysis of English that
> seriously tries to unify /N/ and /h/ into a single phoneme, I would
> not automatically be opposed to a spelling that used the same symbol
> for both just on that basis. I would be opposed, however, because of
> the medial cases where ambiguity arises.
Umm.... that last sentence seemes to be in contradiction with the
whole pat-pot merger thing of your orthography.
> > <y> as a vowel seems
> > available for this purpose, so "curry" vs "fyrri", "lachykyl", "uthyr"
> > should be okay.
>
> I've seen other spelling systems that use <y> for /@/. Somewhat
> counterintuitive, but acceptable...
I think it's just a "what have we got left" thing. In terms of your
original specification (similarity with continental readings), the
reading of "u" is also counterintuitive.
> > An alternative could be to have a really simple, minimally distinct
> > orthography with a system of "pointing", so that distinctions that are
> > made in a certain dialect or optionally marked with diacritics. So
> > "Pam" vs "palm" vs "Pom" could become "Pam" vs "pâm" vs "Påm" in
> > Australia, but "Päm" vs "pam" vs "Pam" in the US.
>
> Well, if you're marking optional distinctions, you need one between
> "palm" and "pom" as well, at least IML. That's something like
> [p_hQUm] vs [p_ham], although the former vowel is also "lateralized",
> or whatever you call the analogue of rhoticization when the
> influencing sound is [l] rather than [r\].
Hm, I was of the understanding that that ell was long dead. And I've
heard "bomb" and "calm" (& sim.) rhymed by Americans before. Do you
also revive the l's in "salmon" and "almond", and if so, how are those
words pronounced (phonemically & phonetically)? I've got /s&[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
and
/a:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ and essentially equivalent phonetics.
> > Of course, there is
> > generally the question of what constitutes "minimally distinct". Only
> > GA vs RP? all "standard" variants? all native variants, whatsoever?
>
> That is, of course, the key question which must be addressed by any
> spelling form that attempts to be phonemic. As I said, I'd personally
> rather have ambiguous symbols than seemingly arbitrary distinctions.
Simplifying the task of reading & difficulting the task of writing.
Which is why I like my suggestion of using diacritics for extra
distinctions :) Just give everyone's keyboard a nifty Compose key and
they can type many combinations without thinking (and without
difficulting the process of typing double quotes or apostrophes as on
Windows US-International layout).
But how far down the path of ambiguity do you go before you stop? Are
non-rhotic spellings fine? (thus making "surprise" or "data" easier to
spell right for non-rhotics, but harder to read for rhotics).
--
Tristan.
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: YAEPT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:45 am (PDT)
On 7/12/06, Tristan Alexander McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure in what sense this "Er." is meant, but I was referring to
> reading IPA of American accents, or eye-dialect spellings, spelling
> reforms designed only to suit AmE, or the like.
I know. I was just taken aback because I thought it was dialect-neutral. :)
> One option is not to give unstressed vowels a defined spelling
> (potentially even where it's actually clear what it is), and allow all
> possible options (so "uthr, uthar, uther, uthir, uthor, uthur" etc.
> are all valid spellings). It'd make spell checkers a lot more fun, but
> would make spelling a lot easier and wouldn't significantly impede
> spelling.
Neat trick that. :) (I assume you meant "wouldn't significantly
impede reading", of course.)
> Yeah... I kinda knew that, but I think I got so court up in reacting
> against "krrent" which is so completely counter-intuitive &
> american-centric that it's not funny.
Sorry. I sometimes forget these things. It was in any case an
orthography I cooked up on the spur of the moment as I was typing the
email.
> [*]: It's not so much the fact that Americans don't distinguish the
> qualities in "curry" and "furry" that doesn't cease to suprise me:
> it's the fact that they don't distinguish the lengths. Are you sure
> it's not something like [kr=i] vs [fr=ri]?
I assume you're kidding, but trust me: there is absolutely no
distinction. It would never have occurred to me for any reason not to
make those words a perfect rhyme. Even since discovering that such is
not the case universally, I still can never remember which words go
with which pronunciation over there; asking which of "curry" and
"furry" has the "longer vowel" is exactly as meaningful as asking the
same question between "cat" and "fat", or "cought" and "fought", or
"clock" and "flock", or . . . if I had a microphone on this computer
I'd fire up Praat and show you spectograms of my "curry" and "furry",
but really, they're quite identical.
> I think /Z/ is better unified with /z(j)/ than /S/, with which it
> alternates: /[EMAIL PROTECTED]:m/ vs /[EMAIL PROTECTED]@n/, and I can't think
> of any
> minimal pairs.)
I assume that's "presume", which has an ordinary [z] for me - but even
if it were [Z], it's not /Z/ but /zj/, where the /j/ comes from the
/ju/.
Aside from the usual set of "-easure" words and the occasional French
borrowing, I can't think of anywhere I have a phonemic /Z/.
> > And while I'm heartily opposed to any analysis of English that
> > seriously tries to unify /N/ and /h/ into a single phoneme, I would
> > not automatically be opposed to a spelling that used the same symbol
> > for both just on that basis. I would be opposed, however, because of
> > the medial cases where ambiguity arises.
>
> Umm.... that last sentence seemes to be in contradiction with the
> whole pat-pot merger thing of your orthography.
Yes, but I was also trying to make it not *too* counterintuitive, at
least for folks who have encountered any Roman orthographies besides
modern English's.
> I think it's just a "what have we got left" thing. In terms of your
> original specification (similarity with continental readings), the
> reading of "u" is also counterintuitive.
Eh. Reading <u> as /U/ has precedent in Classical Latin and Arabic,
at the very least.
> Hm, I was of the understanding that that ell was long dead. And I've
> heard "bomb" and "calm" (& sim.) rhymed by Americans before.
They don't rhyme for me.
> Do you also revive the l's in "salmon" and "almond", and if so, how are those
> words pronounced (phonemically & phonetically)? I've got /s&[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]/ and
> /a:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ and essentially equivalent phonetics.
"Salmon" is /'s&mn=/, but the "l" in "almond" is alive and well, thank
you. It sounds just like the word "all" followed by /mn=d/.
> > That is, of course, the key question which must be addressed by any
> > spelling form that attempts to be phonemic. As I said, I'd personally
> > rather have ambiguous symbols than seemingly arbitrary distinctions.
>
> Simplifying the task of reading & difficulting the task of writing.
I'd say it's the other way around. Only one symbol to remember for
e.g. the two sounds /a/ and /&/. But then when I see an unfamiliar
word written with an <a> I don't immediately know how to pronounce it.
> But how far down the path of ambiguity do you go before you stop? Are
> non-rhotic spellings fine? (thus making "surprise" or "data" easier to
> spell right for non-rhotics, but harder to read for rhotics).
Much. "suprise" would be easy enough, but "dater" looks like the
agentive of "to date"...
... which wouldn't matter to you non-rhotic types, I suppose, since I
guess those are homophonous for you? :) It's amazing how hard it is
to think panlectically, even when one is aware of the issues.
Anyway, such spellings as "dater" for "data" would also appear to
convey a common low-prestige pronunciation over here which one might
characterize as hyper-rhotic, in which e.g. "tomato" is actually
pronounced [t_ho'meidr\=] or [t_h@'meidr\=] - hence the character in
the new Pixar movie "Cars" who is a tow truck named "Mater":
tow-Mater. The liasing [r] that shows up in non-rhotic speech also
sounds to us like that set of dialects.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: YAEPT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:26 am (PDT)
On 7/12/06, Tristan Alexander McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Probably you're right! :) (That distinction is definitely one I would
> maintain; it's more analogous to /t/ vs /d/ than /S/ vs /Z/. But I
> think /Z/ is better unified with /z(j)/ than /S/, with which it
> alternates: /[EMAIL PROTECTED]:m/ vs /[EMAIL PROTECTED]@n/, and I can't think
> of any
> minimal pairs.)
The ever-trusty list of "Minimal Pairs for English RP" offers, among
others, Caesar-seizure and baize-beige. But there are rather few, and
some of them involve foreign proper nouns.
The /S/-/Z/ distinction has even fewer minimal pairs -- only three if
ones involving proper nouns are discounted.
But as Mark said, the [Z] is not necessarily /Z/. (As for me, I have
[zj] there -- but [Z] in "seizure"; [si:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sounds to me like "'s
easier".)
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. Re: USAGE: "anthropomorphic"
Posted by: "Joseph B." [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:00 am (PDT)
>Yes, I must agree with Mark on this one. I've never
>encountered anthropomorphic in the meaning of
>"shaped like a human." It's always in the sense: "acts
>like and/or exhibits the traits of a human."
Ditto. I use it more often with owner/pet or worshipper/deity situations or
relationships.
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Re: none
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:16 am (PDT)
Just to update-- Mark Reed made some suggestions, one of which (download
from a different mirror) worked. All is well, all is well.
Roger (and his evil twin Incompetentia) :-)))
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5. Re: medieval Latin translation help needed/ Re: Carmina Burana (was
Posted by: "Sally Caves" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:46 am (PDT)
----- Original Message ----- > 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?
They were written by wandering theology students or clerics (goliards), who
often snubbed their nose at the Church. The clerics (sort of like graduate
students in theology or philosophy) took holy orders, but if literature says
anything true about life, they were not always sanctimonious. Clerks in
medieval literature are often mischievous, lecherous, and sinful (Chaucer's
Miller's Tale, Reeve's Tale, "Dame Sirith," and any number of fabliaux.)
You'll find in this thirteenth century lyrics songs mostly about secular
life and gambling, but also about the joys of spring and tender love.
John Quijada wrote:
> My personal favorite is
> the drinking song in the tavern: "Bibit hera, bibit herus, bibit miles,
> bibit clerus..." Hilarious!
I love that, too! There is a kind of humorous urgency to it, as though
everybody in the town has got to drink up before they close the tavern.
Orff does a wonderful job of conveying in contemporary tones the kind of
barbaric, life-loving, raunchy experiences of these young men. For
instance, the opening that Ray so kindly translated for us is very
ominous... you think it expresses a life's philosophy of doom and gloom, the
treacherousness and monstrosity of Dame Fortune--whose turning wheel, as the
song comes to crescendo, brings emptiness and wanhope--only to find that
it's monstrous and treacherous and empty for the gambling man who risks his
back in a striptease game!
Here are the lyrics for my favorite song, "Cignus ustus cantat" TheRoasted
Swan sings. I know all these tunes by heart. I think the tenor is supposed
to sound like a castrato:
Olim lacus colueram! Once I inhabited lakes
Olim pulcher extiteram! Once I looked beautiful.
Dum cignus ego fueram! When I was a swan.
Miser, miser! O wretched me!
modo niger! now black
et ustus fortiter! and thoroughly roasted!
Girat regirat garcifer. The servant turns and turns again [the spit]
Me rogus urit fortiter. the pyre burns me strongly.
Propinant me nunc dapifer! The dish-bearer offers me up now!
Miser, etc.
Nunc in scutella iaceo. Now I lie on the platter.
Et volitare nequeo. And I am unable to fly.
Dentes frendentes video. The gnashing teeth I see!
Miser, miser!
modo niger!
et ustus fortiter!
And then the most lovely love-lyrics. But my favorite is the triumphant,
ardent refrain in Tempus es iocundum (It is a joyful time):
O, O, O! Oh, oh oh!
Totus floreo! I am blossoming all over!
iam amore virginali With virginal, first love
totus ardeo! do I burn completely!
novus novus novus amor est, it is new new new love
Quo pereo, quo pereo, quo pereo!! from which I perish, perish, perish!
(Orff adds the repeats!)
Now this is a test. Will this show up for me? Get to the list? Somebody
who sees this, translate it into your conlang!
A new challenge!
Sally
Tehwo sema brondilaz oba il hea nomai pendo
"Summer like a white sword hangs over the land."
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6. Re: NATLANGS: What's that writing system?
Posted by: "Carsten Becker" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:02 pm (PDT)
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:57:00 +0200, Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hi Paul,
>
><sarcasm> Now, please again, who wrote what in your mail?!
></sarcasm> Not that I wouldn't know -- I've been following
>the thread --, but please, please, please indicate
>quotations so that we others can see what *you* wrote in
>reply.
>
> [snip]
My wording was maybe a bit offensive. I have already appologized and
explained the reason why I wrote that.
C.
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7. Gnomic vs eternal; also, telic vs atelic. (was: Re: Anti-telic?)
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:04 pm (PDT)
My initial contribution to this thread, perhaps, did not belong on this
thread. It was inspired by And Rosta's preceding contribution, so I
entered it as a reply to that; but perhaps I should have changed the title.
Trask's definition of "gnomic" as having to do with "eternal truths"
doesn't really apply to statements like "Achilles is the slayer of Hector"
or "I was born in 1952 in Arkansas".
In order for a statement to be "gnomic", it is not enough that the
statement be, technically, "true forever". In addition, the statement must
be _about_ all time; or _about_ all places; or, at least, _about_ all of
_something_.
Unfortunately Trask died recently, so we can no longer ask him to clarify
what he wrote. But if we examine the statements that other writers have
called "gnomic" versus those they would not call "gnomic", we can see that
the statements are not only considered, by their speakers, to be eternally
true or universally true, but also to be about something eternal or
something universal, or about eternity or about the universe.
So if I say "Dogs chase cats" with the meaning "(Four specific) dogs (I
have in mind) (habitually for the duration of their mutual lives) chase
(five specific) cats (I have in mind)", _that_ is _not_ gnomic, even though
it will technically be "true forever", and even though it applies to the
entire joint life of the particular dogs and cats of whom I speak.
But if I say "Dogs chase cats" with the meaning "(It is well known that
all) dogs chase (any and all) cats (whenever they get the chance)", that
_is_ gnomic.
-----
According to, IIRC, Bernard Comrie's "Aspect", the terms "telic"
and "atelic" apply to a distinction that is better termed "aktionsart"
than "aspect".
(Of course, some writers think it is hard to tell aktionsart apart from
aspect; and some think some languages don't make the distinction, even if
linguists do.)
But, IIRC the same author (Comrie) in the same book ("Aspect"), quotes a
French grammarian on the distinction between telic and atelic; and I will
try to paraphrase, from memory, what was said about it.
It is the entire "situation" (Comrie's word -- I believe most of us would
say "clause" in English or "proposition" in French) which is "telic"
or "atelic".
A "telic" clause must proceed to its conclusion in order to be true;
an "atelic" clause may be interrupted and yet still be true.
Examples given by Comrie, as well as I can recall;
Suppose I say "I sing"; suppose I am interrupted while singing; have I
sung, or have I not sung? Yes, I have sung. Therefore "I sing" is
_atelic_.
Suppose I say "I sing the National Anthem" (Comrie doesn't make clear
whether this is "God Save the Queen" or "O Canada" or "The Star-Spangled
Banner" or something else, but I suppose it isn't crucial to know); suppose
I am interrupted while singing; did I sing the National Anthem? No, I did
not sing the National Anthem. Therefore "I sing the National Anthem" is
_telic_.
Suppose I say "I sing some patriotic songs"; suppose I am interrupted
during the third such song; did I sing some patriotic songs? Yes, I did
sing some patriotic songs (whether or not the National Anthem was one of
them); therefore "I sing some patriotic songs" is _atelic_.
That is _my_ understanding of the "telic vs atelic" distinction. Someone
else on list may have a reference for some widely-accepted explanation of
this distinction that is markedly different from this; if so, I would like
to see it; it might change my mind. Or, everyone else on this thread may
agree that the above is, essentially, at least close enough.
-----
As for "anti-telic"; I can imagine that could describe those situations
which are _incapable_ of being interrupted _at_all_. For instance, in most
ordinary people's conceptions of the world for most of history, the
statement "the sun shines by day and the stars shine by night" would fit
that "definition" of "anti-telic".
Such a statement would be "gnomic", I think. It would also be "eternal",
by the sense And Rosta meant "eternal" in his latest post, if I understood
him correctly.
Another way to form the meaning of "anti-telic" would be to go back to the
morphemes out of which the word is made. According to Ray Brown, the "-
telic" part of these words comes from a Greek word "telos" meaning a goal.
So "telic" action has a "goal" which must be reached in order for the
action to have taken place (e.g. I swam the Channel); "atelic" action has
no such "goal" and has taken place whether or not any specific "goal" is
reached (e.g. I swam around for a while); perhaps "anti-telic" action could
be the sort of action which couldn't possibly _have_ such a goal?
Examples, corrections, comments, agreements, disagreements, confirmations,
counter-examples, etc., anyone?
-----
eldin
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8a. Re: Reinventing NATLANGs
Posted by: "daniel prohaska" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:11 pm (PDT)
From: Michael Adams
"Niederdeutsch does that include in some aspects English? Or was the shift
the divide between Frisian and English?
What about dielects/seperate lanugages like Dutch or Yiddish? As well as
forms outside of what is now Germany and related areas..
English seemed to have had some Nordic influences from an early day, even
before the move to Britain.
Mike"
----------------
Mike,
"Niederdeutsch" does not include 'aspects' (not 100% sure what you're
referring to here) of English. "Niederdeutsch" are the Low Saxon dialects
that are spoken within the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.
There are also Low Saxon dialects on the Netherlands side of the political
boarder, but they are generally referred to as "the Saxon dialects of
Dutch".
Linguistically seen this division is arbitrary.
When "Niederdeutsch" in its late mediaeval form was still the primary
trading language of the eastern North Sea and the Baltic trade, both Dutch
and Low Saxon were referred to as "Nederduitsch", so the division is more
politically motivated than linguistic.
That said, though the similarities between the dialects along the border are
unmistakable and mutual comprehension by dialects speakers is no problem,
the dialects have become greatly influenced by the respective regional and
national standards in their respective countries.
Dan
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
8b. Re: Reinventing NATLANGs
Posted by: "daniel prohaska" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:13 pm (PDT)
Hi Michael,
I think it would look a lot like English, but with all or most of the
French/Latin/Greek loan words removed ;-)
No, I don't think that borrowing from French or Norse affected the overall
sound development, except for maybe allowing a few combinations that would
hitherto have not been possible and allowing for subsequent development of
these (I'm thinking of /Z/ here).
Benct, myself and another guy started such a project about, has it already
been two years, ago? I don't know. We were fairly active at the beginning,
but we couldn't agree where it was going and we each enjoyed ourselves too
much following out whims and ideas that we just couldn't get it moving. What
we got up till then was quite interesting though. We were 'ageing' Old
English expressions and compounds, phrases and idioms and giving them modern
English form. We also used other West Germanic, sometimes also Icelandic,
templates to coin new words for concepts where English has Romance
vocabulary beyond the usual internationalisms.
We also worked on orthography and had, as was to be expected very differing
views on the topic.
A project like that does teach you a lot about historical English phonology!
Dan
------------------
From: Michael Adams
"How about a conlang that is English but with all or most of the
French/Latin/Greek out of it?
Would it look alot like Dutch or Frisian or what?
Mike
Messages in this topic (26)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
9. Re: Anti-telic?
Posted by: "Sai Emrys" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:32 pm (PDT)
Yahya, please snip your replies a lot more. Having a page or two of
quoted material followed by "I agree" is excessive and hard to read.
:-(
To get back to the point:
I don't believe that metaphysical questions of whether the universe
can *be* eternal or not are at all relevant. I can claim that it is,
ergo I can say that it is, ergo I can have a way to say it. Viz. what
I and others said before about exaggeration or pragmatics of scope.
The way I'd define it (borrowing from previous again):
* telic: having a necessary bound, i.e. intrinsic to the event (it's
not possibly to keep doing it indefinitely)
e.g. eating a finite thing, killing, etc
* atelic: being POTENTIALLY bound, but not necessarily; i.e. the bound
is extrinsic to the event itself (something has to interrupt or stop
it, or else it'll keep going indefinitely)
e.g. dating someone, writing a journal vs a novel (though arguably a
journal is bound by your death, I'd say this is an instance where I
could extend effective 'forever' to be 'until I die'), going hunting
(though ditto) etc
* antitelic: NOT being able to be bound, i.e. it is not possible to
interrupt or stop the event once started
e.g. the existence of the universe, states-of-the-world-history (viz
Achilles), gods dating (ha), humans dating (exaggeration - eg "they're
sooooo cuuuuute together it's impossible they'll break up"), many
belief-system-dependent things (e.g. Atlas holding up the earth,
assuming he's under some sort of permanent everlasting "Hercules won't
interfere again" spell), expansion of the universe (depending on your
astrophysics), universal tendency towards entropy, WoT world cycling,
etc
Note that this in no way addresses how the event STARTED, only whether
it has a necessary, potential, or impossible ENDpoint.
Difference from gnomic:
1. Gnomic AFAIU would require it to be universally true, i.e. have no
finite start point before which it may not have been true (e.g 2+2=4)
2. Gnomic seems exclusively a state-of-the-world or
truths-about-the-world sort of thing, whereas antitelic would be a
type of (forever-continuing) action, of which existence or state is a
subset
3. Antitelic
4. They're different grammatical categories
The point about mass vs count nouns seems spurious to me; just because
they happen to be analagous in some ways does not mean they are
NECESSARILY linked or that the limitation of one implies the
limitation of the other.
- Sai
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
10a. (not really "Re: Anti-telic?:" any longer)
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:45 pm (PDT)
Hi, Ray. I hope you and yours are well.
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:01:44 +0100, R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Kalle Bergman wrote:
>>>But can _anything_ continue indefinitely in a
>>>temporal universe?
>>Is this a relevant question?
>
>Yes, as I see it.
I both think the question was relevant, and would "answer" it "why not?".
(I realize "why not?" is really another question, not an answer.)
>telic = having a goal which bring the activity, event, circumstance etc
>to an end
>atelic = an activity, event, circumstance etc which has no
>_recognizable_ goal which will bring this to an end.
Read my understanding of Comrie's explanation on list in my post with the
subject line "Gnomic vs eternal, and telic vs atelic" (or something like
that).
>Thus events, activities, circumstances etc etc which
>may
>go on for ever
>are atelic. But to designate another category, 'anti-telic', as one
>which *must* go on for ever,
My proposed meaning of the "anti-telic" as that which is un-interruptible
would apply not only to the situation having no end in the future and/or no
beginning in the past, but also no hiccups or bumps or hiatuses along the
way.
>presumably with definitely no goal (whether
>we can recognize it or not) does seem to me to pose a picture of the
>universe which is not generally shared AFAIK.
Well, it's not generally shared, but there's a largish and international
school of thought that way, if by "goal" you mean what's usually meant.
The school is (sometimes at least) called "Futilitarianism". This is a
joke name, of course, along the lines of "Utilitarianism". It postulates
that existence has no purpose.
There may have been, and FAIK may now be, cultures in which this is the
majority attitude. But of course it is _not_ the majority attitude of any
religion I am familiar with; not even of Marxism.
>>After all, the structure of a language is not a
>>vehicle for metaphysical analysis.
It probably isn't _designed_ to be such a vehicle (exceptions may be
certain loglangs and such languages as Ithkuil);
it may not be _primarily_ such a vehicle;
but why would you say it's _not_ such a vehicle?
Metaphysical analysis is communicated from one "analyst" to another via
language, and the structure of the language is vitally necessary for that
communication.
I have even read metaphysical writing that analyzed "thing" as
"th"+"ing" where "ing" is the English morpheme for present (or active)
participle or present progressive tense/aspect.
(To be fair, I have to admit that, once I've understood the definitions of
the terms "metaphysics" and "ontology", the subjects leave me cold.
Epistemology, on the other hand, I like and understand. And "evidentials
are the linguistic encoding of epistemology", so "they" say.)
>>Any language can
>>express an infinite number of metaphysically or
>>logically absurd statements (colorless green
>>ideas...).
Yep.
>That is the deliberate juxtaposition of semantic elements in a way which
>we _know_ does not make sense.
Yes, it is. So?
I don't see why either of you is wrong. I don't see why your(pl.) replies
to each other contradict each other's earlier remarks. Is it possible that
I am missing your(pl.) point(s) -- that you(pl.) don't believe you(pl.) are
disagreeing with each other? Because I think I agree with both of you, and
I don't feel any "cognitive dissonance" in so doing.
>>Furthermore, what is "indefinite" in an everyday sense
>>need not be the same as in the strict sense. When I
>>say "they're going to go on dating indefinitely", I
>>don't literally mean that they'll date _'til the end
>>of the universe_.
>
>Sigh - I sort of *know* that!! But please tell me in what way "they're
>going to go on dating indefinitely" is *not* atelic.
That's a hard one, for me.
If they stop dating, then "they're going to go on dating indefinitely" has
ceased to be true. Would that make it "telic" by Comrie's definition?
I think maybe not. I think "indefinitely" simply means that, at the time
of speaking, the speaker doesn't predict when they'll stop dating, nor even
that they necessarily ever will stop.
That would make that statement more like the atelic "I swam around for a
while" than like the telic "I swam across the English Channel".
So the question is; while we can agree that
"They're going to go on dating for a while" is atelic -- it isn't falsified
unless they stop dating _immediately_ --
it is harder to recognize
"they're going to go on dating indefinitely" as atelic; it might be
considered falsified if they stop dating at any time in the nearish future.
>The point I was trying, obviously unsuccessfully, to make is that I
>cannot see how a category 'anti-telic' makes sense in a natlang.
It's different to say that one can't see enough use for such a category to
predict that any natlang would actually have it, than to say that one can't
see any use for it at all.
I can't guess an answer to _either_ of those questions.
I think you are guessing that such a category wouldn't see enough use to
actually become grammatical and/or morphological in any natlang. Such a
guess seems perfectly reasonably to me, as a hypothesis; I don't know how
one would go about gathering evidence for or against it.
But are you, instead, hypothesizing that such a category _couldn't_ be
incorporated in a natlang? Because if so, the way to test it would be to
try to design an engelang that included such a category, and show that no
such engelang can be designed so as to be speakable, understandable, and
learnable.
>>I could imagine that the "antitelic" would fill the
>>role which is, in english, filled by the adverb, well,
>>"indefinitely".
>
>No, it does not.
>"Indefinite"
"indefinitely", that is.
>is not AFAIK synonymous with "*must* go on
>for ever."
That's what I thought, too.
I don't think English is Kalle Bergman's L1?
>"Indefinite"
"indefinitely"
>surely means that there is no goal, that we know
>of, that will bring their dating to an end and that it will go on, sort
>of, indefinitely
Yes, definitelyyletinifed surely.
(I don't know if that joke is going to come across.)
>- i.e. atelic.
For a certain sense of "atelic", obviously.
For Comrie's sense, not so obviously, but IMO still so.
>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.
>
>Not just mine.
No, not just yours.
>AFAIK it's the opinion of modern science
AFAIK you're right.
>& has been a widely held belief for millennia.
Widely held, yes; universally held, no.
In fact there have been times when 'the opinion of [then-]"modern" science'
was that the universe had no beginning and/or would have no end. Sometimes
this/these opinion(s) had time as a straight line and sometimes as a circle.
There is no _mathematical_ nor _logical_ reason why the universe had to
have a beginning; if it did, there is no _mathematical_ nor _logical_
reason why it had to have _only_ _one_ beginning. The same is true of the
end of the universe.
If there are reasons why the universe had to have a unique beginning, they
are physical, not logical. As the physical evidence has changed, the
accepted theory on this issue has also changed.
Even now, there is serious work on the theory that the "Big Bang" was like
the narrow point of an hour-glass -- that the reason the universe as it now
exists is so uniform, even across distances that can't be covered at slower
than the speed of light during times on the order of the current "age" of
the universe, is that its parts had all that "time" "before" the Big
Crunch/Big Bang to "communicate" with one another.
Not that these theorists necessarily believe they have _proof_ of such a
theory; just that the view Andreas presented is not regarded as set in
concrete and carved in stone by modern cosmologists.
>Which is, maybe, why it hasn't figured
>in natlang grammar.
1) Do we know for a fact that it _hasn't_ figured in natlang grammar?
2) If so, how would we figure out whether this is the reason?
[snip]
>In any case telicity is surely to do with _aspect_, not tense.
More aktionsart than aspect? IIUC.
>If one is
>to posit a third degree of telicity, i.e. 'anti-telic', then this must
>surely denote an event, action, circumstance or whatever that:
Yes.
>1. (in your own words) "not just doesn't have a *necessary*
>endpoint, or *can* continue indefinitely, but *must* continue
>indefinitely"
What he said.
>2. and, as a corollary, that does not just have no recognizable goal but
>*must have no possible goal* which could ever bring the event, action,
>circumstance to an end.
This either requires a rather specialized definition of "goal";
or it's you transforming Trask's definitions of "telic" and "atelic", to
what you think he might have defined "anti-telic" as (if he'd ever felt the
need to do that), and then inserting this into Sai's remarks.
If the former; I think we need to know that "goal", used here, is not
_exactly_ and _only_ what is meant by "goal" in its usual uses.
If the latter; in spite of what you say below,
>As far as I can see, unless both conditions are met, the action, event,
>circumstance etc is atelic.
I don't think _both_ conditions are necessary unless Sai agrees that your
second condition should be part of, or a consequence of, his definition
of "anti-telic".
>>>>Any natlang or conlang examples of this?
>>>Indeed.
I know of none.
>>>I cannot see that it is possible.
I can. I can (with, perhaps, too much difficulty) think of a few (perhaps
too few) remarks that could naturally be in such an aktionsart if it were
available in the language. Then the problem would be imagining that such
remarks were sufficiently frequent to make it useful and worthwhile for the
language to develop grammar and/or morphology to support this distinction.
The latter part, IMO, is likelier for a conworld/conculture/conlang than
for a natlang.
>>Surely you can see it grammatically?
I don't understand Sai's question here. What does he mean "grammatically"?
>No, otherwise I would not have questioned it.
I suppose 99% of the reason I don't understand your answer is that I didn't
understand Sai's question.
>>E.g. [roughly] "the universe exists" is probably anti-telic...
>
>Only if you believe
Actually, only if _the_ _speaker_ believes etc.
>that there definitely is no goal which can possibly
>bring the universe to an end and that it must necessarily go on for ever
>and ever and ever..........
If one adopts the "Quantum Loop Gravity Theory" (rather than the "String
Theory"), space and time are quantized. IIRC a quantum of distance is about
10^-33 centimeters and a quantum of time is about 10^-43 seconds. "In
between" "quantum ticks", the universe does _not_ exist. Its existence is
interruptable, and interrupted, both temporally and spatially.
If one adopts such a theory, is "the universe exists" _really_ "anti-telic"?
>And that is foisting one's belief system onto grammar ;)
I think the lesson may be that whether a given utterance is telic or atelic
(or anti-telic if there is such a thing) partly depends on the mental state
of the speaker of that utterance.
[snip]
>But I would need to see a clear, unambiguous example of an 'anti-telic'
>event/circumstance/action,
I'd love to see one, too.
>*which is clearly independent of anyone's belief system*,
I'm beginning to doubt _that_ requirement is possible to satisfy.
>in the 'real' world
I'd be happy to see one in a conworld. Of course I'd rather see one in
the 'real' world.
>before being convinced that the
>division of telicity into telic ~ atelic needs to be amended.
>--
>Ray
-----
Thanks, Ray, Kalle, and Sai.
eldin
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
10b. Re: (not really "Re: Anti-telic?:" any longer)
Posted by: "Andreas Johansson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:52 pm (PDT)
Quoting Eldin Raigmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >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.
> >
> >Not just mine.
>
> No, not just yours.
>
> >AFAIK it's the opinion of modern science
>
> AFAIK you're right.
>
> >& has been a widely held belief for millennia.
>
> Widely held, yes; universally held, no.
> In fact there have been times when 'the opinion of [then-]"modern" science'
> was that the universe had no beginning and/or would have no end. Sometimes
> this/these opinion(s) had time as a straight line and sometimes as a circle.
>
> There is no _mathematical_ nor _logical_ reason why the universe had to
> have a beginning; if it did, there is no _mathematical_ nor _logical_
> reason why it had to have _only_ _one_ beginning. The same is true of the
> end of the universe.
>
> If there are reasons why the universe had to have a unique beginning, they
> are physical, not logical. As the physical evidence has changed, the
> accepted theory on this issue has also changed.
>
> Even now, there is serious work on the theory that the "Big Bang" was like
> the narrow point of an hour-glass -- that the reason the universe as it now
> exists is so uniform, even across distances that can't be covered at slower
> than the speed of light during times on the order of the current "age" of
> the universe, is that its parts had all that "time" "before" the Big
> Crunch/Big Bang to "communicate" with one another.
>
> Not that these theorists necessarily believe they have _proof_ of such a
> theory; just that the view Andreas presented is not regarded as set in
> concrete and carved in stone by modern cosmologists.
I hope I did not give the impression that they're "set in concrete and carved in
stone"; they're certainly not. Today, standard theory says that the universe had
a beginning in time, but will have no end; but standard theory has changed in
the light of new discoveries, and may do so again. Astronomy is the oldest
science, but still a child.
Now, the actual state of affairs would seem irrelevant to the possibility or
utility of an 'anti-telic' aktionsart in a human language. We have words and
grammatical categories not for what exists, but what for we want to express.
Nobody would assert that the existence of the word "eternal" forces any beliefs
on anyone; why should we think differently of a grammatical category encoding a
type of eternality (eternalness?)?
[snip]
>
> >But I would need to see a clear, unambiguous example of an 'anti-telic'
> >event/circumstance/action,
>
> I'd love to see one, too.
>
> >*which is clearly independent of anyone's belief system*,
>
> I'm beginning to doubt _that_ requirement is possible to satisfy.
I must say I find that requirement strange. I'm not requiring anyone to prove
the existence of God to accept the word "god", nor would I to accept that some
language, con or nat, has a grammatical category refering to God - perhaps a
special person form only used by the Deity? Why should 'anti-telic' be treated
differently.
Or am I misunderstanding Ray? Cont. below ...
> >in the 'real' world
>
> I'd be happy to see one in a conworld. Of course I'd rather see one in
> the 'real' world.
>
> >before being convinced that the
> >division of telicity into telic ~ atelic needs to be amended.
It's not not clear to me *where* this "need" might exist.
Sai's original question was, if memory serves, if the *could* be a third
category of telicity. It seems clear to me that one could conceive of a
language that marked three degrees of telicity, and if it's this Ray is
objecting to, I do not understand why.
But one might also ask if there *should* be a third category in general
linguistic theory. This seems very dubious to me, particularly in the apparent
absence of any known natlang with an atelic~antitelic distinction. Just because
one can subdivide a category into conceptually different categories does not
mean one should. The purpose of interlinguistic categories is to classify the
distinctions that *are* made, in ones that conceivably *could*be* made.
I could make a language that has a tense/aspect/mood for begun five minutes ago
and allegedly still continuing, but that doesn't mean it should be in
handbooks.
Andreas
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
11. Re: [OT] Books for sanskrit self-study
Posted by: "Michael Adams" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:36 pm (PDT)
Sorry for the humor. Actually do have access to various
dictionaries, but some of it came from reading the Encyclopedia
Brittanica when I was like 9 or so.. Sorry for the use of
idioims (sp). Been degrading since then.. Sadly the rest is the
product of a classic US education system. The fun with being
special needs, the group you all in the same boat and cut you
off, and then wonder why you are not normal or like? Was it
cause you was not "normal" to begin with, or just did not have
the social contacts, education and such, that others have?
Does raise a question, how do use humor in a Conlang? That and
other shadings..
One of the things that some who learn an foreign language, is
understanding not only the vocabulary, grammer, spelling and
such things, but also the shadings of the language.
Like the classic ones of the word Gay..
Old meaning was someone who as happy, likely someone who was
oddly happy, not normal.
But then it came to mean someone who is homosexual, even if many
was not effeminant, some was, and they was seen as being wierd,
odd, different aka Gay, or just too happy?
Now the word has started to mean similar to the original
meaning, but not quite..
Such as being told to clean your room, "its so Gay".
Or doing things that are uncool, are sometimes see as being
"Gay".
Sorry, I love to look at words that some find offensive and find
ways to make them less so offensive, or see how they are used.
Not only the word, but how they are used.. Inflection and such.
No, not a trained linguist..
Me, still trying to figure out how I am a "Pimp". Or I am Pimped
out, or like.. The nuances of a language and how and who uses
it..
Mike
Proud to be a Geek/Nerd/Wacko/Nutzo/Mutant/Basketcase/Freak..
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andreas Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Books for sanskrit self-study
> Quoting "Ph.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Hanuman Zhang wrote:
> > >
> > > Michael Adams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Or go further to
> > > >
> > > > SanSkrit..
> > > >
> > > > San = without
> > > > Skrit or Script or Scribe? = writing
> > > >
> > > > Without Writing or ..
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > 0_o? Just WTF are you blabbering on about?
> > >
> > > Why do you continue to just embarass yourself on this
list???
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > I believe Mike is trying to make a joke.
>
> I'm quite certain he is, and furthermore connecting to the
Swedish folk
> etymologies of "Sanskrit" recently discussed on this list.
>
> Andreas
Address changing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Poetry-L2/ My Poetry List
http://groups.google.com/group/adulthumor-l/ My Humor List
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abrigon-l2 My Friends List
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargruntsooc Grunts Past/Present/Future
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abrigon-world Magic or Super High Tech
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/future-history-l Where we are going as a species
Messages in this topic (60)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
12. Re: Whatever
Posted by: "Jeffrey Jones" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:20 pm (PDT)
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:04:18 +0200, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Jeffrey Jones writes:
>> Almost nobody is actually reading this kind of thing these days, so I can
>> put any link I want to here.
>>
>> http://qiihoskeh.livejournal.com/69535.html
>
>Errrm, no, I had read your last message and the corresponding web
>page, too.
OK, so I was being a little provocative ... but it seems to be true that
there's not much discussion these days of specific conlangs.
>I do read almost all web pages and grammar descriptions
>that are posted here. No answer does not at all mean no read nor does
>it imply lack of interest. To me it's fun comparing and categorizing
>and searching for linguistical details that I had never thought of.
>
>E.g. in your last post, I did not know how to give corrections for
>which you asked. I did not understand everything (e.g. def. tense
>vs. indef. tense) and the trivial consistency checks I performed did
>not reveal obvious errors, so I did not have much to say.
You could have said, "What the heck are indefinite and definite tense?"
_Definite Tense_ is intended to mean that the action or state occurs at
some definite time. _Indefinite Tense_ is intended to mean that the action
or state may have occurred (or will occur) at any past (or future) time. I
don't know if this clears it up.
>The new link points to more pages, some of which I have previously
>read. Will have a look, too, of course.
>
>BTW, I silently assume that most people do read web links that are
>posted here -- I keep posting links, too. It's an informational
>service. :-)
>
>SO DID YOU HAVE A LOOK AT MY MUSICAL CONLANG? :-P
Yes, and looking at it again more closely is already on my to-do list.
>**Henrik
>=========================================================================
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
13. Re: Invitation to new 'conlang' wiki
Posted by: "Keith Gaughan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:33 pm (PDT)
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 02:22:38PM -0400, Paul Bennett wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >I thought that FrathWiki ( http://wiki.frath.net/Main_Page ) was a
> >kind of de-facto "Unofficial Wiki of the CONLANG-L mailing list".
>
> You've hit it precicely. It is *a* de-facto Wiki of the list. There are at
> least two others, plus this newest one.
Of those I can think of off the top of my head, there's:
1. The Conlang and Conculture Wiki I host
2. FrathWiki
3. The LangMaker Wiki
4. AA's wiki
And at least two others, *all* of which are run by people on this list.
The wiki I started was *meant* to be for the more technical side of
things, acting as a collaborative guide and reference for information
on conlanging and conculturing. It was never meant to host languages or
conculture descriptions. LangMaker already existed, if not as a wiki,
so that side of thing seemed well covered.
Then FrathWiki started, which overlapped with LangMaker somewhat, but
allowed people who didn't have websites to host their conlangs and
concultures there.
Then Jeffrey got around to getting LangMaker up and running again after
he had that disaster with his harddrive that destroyed the raw data for
building the LangMaker site, replacing it with a Wiki. The purpose
stayed the same though: acting as a conlanging Yellow Pages.
And then all the others came.
> >If you're not yet too emotionally wedded to your own Wiki, I suggest
> >you have a look at that -- one thing worse than having no Wiki for
> >conlangs is having several dozen Wikis, each with very little content.
>
> 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.
Here, here! The only reason I started my wiki was because there were no
others. Then after I started it, FrathWiki started up (which had a
slightly different purpose), and then along came a veritable hoard of
the things.
I'd happily close down mine and replace it with redirects if we were to
standardise on a preferred wiki. FrathWiki gets my vote: aside from the
one I set up, it's the oldest, and the software running
it--MediaWiki--is better than mine.
> Alternatively, the process could probably be automated with wget, expect,
> and perl, though that might be a nightmare to actually implement.
The nightmare doesn't arise so much from walking the wikis, as how
exactly you resolve page names. That gives me a headache just thinking
about it.
K.
--
Keith Gaughan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://talideon.com/
Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum,
sodomy and the lash.
-- Winston Churchill
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
