There are 19 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Lexicon counting (was: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1...)
From: caeruleancentaur
1b. Re: Lexicon counting (was: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1...)
From: Carsten Becker
1c. Re: Lexicon counting (was: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1...)
From: Henrik Theiling
1d. Re: Lexicon counting (was: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1...)
From: Iain E. Davis
1e. Re: Lexicon counting (was: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1...)
From: taliesin the storyteller
2a. Re: Taxonomic Vocabulary
From: And Rosta
2b. Re: Taxonomic Vocabulary
From: Henrik Theiling
3a. Re: Nimrina colors updated
From: Javier BF
3b. Re: Nimrina colors updated
From: Herman Miller
4. Re: Kalusa conlang in review - is it working?
From: Iain E. Davis
5a. TECH: Russian handwriting font
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
5b. Re: TECH: Russian handwriting font
From: Paul Bennett
5c. Re: TECH: Russian handwriting font
From: H. S. Teoh
5d. Re: TECH: Russian handwriting font
From: Jean-François Colson
6a. Re: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1 (repost #1)
From: Henrik Theiling
6b. Re: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1 (repost #1)
From: Roger Mills
7. Re: Syntactic differences within parts of speech
From: Henrik Theiling
8a. Re: Vertical script (was: UTF-8 support in *nix terminals)
From: Henrik Theiling
8b. Re: Vertical script (was: UTF-8 support in *nix terminals)
From: H. S. Teoh
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Lexicon counting (was: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1...)
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 3:57 am (PDT)
> Feaelin Moilar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've occasionally wondered and only now been motivated to ask, when
> one counts the entries, what do you count?
I have a Word file that I have named the root lexicon. This contains
all the basic roots presently available in Senjecas, including bound
morphemes. The current number is about 1,965. I say "about" because
I have still to reconcile this Word file with the Wiki.frath file.
Then I have the Word file dictionary which contains all these roots
and the compounds made with them. There are currently well over
15,000 words. E.g., the entry under "du," two, contains 42 compounds.
I was recently on a geography kick & began to create names of oceans,
rivers, countries, etc., on the planet. I removed those entries from
the dictionary & made a specialized dictionary for them.
I am going to do the same thing in the near future with zoology &
botany words. This will considerably shorten the dictionary & enable
me to locate these specialized words more quickly.
Charlie
http://wiki.frath.net/senjecas
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Lexicon counting (was: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1...)
Posted by: "Carsten Becker" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 1:48 pm (PDT)
Hi,
From: "Feaelin Moilar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 4:07 AM
>> This has boosted the lexicon to 267 entries.
>
> I've occasionally wondered and only now been motivated to ask, when one
> counts the entries, what do you count? I'm presuming only one form of the
> word (in the situation of conjugation, declensions, and the like) and
> myself I would exclude an whole group of entries in my data that are
> "famous names".
I'm counting my entries like this: I have a database that is
Ayeri -> English at first hand (it's reversible, but then
you haven't got the pronunciation and whatnot for the
English words), so the main entry always an Ayeri word. The
problem is that my database does not accept sub-entries, so
every sub-entry is counted as a new word, e.g.:
tapiao - to put; to set
tapiao dayrin - to save ("to put aside")
tapiao mindoyam - to suggest ("to put forth")
tapiao taran - to switch off ("to set dead")
tapiao teno - to switch on ("to set alive")
Where my German-English dictionary would list all those
entries just under "to put", my database makes a new record
out of all of these (unfortunately). As for names, I keep
them in an extra list, so they are not counted. Common
expressions usually have their own entries as well. There
are not many expressions listed in the dictionary, though,
just a handful. Futhermore, since Ayeri is an agglutinative
language, it has lots of suffixes -- these are also counted
as words, even the ones that only have a syntactical
meaning. If you removed those from the list, you'd still
have something around 1300 words, maybe a little more or
less than that.
Carsten
--
"Miranayam kepauarà naranoaris." (Kalvin nay Hobbes)
Siruena, Ravikan 17, 2315 ya 29:39:24 pd
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Lexicon counting (was: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1...)
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 4:02 pm (PDT)
Hi!
Feaelin Moilar writes:
> > This has boosted the lexicon to 267 entries.
>
> I've occasionally wondered and only now been motivated to ask, when one
> counts the entries, what do you count? I'm presuming only one form of the
> word (in the situation of conjugation, declensions, and the like) and
> myself I would exclude an whole group of entries in my data that are
> "famous names".
I suppose everyone counts differently, so comparison is futile, but
it's fun anyway. :-)
When I enter a word, I count it even if it's a name, since I'm so happy
the lexicon grows and it would be frustrating to not count it...
I never had a name-prominent lexicon, however, so I think it was never
very important to distinguish.
BTW, of course I do not count the inflected forms in the lexicon,
althought they are quite irregular in Þrjótrunn, and they would
probably multiply the number of entries by an easy ten or so. It is
always frustrating to enter a verb because of this -- verbs have just
so many inflected forms!
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Lexicon counting (was: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1...)
Posted by: "Iain E. Davis" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 5:44 pm (PDT)
I hope everyone forgives me for replying to both of you at once. ;)
----------------> Henrik Theiling wrote:
> I suppose everyone counts differently, so comparison is futile, but it's
fun anyway.
Indeed. I look at the count for my list periodically, just to see how I'm
doing. In recent times, it has been painfully slow because I've been lax
about working on Taraitola.
> I'm so happy the lexicon grows and it would be frustrating to not count
it...
*grin*. I understand completely.
> I never had a name-prominent lexicon, however, so I think it
> was never very important to distinguish.
I was forced to clearly distinguish because of the way I generate my
"dictionary" (see below)
> BTW, of course I do not count the inflected forms in the
...[snipped]...
> ten or so. It is always frustrating to enter a verb because of this --
verbs have
> just so many inflected forms!
I, too, only include the infinitive. None of the inflected forms of verbs
are included. There are some things I did include that one could argue are
inflected, such as subjective/objective pronouns, but they are included for
ease of look up in the dictionary.
----------------------> Carsten Becker wrote:
> I'm counting my entries like this: I have a database that is
> Ayeri -> English at first hand (it's reversible, but then you
What software are you using for your database? I use Excel as a flat file
"database" and then use a macro to 'generate' a word document in dictionary
style, if I desire. Which is rare, I prefer to use the spreadsheet for the
advanced filtering, searching, sorting, etc.
> haven't got the pronunciation and whatnot for the English
> words), so the main entry always an Ayeri word. The problem
> is that my database does not accept sub-entries, so every
I have the same issue, although I don't believe Taraitola has any
constructions like tapiao, so it is less of a concern.
> tapiao - to put; to set
> tapiao dayrin - to save ("to put aside")
...[snipped]
Hmm. Since each of those have a distinct meaning, I'd argue that in terms of
counting, you should count them all. :)
> Where my German-English dictionary would list all those
> entries just under "to put", my database makes a new record
> out of all of these (unfortunately).
It probably would. But your English->German dictionary wouldn't, so you
have to make some sacrifices somewhere. :). I have something of the same
problem on the _other_ end. There are words that have distinctions that
English doesn't make. So the 'english word' column/field can potentially
have apparent duplicates. It doesn't matter too much to me, since the more
important field is the 'definition' field. English word is merely for
creating a 'index' of english-->Taraitola words (no meaning or adornment,
just a pointer to the Taraitola word).
> As for names, I keep them in an extra list, so they are not counted.
Common
Which is a reasonable separation. Arguably, when I generate the dictionary,
mine _are_ separated...into Appendix C: Famous People and Places. In my
data, though, the only real difference is that they're flagged as 'C'
entries (for appendix C) instead of 'A' entries.
We did similar things, just different approaches.
> expressions usually have their own entries as well. There are
> not many expressions listed in the dictionary, though, just a
I have very few expressions and in fact, they are all out of date since I've
never revisited them since I completely revised the phonology. They are
stored completely separately, but they may pre-date the spreadsheet...
> handful. Futhermore, since Ayeri is an agglutinative
> language, it has lots of suffixes -- these are also counted
> as words, even the ones that only have a syntactical meaning.
We differ here...as I mentioned to Henrik, I don't list any suffixed forms.
There are some exceptions where some affixes completely change the meaning,
but for the most part, it is only the 'original' form. :)
> If you removed those from the list, you'd still have
> something around 1300 words, maybe a little more or less than that.
Wow.
Our discussion prompted me to add a 'statistics' worksheet, just to see what
I had. I won't bore you with the full details, but a brief look:
916 Entries, 162 of which are "Names"/"Proper Nouns". I need to dig in and
work my way through the swadesh list and all the weekly vocabs I haven't
done yet...:)
Feaelin
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Lexicon counting (was: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1...)
Posted by: "taliesin the storyteller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue Sep 5, 2006 12:25 am (PDT)
* Feaelin Moilar said on 2006-09-04 04:07:53 +0200
> > This has boosted the lexicon to 267 entries.
>
> I've occasionally wondered and only now been motivated to ask, when one
> counts the entries, what do you count? I'm presuming only one form of the
> word (in the situation of conjugation, declensions, and the like) and
> myself I would exclude an whole group of entries in my data that are
> "famous names".
I don't count names or borrowed words. I use Toolbox, so it's easy to
just add a field, or search/count on records not having a field etc.
Names have a \ps (part of speech) of Name, while borrowed words all have
the extra field \bw (borrowing) in its entry.
I do count, and have, all affixes in my dictionary, but words from open classes
are
all only represented by their uninflected form:
- nouns: agentive case, general number
- verbs: first person present continuous indicative
- statives: first person present agentive case
t.
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Taxonomic Vocabulary
Posted by: "And Rosta" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 6:11 am (PDT)
Tasci, On 31/08/2006 22:20:
> Suppose you have a language composed of a discrete, finite set of
> syllables. I was considering the ideal way to construct vocabulary
> for that language. My idea was to divide all concepts into separate
> categories, one for each syllable. Then subcategories would be
> equally subdivided, and subsubcategories and so forth. To identify
> any word in this language, it would only be a search on an O(k *
> log(k)(n)) where log(k) is log base k. That is, you have to know
> what each letter means, then you automatically narrow down the word
> lookup exponentially. It would be like as if every letter beginning
> with 'a' were all related somehow, in a way that all other words are
> not.
>
> It sounds like a great strategy, but I've been having problems with
> the fact that many concepts we think up are very specific. Horse for
> instance. It's a four legged ungulate equiid, an animal mammal that
> eats hay, carries people, has a large bottom, its coat is referred to
> as hide not fur, it has a mane referred to as hair, as in 'horsehair'
> etc etc etc. Just to call a horse a living organism that's a animal
> chordate mammal ungulate equiid Equus equs alone would take 7
> syllables. How would I differentiate the horse from the zebra, from
> the weasel, from the sea squirt, if I tried to limit it to 4
> syllables of specification? That is, a 4-syllable word for living
> organism animal chordate, which is already pretty darn long compared
> to the 1 syllable 'horse'.
>
> What I end up with is an extremely deep and sparse distribution, very
> frustrating because a lot of concepts like other non-horse members of
> genus Equus, do not even exist! Certainly they're not found in common
> conversation. Should I just randomly determine vocabulary? It'd be
> an even spread, but it would be a lot harder to remember if xrbtsx is
> horse and xrblsx is desk lamp for instance.
You describe the standard problems with taxonomic vocabularies, but I am of the
minority opinion that these problems can be well circumvented if approached the
right way. Suppose you have 60 syllables. Other things being equal, this gives
you a taxonomic tree where each node supports 60 branches. Then you need to
slot your concepts into this taxonomy, following the principle that a concept
can be assigned to a form of n syllables only when all forms of n-1 syllables
have been assigned concepts. That solves the deep-and-sparse problem. But it
does mean that you can't work from standard language-independent
quasi-scientific taxonomies.
If I were implementing such a scheme, I'd divide the syllables into two
classes, one that are always word-nonfinal and have taxonomic import, and one
that are always word-final and don't have taxonomic import. That would give you
self-segmentation and allow words of any number of syllables. Reserve one
syllable from the set of finals to mark genericity. E.g. if 'baso' is 'green'
and 'bate' is 'red' and 'ka' is the genericity marker, then 'baka' would be
'colour'.
--And.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Taxonomic Vocabulary
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 3:41 pm (PDT)
Hi!
And Rosta writes:
>...
> You describe the standard problems with taxonomic vocabularies, but
> I am of the minority opinion that these problems can be well
> circumvented if approached the right way. Suppose you have 60
> syllables. Other things being equal, this gives you a taxonomic tree
> where each node supports 60 branches. Then you need to slot your
> concepts into this taxonomy, following the principle that a concept
> can be assigned to a form of n syllables only when all forms of n-1
> syllables have been assigned concepts. That solves the
> deep-and-sparse problem. But it does mean that you can't work from
> standard language-independent quasi-scientific taxonomies.
>...
The problem I still see here is when to decide that your n-level tree
is 'full' and you need another level. In principle, the 'standard'
approach to create taxonomic vocab does not produce any empty paths
*in principle*, but only in practice. I.e., you could go down any
path in your taxonomic tree and get some meaning, only it is probably
quite unlikely that all longer words are really used so most paths of
length n are probably not to be translated when a dictionary for, say,
English would be written.
I think in short I want to say: I don't yet understand the difference
of your technique.
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Nimrina colors updated
Posted by: "Javier BF" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 6:21 am (PDT)
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 22:14:52 -0500, Herman Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Javier BF wrote:
>> What do you mean by "quantifiable way" to pick the colors?
>
>Some kind of scale that would allow me to specify a color as some
>arbitrary fraction of the distance between two of the four main colors
>(red and yellow, for instance), such that any step of the same size on
>the scale would be perceived as about the same difference in hue. Having
>a standard definition for the four basic colors would also be nice.
I see. I don't know if there is some program that converts between RGB
and NCS; I think that would be the closest to what you are looking for. But
read below.
>I think I've got the basic colors pretty close to where I want them to be,
>but there's still some room for adjustment. Yellow seems closer to green
>than any of the other basic colors are to each other, but if I push
>yallow and green apart much further, the yellow starts to have more of
>an orange hue to it and the green starts looking bluish.
The biggest problem with trying to codify perceptual colors to be displayed
on an RGB screen is that the actual appearance of one same RGB code can vary
greatly due to many factors (such as the calibration of the monitor, the
lighting conditions and the surrounding colors). For example, on my current
screen (an LCD-type display), the red on the Nimrina color chart looks
pinkish, the green looks light and bluish, and the yellow a bit too dark;
only the blue looks pretty close to what I would call pure blue. On another
screen these appearances may vary. And even one same light under the same
viewing conditions might look definitely pure blue to me while not so purely
blue to someone else. Colors are subjective perceptions, and also not
everyone's eyes are internally "calibrated" the same, because there is some
degree of genetic variation in the photorreceptors, so that their peak of
sensitivity may vary slightly from person to person, or greatly in the case
of so-called "anomalous" trichromats.
This doesn't mean it is entirely impossible to have a standard definition of
the elementary colors. The NCS attempts to do that: you can have some
standard samples that, when viewed under precise lighting and environmental
conditions, most people report to perceive as looking like "the purest red",
"the purest yellow", etc.; but for some other people, like "anomalous"
trichromats (let alone dichromats, and who knows about tetrachromats), as
well as when under non-standard viewing conditions, the colors on those same
samples may no longer appear to look so "pure".
RGB defines colors merely in terms of wavelength compositions, disregarding
the actual appearance. That is, unlike the NCS standard, the RGB standard
doesn't actually try to define colors (which are highly voluble constructs
of the brain, and not physically definable properties). Instead, it contents
itself with defining only proportions between light frequencies, that may
prompt different color perceptions in the brains of different persons and
under different environmental and viewing conditions, but that are easy to
standardize in terms of physical properties.
My advice: Do not try to define your colors in terms of appearances on some
computer image, but instead define them verbally in terms of their
perceptual compositions (how something "should look like" for it to be said
to be that color). This is actually how colors are defined in natural
languages: English blue is not defined as the color on some standard sample,
and neither as some defined light frequency (as some dictionaries try to
do), but instead each speaker has an internal idea of what the elementary
percept blue "looks like" (an idea acquired through visual experience, which
a born-blind person doesn't have access to and so doesn't know what blue
actually "looks like"), and when some object under some lighting condition
appears to prompt that elementary color perception in their brains, they say
that object "is blue" or "looks blue". Given this essentially subjective
nature of colors, it is not surprising different people may argue about what
color something "is".
For example, one can define the whole range of English "brown" as
conceptually comprising the composite colors that look perceptually composed
of red or yellow or red+yellow mixed with black or black+white (the typical
or "focal" brown being red+yellow+black at about equal proportions). Purple
could be defined as the composite colors looking blue+red, optionally
+black, and optionally +white (except in those combinations where red
dominates over blue, in which the addition of white would make them belong
under the label "pink"). You may then try to draw sample computer images to
illustrate what you have previously defined verbally (i.e., conceptually),
but including the necessary caveats to clarify that the particular
appearance of that image may not look as intended on different screens.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Nimrina colors updated
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 1:40 pm (PDT)
Javier BF wrote:
> My advice: Do not try to define your colors in terms of appearances on some
> computer image, but instead define them verbally in terms of their
> perceptual compositions (how something "should look like" for it to be said
> to be that color). This is actually how colors are defined in natural
> languages: English blue is not defined as the color on some standard sample,
> and neither as some defined light frequency (as some dictionaries try to
> do), but instead each speaker has an internal idea of what the elementary
> percept blue "looks like" (an idea acquired through visual experience, which
> a born-blind person doesn't have access to and so doesn't know what blue
> actually "looks like"), and when some object under some lighting condition
> appears to prompt that elementary color perception in their brains, they say
> that object "is blue" or "looks blue". Given this essentially subjective
> nature of colors, it is not surprising different people may argue about what
> color something "is".
Obviously monitors differ in the way they display colors. On the other
hand, seeing a color is a more direct way of creating a color perception
than describing it in words. In particular, having the main color words
illustrated on a chart, where you can compare one color with another and
see how they differ, is very conveninent.
Technically, you could say that "tavla" is the color that I perceive
when I look at the lowest circle on the Nimrina color chart on my
monitor. I might see a different color on another monitor, depending on
how it is calibrated. The gray background should help to compensate for
variations in color temperature. (If the background doesn't look
perfectly neutral gray, nothing else will look right either.) Someone
else could look at the "tavla" sample on my monitor and think that it
doesn't look "green" to them. I could just say "tavla" = "green" and
leave it at that. Nimrina speakers are close enough to human that they
probably perceive similar colors. But if I want a better definition of
specifically what kind of "green" is considered the most basic or
prototypical "tavla", English words are inadequate.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Re: Kalusa conlang in review - is it working?
Posted by: "Iain E. Davis" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 8:57 am (PDT)
> I started generating the dictionary by hand and then realized
> I couldn't keep up with it that way, so I put it on my To-Do
> list to generate it programmatically. About that time I got a
> new job that has been occupying a lot of my time and I
> haven't gotten around to getting it done yet, so the
> dictionary is hopelessly obsolete at the moment.
I understand completely! I have similar issues due to resuming a degree
program after a 10 year hiatus...in fact, I should be studying right now!
I'll take any other questions I have to the Kalusa mailing list, I hadn't
realized there was one when I sent my earlier message. :)
Iain
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. TECH: Russian handwriting font
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 12:54 pm (PDT)
I'm looking for a Russian handwriting font.
It is important that it look like actual handwriting
rather than like hand-drawn block letters. Preferably
it should look neither too formal or too distorted,
and it is of course good if it is free, although the
latter is no absolute requirement, seeing how hard
it is to find anything along these lines on the
internet.
TIA,
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
"Maybe" is a strange word. When mum or dad says it
it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
means "no"!
(Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)
--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
"Maybe" is a strange word. When mum or dad says it
it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
means "no"!
(Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: TECH: Russian handwriting font
Posted by: "Paul Bennett" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 2:46 pm (PDT)
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:34:44 -0400, H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On my Linux machine, the Postscript fonts for Century Schoolbook L [URW]
> uses handwritten glyphs when italicized, and printed glyphs when
> non-italic. AFAIK, this font should be free (in the Open Source sense).
> However, it's a Postscript font and not TTF, so if you're on Windows
> this probably doesn't help you.
It may surprise you to know this, but XP and 2k3 (and I think a version or
two earlier than that) have Type 1 (and maybe Type 3?) font support built
in. Examining the history of OpenType and TrueType may shed light on why,
for the curious.
Ever since Windows 3.11 there has been a renderer available from Adobe for
Windows for free. For XP, it simply adds a little functionality to the
built-in renderer.
I *think* the built-in Postscript font renderer in Vista will have 100%
functionality, but there's a clear technology-lead movement towards
selling OpenType.
Paul
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. Re: TECH: Russian handwriting font
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 2:51 pm (PDT)
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 08:25:45PM +0200, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> I'm looking for a Russian handwriting font. It is important that it
> look like actual handwriting rather than like hand-drawn block
> letters.
I presume this means using 'm' (the glyph that looks like 'm') for /t/,
and the mirror-image 's' for /g/, etc.?
> Preferably it should look neither too formal or too distorted, and it
> is of course good if it is free, although the latter is no absolute
> requirement, seeing how hard it is to find anything along these lines
> on the internet.
[...]
On my Linux machine, the Postscript fonts for Century Schoolbook L [URW]
uses handwritten glyphs when italicized, and printed glyphs when
non-italic. AFAIK, this font should be free (in the Open Source sense).
However, it's a Postscript font and not TTF, so if you're on Windows
this probably doesn't help you.
T
--
Without outlines, life would be pointless.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
5d. Re: TECH: Russian handwriting font
Posted by: "Jean-François Colson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 10:00 pm (PDT)
----- Original Message -----
From: "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: TECH: Russian handwriting font
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 08:25:45PM +0200, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
>> I'm looking for a Russian handwriting font. It is important that it
>> look like actual handwriting rather than like hand-drawn block
>> letters.
>
> I presume this means using 'm' (the glyph that looks like 'm') for /t/,
> and the mirror-image 's' for /g/, etc.?
>
>
>> Preferably it should look neither too formal or too distorted, and it
>> is of course good if it is free, although the latter is no absolute
>> requirement, seeing how hard it is to find anything along these lines
>> on the internet.
> [...]
>
> On my Linux machine, the Postscript fonts for Century Schoolbook L [URW]
> uses handwritten glyphs when italicized, and printed glyphs when
> non-italic. AFAIK, this font should be free (in the Open Source sense).
> However, it's a Postscript font and not TTF, so if you're on Windows
> this probably doesn't help you.
For Win XP, there're the TrueType fonts Century Schoolbook (without the
"L"), Times New Roman and, for Russian only, Arial.
Here is a sample: http://users.skynet.be/fa597525/Cyritalic.jpg
>
>
> T
>
> --
> Without outlines, life would be pointless.
>
> __________ Information NOD32 1.1739 (20060904) __________
>
> Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System.
> http://www.nod32.com
>
>
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1 (repost #1)
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 3:27 pm (PDT)
Hi!
Carsten Becker writes:
>...
> >> 2. werewolf / lycanthrope of some variety
>
> ayvengaryo (lit. "wolf-man")
>...
Interesting. Did you have a particular reason to decide to reverse
the typical order for compounding? All the languages in which I know
the word 'werewolf' compound it as 'man-wolf'.
I always intuitionally thought 'wolf-man' would be more sensible, so I
wonder whether you thought the same.
When translating it a few days ago, I still sticked to the order all
the other languages I know use.
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
6b. Re: Weekly Vocab #1.1.1 (repost #1)
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 7:42 pm (PDT)
> Carsten Becker writes:
> >...
> > >> 2. werewolf / lycanthrope of some variety
> >
> > ayvengaryo (lit. "wolf-man")
> >...
Hmm, OK-- the Kash counterpart would be _ticandi_ [ti'tSandi] 'moon-cousin'
ult. < tiça 'cousin' + tandi 'moon'. It is believed that some people turn
into one of these ravening beasts when _both_ moons are full. In Kash
folklore they are considered to be suffering from some ancient curse, but
it's a pitiable condition, and the right kind words/thoughts might subdue a
ticandi and avert the danger. In Gwr folklore, of course, they are much
feared-- one more reason not to go into the forest.
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7. Re: Syntactic differences within parts of speech
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 3:47 pm (PDT)
Hi!
Philip Newton writes:
>...
> However, my rusty Japanese interprets "kinou sakana-o katta-no-wa ii"
> as "my buying the fish yesterday was good/a good thing" -- that is,
> having "no" refer to the action rather than to the object. Though that
> might be interference from sentences with verb+"koto", now that I
> think about it -- "kinou sakana-o katta-koto-wa ii".
The IHRCs in Japanese and Korean are underspecified as to which
argument the 'no' refers. Here, there's only 'sakana' so I suppose
there's no ambiguity. If you have both subject and object the
situation might be confusing. (OTOH, the situation is not worse than
normal Japanese dropping every 'superfluous' pronoun anyway.)
I think the 'no'-construction cannot refer to the verb. My knowledge
about this, however, is from linguistical papers, not from classes or
experience of Japanese so I have no intuition whatsoever.
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (28)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8a. Re: Vertical script (was: UTF-8 support in *nix terminals)
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 4:01 pm (PDT)
Hi!
Remi Villatel writes:
>...
> In action, it looks like this:
> http://home.tele2.fr/mxls/images/bli/story.png
>...
Wow, it looks very nice!
**Henrik
PS: Beware of Brittanie claiming it is hers... :-)
Messages in this topic (28)
________________________________________________________________________
8b. Re: Vertical script (was: UTF-8 support in *nix terminals)
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Sep 4, 2006 5:34 pm (PDT)
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 04:11:53PM +0200, Remi Villatel wrote:
> On Saturday 02 September 2006 00:02, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
> > Speaking of fonts, has anyone experimented with purely vertical
> > writing systems? (I.e., one where you simply *cannot* write
> > horizontally without severely crippling the system.) Even better,
> > has anyone gotten vertical writing to actually *work* in an
> > application, say your browser?
>
> Two of the Shaquelingua's scripts are vertical: an alphabetical one
> and a syllabical one. So far, I have a page only for the vertical
> alphabet:
>
> http://home.tele2.fr/mxls/cakesar/vert-alpha.html
>
> It needs improvement but you got the general idea.
>
> Just for fun I also drew an ornamental syllabary:
> http://home.tele2.fr/mxls/images/bli/syllabary.png
Wow, this is nice.
> It's name is /BlitayI/ [b4itaHi]:
> http://home.tele2.fr/mxls/images/bli/blitayi.png
>
> In action, it looks like this:
> http://home.tele2.fr/mxls/images/bli/story.png
This is very nice! I like the calligraphic strokes. Very pretty. Tatari
Faran's prospective script is unfortunately a lot squarer. (But haven't
worked out enough details to show off any samples yet.)
> So far, I haven't seen any application supporting vertical scripts
> natively. The trick I used was to designed the font as an horizontal
> one and, in the DTP program, I just turned the text frame 1/4 of turn
> to the right so the content appears as intended. The DTP program I use
> even allows me to type vertically. That's disturbing... but fun!
[...]
Heh.
T
--
They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work. -- Russian saying
Messages in this topic (28)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
