There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: R A Brown
1.2. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: Herman Miller
1.3. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: Lars Finsen
1.4. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: Jim Henry
1.5. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: Jim Henry
1.6. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
1.7. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: Andreas Johansson
1.8. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1.9. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
1.10. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: Mark J. Reed
1.11. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
From: R A Brown
2a. YAEPT: [D]/[T] (< Sibilants)
From: Dana Nutter
3a. Phonology - Allophone presentation?
From: Aidan Grey
3b. Re: Phonology - Allophone presentation?
From: Dirk Elzinga
3c. Re: Phonology - Allophone presentation?
From: Aidan Grey
3d. Re: Phonology - Allophone presentation?
From: ROGER MILLS
4a. Re: Sibilants
From: David McCann
4b. Re: Sibilants
From: Tristan McLeay
4c. Re: Sibilants
From: Henrik Theiling
4d. Re: Sibilants
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
5a. Re: Tonal inflection?
From: Dana Nutter
5b. Re: Tonal inflection?
From: Jim Henry
6a. Re: Vowel length near-minimal pairs in Tirelat
From: Herman Miller
7a. Re: "Register" a grammatical term
From: Eldin Raigmore
8. Social deixis, familiarity, etc.
From: Eldin Raigmore
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:42 am ((PDT))
Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> On 2008-08-20 Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> Milan and Turin come down to us from Latin
>
> Not really. They are North Italian forms, and hence probably closer
> to the local pronunciation, than Milano and Torino which are
> Central/Tuscan/Standard Italian forms. The Latin names were
> Mediolanum and Taurinum.
Exactly! Italy was not a united country until comparatively recently. It
would, methinks, have been very perverse if centuries ago the English
had decided to disregard the native names of these two ancient cities
and to give them names in a language which would one day become the
official language of the country in which they happen to find themselves
in the 20th & 21st centuries!
There have been so many erroneous statements or half truths in this
somewhat (to me) tedious thread. Personally I do *not* find it offensive
that French people call the capital city of my country 'Londres', or the
Spanish call it 'Londra'. But then, I guess, I have a sense of history.
Besides, if one must keep updating and use the current native name, what
happens (as some have already asked) in bilingual situations? If I'm
speaking English, I call the capital of Wales 'Cardiff' but if I'm
speaking Welsh I call it 'Caerdydd'. So what should the 'politically'
correct foreigner call it when speaking his/her L1?
Must I stop calling the capital of Belgium 'Brussels' (rhyming with
'rustles')? If so, when I'm speaking _English_ should I use the French
_Bruxelles_ or the Dutch/Flemish _Brussel_? Wouldn't a Belgian be likely
assume that by dropping the traditional English name and adopting one of
the native names I was showing either pro-Walloon or pro-Flemish bias?
Need
This is all just silly. Please, francophones, continue calling my
capital city 'Londres', and you, hispanophones, carry on with your
'Londra'. Respect your languages and keep a sense a history!
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (132)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:18 pm ((PDT))
Lars Finsen wrote:
> I think I could tell you, too, without offending, that between
> ourselves, we foreigners sometimes have our own laughs at the ways in
> which you English-speakers pronounce our names. I think it's like I
> said, that you are handicapped due to the difference in phonetics, and
> that carelessness isn't that much a part of it. Your ['azloU] is rather
> a lot more different from the local pronunciation of Oslo than what you
> find in most other languages. (In fact the local pronunciation is more
> like ['u²Slu] - if I can use a "²" for toneme 2. A retracted s before l
> is the norm in the east, where Oslo is situated.) But it is noticeable
> that Britons tend to do better with European names than Americans do,
> and the other way around with Asian names for example. Europeans in
> general often do well in pronouncing each others' names, but have
> problems with Chinese or Australian native names, for example.
Thanks for the example. Ušlu would work in both Tirelat ['uSlu] and
Minza ['us`lu], although Tirelat might assimilate the l to a voiceless
fricative (Ušłu). I think this is one of many examples where the English
name of a city differs from its local name (e.g., Munich vs. München,
Naples vs. Napoli), only in this case, they happen to be spelled the
same. :-)
Messages in this topic (132)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "Lars Finsen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 6:54 am ((PDT))
Den 21. aug. 2008 kl. 02.17 skreiv Herman Miller:
> Thanks for the example. Ušlu would work in both Tirelat ['uSlu] and
> Minza ['us`lu], although Tirelat might assimilate the l to a
> voiceless fricative (Ušłu). I think this is one of many examples
> where the English name of a city differs from its local name (e.g.,
> Munich vs. München, Naples vs. Napoli), only in this case, they
> happen to be spelled the same. :-)
I think it's rather a case of borrowing the written form and guessing
its pronunciation based on the English pronunciation rules. The city
has been known as Oslo only since 1925. Oslo was the name of a small
town to the east of the present city centre, briefly used as a
capital by the last Norwegian kings from around 1300. It gradually
fell into disuse, but from 1624, the Danish king Christian IV had a
new town built 2 kms to the west and made it his Norwegian residence,
naming it after himself. The old Oslo now is well inside the city
limits, but largely unbuilt, regulated as a park with ruins of the
old town. After independence and inspired by the 300th anniversary,
they decided to adopt the old name, which probably had been forgotten
completely in the world outside by then.
Den 20. aug. 2008 kl. 19.03 skreiv ROGER MILLS:
>
> The phonetics of other languages I think present plenty of problems
> when their speakers go to learn English--our /T, D, @, r\ / and the
> contrast between /i I, e E, u U/ are major stumbling blocks.
Especially the latter, I think. You won't easily find any foreigner
catching a hold of those contrasts right away.
> Nativized forms of many well-known place names exist and are of
> long standing. What do Norwegians call Moscow? Not [moskva] I'll
> wager.
You just lost a wager. It's pretty common here to stress the first
syllable, but when we do, there's often someone nearby who will jump
in to correct us.
The Russians themselves actually pronounce the vowels differently. I
wouldn't venture to put ut the actual CXS for it.
I don't want to abolish nativisation. I'm just commenting that I
think it's overdone in the English-speaking world, to an extent that
to me seems ridiculous, and the only reason I'm doing it is because
there are so many defending the practice.
It's barely on-topic, so I won't say much after this. But I am
considering how my Urianians are doing nativisation. They have been
around since before the Roman empire, and many foreign names have
been known to them since those days. They probably still use some of
them, but others may have been replaced after having become
unrecognisable.
There is, by the way, one language that nativises even more weirdly
than English: the Welsh.
Dana Nutter wrote:
>> quoting David McCann
>> ... People who'd never sully their tongues with Bombay
>> are still content with Athens and Copenhagen. Political correctness
>> strikes again?
>
> I'd have no problem with "Athina" or "Kuppenhaun".
What about "København"? For the proper CXS of this you must ask the
other Lars (Lars_1), but it may be something like /k9Bnh{un/ or even /
k9wnh{un/ if the 9 rounds the following sound.
> I think a part of this has to do with orthography. For some
> reason we take foreign names in Roman script and retain the
> spelling so we tend to pronounce them based upon their spelling.
> Maybe we should start altering the spellings to make the
> pronunciation easier. We could start writing "Ushlu" instead of
> "Oslo"?
Yes, and then maybe not.
One main reason for the weirdness of many of the nativisations in
English of course is that the names and things are borrowed in their
written form and the pronunciation guessed on the basis of that. What
if "burrito" had been borrowed only as hearsay, how would you write
it in English? "Britto"?
Written borrowings are the norm in our days of high alphabetisation.
We are doing the same here, but the Norwegian phonetics aren't that
different from the Spanish. Still there are some changes. The usual
way to pronounce the word here is /b}r'itu/. Pretty bad? But at
least, the second syllable stress is kept.
> Vowel reduction in English is probably the thing
> that will alter the pronunciation the most.
I would say diphthongisation does a lot, too.
Den 20. aug. 2008 kl. 16.07 skreiv David McCann:
> This seems a very Anglo-Saxon thing. I've got a German book on the
> shelves nearby that consistently uses Libau, Dünaburg, Wenden, etc
> for
> Liepāja, Daugavpils, and Cēsis (Latvia) and I'm sure it's authors
> didn't
> feel guilty.
Well, the Germans perhaps are even more notorious than the English
for having their own names for everything. Many of the German names
were borrowed into Scandinavian, too, but have since been replaced.
We formerly used Prag for Praha, for example, and Neapel for Napoli.
But when you go to the Baltic, many of the towns if I remember right
were actually built by the Germans and the German names were the
original ones. Not sure about those you mention, however.
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> quoting me:
>> If a Hispanic TV presenter actually is bilingual, I think it must
>> feel the most natural for him to pronounce his name the way it was
>> given to him,
>
> If they were raised in a bilingual environment, they probably feel
> equally natural with both pronunciations of their name and
> automatically use the appropriate one in context;
Well, don't you think the fact that their names actually are Spanish
could lead to a natural inclination for the Spanish pronunciation?
Still I think it's likely a conscious "affectation".
> But even disregarding that, I don't think the sound set of English is
> the problem so much as the lack of exposure to sounds outside that
> set. Europeans hear a lot more languages than we do in everyday life,
> I'd wager. Without such exposure at a young age, you lose the ability
> to hear and make distinctions that aren't in your L1, and the end
> result is that no matter how open-minded and sincerely interested in
> learning you are, you may not be able to sound much better than Peggy
> Hill's Spanish
Yes, that's a good point, too. I've heard it mentioned elsewhere as
well.
> (PH is a character on "King of the Hill", who speaks
> fluent Spanish, but with a terrible Texas accent. [bweInoUs '[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> [k_hoUmoU Es'ta ustejEd]?)
That sounds interesting indeed....
I think I may have seen that show listed in some channel listing some
place hereabouts. Maybe I should take a look. Our commercial channels
buy a lot of second hand American serials. If the character was
introduced not more than 4-5 years ago, maybe I should wait for a
couple of seasons.
LEF
Messages in this topic (132)
________________________________________________________________________
1.4. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 7:12 am ((PDT))
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Lars Finsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> Now, there are cases where the standard English name is very different
>> from the native one, and it might eliminate some confusion if we
>> adopted the latter - the whole Georgia (country) vs Georgia (US state)
>> thing comes to mind. But even there, if we did adopt the native name,
>> it'd still be Anglicized to something like [EMAIL PROTECTED]'vEloU].
> Anyhow, I guess Georgia, the country, is known as Georgia in just about
> every language in the world.
It's "Kartvelio" in Esperanto. While looking at the Esperanto Wikipedia
article I moused along the list of interwiki links in the left column; for
almost every language with Latin or Cyrillic writing, the name is cognate
to "Georgia", though there are a fair number along the lines of Vietnamese
"Gruzia". I found three other languages where the name is cognate
to "Kartvelio":
http://qu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kartulsuyu
(Quechua, I think)
http://zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakartvelo
(Minnan)
http://ab.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D2%9A%D1%8B%D1%80%D2%AD%D1%82%D3%99%D1%8B%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%90%D2%B3%D3%99%D1%8B%D0%BD%D2%AD%D2%9B%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%80%D0%B0
(Abkhaz?)
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (132)
________________________________________________________________________
1.5. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 7:19 am ((PDT))
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Eugene Oh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> know Norwegian). It's not about English pronunciations. Tell the Japanese,
> who say [4osandzerMsM] (L.A.), or [herMSinki] (Helsinki, approximately),
> and, like Henrik pointed out, get referred to as Japan, Geppun, Rìběn, Ilbon
> all over the world but not Nihon. Or should we get around to talking about
> Ellada and Bharat, or Misr?
I agree with you and Mark about use of names adapted to the target
languages' phonology, especially when they're long established
by tradition. In auxlangs and engelangs, though, I tend to favor
adapting names
from the native form even if a different form is more more
widespread internationally. In Esperanto I think I hear "Baratio" a little
more often than "Hindio" and "Suomio" almost as often as "Finnlando";
similarly I usually use names adapted from the native languages to
gzb phonology for {nihoŋ-wam, ejr-wam, bharat-wam}. (The phonotactic
rules are relaxed vis-a-vis foreign names, at least w.r.t. spelling, maybe
not quite as much w.r.t pronunciation.) For multilingual countries
I haven't got a consistent solution yet; Switzerland is {helwetika-wam},
from the Latin name of the country, Confederatio Helvetica.
A few country names (and a couple of conlang names) are translated
calques of the name's original meaning, e.g. {lîpur-wam} "Spain",
lit. "lagomorph-country" from Phoenician 'i-shephan-im'. The U.S.A. has
inconsistently been {usa-wam} or more often {usonia-wam}.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang/fluency-survey.html
Conlang fluency survey -- there's still time to participate before
I analyze the results and write the article
Messages in this topic (132)
________________________________________________________________________
1.6. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 7:40 am ((PDT))
On 2008-08-21 Lars Finsen wrote:
> > If they were raised in a bilingual
> > environment, they probably feel equally
> > natural with both pronunciations of their name
> > and automatically use the appropriate one in
> > context;
>
> Well, don't you think the fact that their names
> actually are Spanish could lead to a natural
> inclination for the Spanish pronunciation?
>
> Still I think it's likely a conscious
> "affectation".
>
I don't know. These people are first generation
immigrants and still fully bilingual. I'm sure
that first generation German, Scandinavian or
Slavic immigrants also were wont to pronounce
their surnames at least more as they had in their
L1s than their third generation descendants who
didn't know their grandparents' L1 any more and
adopt a more fully Anglicized pronunciation. Then
there are of course always those who consciously
adopt an Anglicized version early on (or had one
foisted on them at Ellis Island!) as when Svensson
> Swanson, Klein > Cline (which incidentally
preserves the spelling at the price of altered
spelling and meaning).
You get both kinds over here too. Once on the
tram I overheard two teenagers, presumably second
or third generation Turks, discussing the best
Swedish pronunciation of the name Selcuk (approx.
[sEldZuk] in Turkish). The one who was the bearer
of the name insisted in the pure pronunciation,
but the other one argued that Swedes would
degrade it into [selj8k] and he further argued
that since the syllable [j8k] has obscene
connotations in Swedish his friend Selcuk
shouldn't resist the "Swedish" pronunciation
['sels\8k]. Maybe his grandchildren in turn will
change the spelling to Selchuck, but needless to
say young Selcuk stood by his pronunciation, and
thereby, I suspect, his identity.
I don't object when English speakers pronounce my
surname ['[EMAIL PROTECTED] or ['[EMAIL PROTECTED], but I always
pronounce it ['juns:on] myself, because that's who
I am. Not everybody feel that way, but please
don't ridicule us who do!
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient
à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil
ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*,
c'est qu'elles meurent." (Victor Hugo)
Messages in this topic (132)
________________________________________________________________________
1.7. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "Andreas Johansson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 7:42 am ((PDT))
Quoting Lars Finsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
> Well, the Germans perhaps are even more notorious than the English
> for having their own names for everything. Many of the German names
> were borrowed into Scandinavian, too, but have since been replaced.
> We formerly used Prag for Praha, for example, and Neapel for Napoli.
I guess by "we" you mean Norwegians, because Neapel and Prag are still the usual
forms in Swedish.
However, the German forms have largely been replaced with local ones for cities
and places in Poland and Balticum, and indeed most places in Czechia apart from
Prague. The pattern of where traditional forms have been kept or replaced seems
fairly arbitrary - notable areas of persistence are Italy and the Middle East.
Even where local spellings are used, pronunciation is almost invariably
swedishized, even when, as in the case of many English or American cities, the
local one is well known to most Swedes.
--
Andreas Johansson
Messages in this topic (132)
________________________________________________________________________
1.8. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 7:59 am ((PDT))
Lars Finsen writes:
>> Mark Reed wrote:
>> (P[eggy] H[ill] is a character on "King of
>> the Hill", who speaks fluent Spanish, but
>> with a terrible Texas accent. [bweInoUs
>> '[EMAIL PROTECTED] [k_hoUmoU Es'ta ustejEd]?)
>
> That sounds interesting indeed....
> I think I may have seen that show listed in
> some channel listing some place hereabouts.
> Maybe I should take a look. Our commercial
> channels buy a lot of second hand American
> serials. If the character was introduced
> not more than 4-5 years ago, maybe I should
> wait for a couple of seasons.
"King of the Hill" is an animated sit-com about
Hank Hill and his wife Peggy and son Bobby. They
live in a very middle-class neighborhood in a
suburban town in Texas. So PH has been on the
show from the beginning. (Although it's animated,
there is none of the wild, unrealistic plots
such as those on the "Simpsons.")
--Ph. D.
Messages in this topic (132)
________________________________________________________________________
1.9. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:09 am ((PDT))
Mark J. Reed skrev:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> I don't object when English speakers pronounce my
>> surname ['[EMAIL PROTECTED] or ['[EMAIL PROTECTED], but I always
>> pronounce it ['juns:on] myself, because that's who
>> I am.
>
> Sure, but if you lived in an English-speaking area, would you continue
> that practice? It's all about the degree of integration. As a
> foreign traveller I don't mind being [ma`r\k r\i:d] whatever the
> language, but if I were living in a Spanish-speaking country I'm
> pretty sure I'd start calling myself [ma4kos r:iD_}] eventually.
Quite likely. I became Benedikt/Bensi quite rapidly on
Iceland, and my surname acquired an extra acute accent
even, or especially, at the bank. But being the verbal
thinker I am I might change the spelling of my surname
to Ewenson if I moved to an English-speaking country! ;-)
/BP
Messages in this topic (132)
________________________________________________________________________
1.10. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:11 am ((PDT))
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I don't object when English speakers pronounce my
> surname ['[EMAIL PROTECTED] or ['[EMAIL PROTECTED], but I always
> pronounce it ['juns:on] myself, because that's who
> I am.
Sure, but if you lived in an English-speaking area, would you continue
that practice? It's all about the degree of integration. As a
foreign traveller I don't mind being [ma`r\k r\i:d] whatever the
language, but if I were living in a Spanish-speaking country I'm
pretty sure I'd start calling myself [ma4kos r:iD_}] eventually.
--
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (132)
________________________________________________________________________
1.11. Re: Beijing, Zhongguo, etc.
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:23 am ((PDT))
Lars Finsen wrote:
> Den 21. aug. 2008 kl. 02.17 skreiv Herman Miller:
>
>> Thanks for the example. Ušlu would work in both Tirelat ['uSlu] and
>> Minza ['us`lu], although Tirelat might assimilate the l to a voiceless
>> fricative (Ušłu). I think this is one of many examples where the
>> English name of a city differs from its local name (e.g., Munich vs.
>> München, Naples vs. Napoli), only in this case, they happen to be
>> spelled the same. :-)
>
> I think it's rather a case of borrowing the written form and guessing
> its pronunciation based on the English pronunciation rules. The city has
> been known as Oslo only since 1925.
Maybe in the case of 'Oslo' - but it should certainly _not_ be assumed
that is always (or even usually) the case. For example, the modern
English pronunciation of 'Paris' is *not* due to spelling pronunciation.
the borrowing was made centuries ago when the final -s was pronounced in
French. Since then both English & French have developed in their own
ways and the name has shared in the development; neither the modern
French nor the modern English pronunciation reflects the native
pronunciation at the time of borrowing.
Nor is it true that anglophones give pronunciation based _English_
rules. The most common pronunciation of Beijing that I hear on the
British media pronounces the medial _j_ as [Z] - and judging by one
email I read in this thread, this is not unknown on the other side of
the Pond. These people are giving the _j_ the *French* pronunciation
because "It's a _foreign_ word, in'it?"
[snip]
>
> Den 20. aug. 2008 kl. 19.03 skreiv ROGER MILLS:
[snip]
>> Nativized forms of many well-known place names exist and are of long
>> standing. What do Norwegians call Moscow? Not [moskva] I'll wager.
>
> You just lost a wager. It's pretty common here to stress the first
> syllable, but when we do, there's often someone nearby who will jump in
> to correct us.
Bully for the Norwegians!
The question bilingual nations (and the multilingual Swiss) has been
raised a few times in this thread. So what do the Norwegians do in such
cases? What do they call the capitals of Wales (Caerdydd _or_ Cardiff)
or of Belgium (Brussel _or_ Bruxelles), and how do they pronounce them?
> It's barely on-topic,
True.
[snip]
>
> There is, by the way, one language that nativises even more weirdly than
> English: the Welsh.
I suspect Mandarin will nativize even more weirdly.
[snip]
>
>> This seems a very Anglo-Saxon thing. I've got a German book on the
>> shelves nearby that consistently uses Libau, Dünaburg, Wenden, etc for
>> Liepāja, Daugavpils, and Cēsis (Latvia) and I'm sure it's authors didn't
>> feel guilty.
>
> Well, the Germans perhaps are even more notorious than the English for
> having their own names for everything.
Are they 'worse' than the Welsh, or not so 'bad'?
> Many of the German names were
> borrowed into Scandinavian, too, but have since been replaced. We
> formerly used Prag for Praha, for example, and Neapel for Napoli.
...and, presumably, give the _h_ in Praha a voiced pronunciation as in
Czech.
You'll be pleased to hear that Livorno is (almost) always its modern
Italian spelling nowadays - indeed the older 'Leghorn' would not be
recognized by many moderns. For centuries we pronounced the final -s in
'Calais' (as it was pronounced when the city was ruled by English
monarchs ;) But now a Frenchified pronunciation is the norm in Britain
- indeed, anyone pronouncing the way it was still said a century or so
back would now be considered ignorant. So there is still hope for us
anglophones :)
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]
Messages in this topic (132)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. YAEPT: [D]/[T] (< Sibilants)
Posted by: "Dana Nutter" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:45 am ((PDT))
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ROGER MILLS
> >"We investigated 28 native Californian college students and
28 British
> >university students and staff⦠Nearly 90% of the
Californian speakers
> >produced θ ⦠with the tip of the tongue protruded between
the teethâ¦
> >Only 10% of the British speakers made the sound this way; 90%
of them
> >used an articulation with the tip of the tongue behind the
upper front
> >teeth."
> >
> >J. C. Catford, who worked in Michegan, only described the
dental
> >articulation, so the interdental may be a Western thing. Any
comments
> >from the US?
> >
> >My speech is British (RP), but I'm one of the 10% with the
interdental.
>
> And I (native midwestern US) am with the 90% of Brits (behind
the front
> teeth). The only time I saw anyone protrude their tongue, was
with a friend
> (Native New Hampshirite) at school, but he was emphasizing a
word for his
> deaf father........
Interdental here. SoCal native, which puts me in with the 90%,
meaning I have to work a littel to get the Spanish variety which
is behind the upper teeth.
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Phonology - Allophone presentation?
Posted by: "Aidan Grey" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:21 pm ((PDT))
Simple question:
When presenting a phonology, are ONLY minimal pairs included in the IPA table
standard? Or should every possible phoneme be included, with explanatory
remarks later?
I have allophonic variation between /i/ and /I/ - the lax vowel /I/ is an
allophone of /i/ before geminate consonants. So, for example, the difference
between 'seen' and 'sin' would be represented as /sin/ and /sIn:/, or <sin>
and <sinn>, respectively.
Do I include /I/, or just note it in the details?
Aidan
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Phonology - Allophone presentation?
Posted by: "Dirk Elzinga" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:05 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Aidan Grey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simple question:
>
> When presenting a phonology, are ONLY minimal pairs included in the IPA
> table standard? Or should every possible phoneme be included, with
> explanatory remarks later?
>
> I have allophonic variation between /i/ and /I/ - the lax vowel /I/ is an
> allophone of /i/ before geminate consonants. So, for example, the difference
> between 'seen' and 'sin' would be represented as /sin/ and /sIn:/, or <sin>
> and <sinn>, respectively.
>
> Do I include /I/, or just note it in the details?
Well, it's your language and your description. But my preference is to
include statements about allophony in the description of the language (due
no doubt to my being a phonologist by profession), much as you've outlined
above; this is also the practice of those writing descriptive grammars in
the American Structuralist tradition. Typically, the phonology section of
such a grammar will have an inventory of phones (not just the phonemes); a
list, with examples, of major phonetic processes (= allophony); statements
concerning phonotactics--syllable structure, (dis)allowed consonant
clusters, etc; and stress. There will often be a section on
morphophonemics--the alternation of phonemes due to morphological
processes--but that will of course depend on the nature of the language
being described.
> Aidan
>
Dirk
--
Miapimoquitch: Tcf Pt*p+++12,4(c)v(v/c) W* Mf+++h+++t*a2c*g*n4 Sf++++argh
La----c++d++600
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Phonology - Allophone presentation?
Posted by: "Aidan Grey" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:59 pm ((PDT))
Okay, if I understand you right, the standard practice is to include all
possible phones, so that the list will include both /i/ and /I/ from my
example. Then in the chunk on allophony, I can explain details.
I am trying to do something fairly standard in the description, and by standard
I mean what linguists do with real world languages here. As a phonologist,
you're the ideal person to know this, Dirk!
Thanks,
Aidan
----- Original Message ----
From: Dirk Elzinga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:04:54 PM
Subject: Re: Phonology - Allophone presentation?
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Aidan Grey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simple question:
>
> When presenting a phonology, are ONLY minimal pairs included in the IPA
> table standard? Or should every possible phoneme be included, with
> explanatory remarks later?
>
> I have allophonic variation between /i/ and /I/ - the lax vowel /I/ is an
> allophone of /i/ before geminate consonants. So, for example, the difference
> between 'seen' and 'sin' would be represented as /sin/ and /sIn:/, or <sin>
> and <sinn>, respectively.
>
> Do I include /I/, or just note it in the details?
Well, it's your language and your description. But my preference is to
include statements about allophony in the description of the language (due
no doubt to my being a phonologist by profession), much as you've outlined
above; this is also the practice of those writing descriptive grammars in
the American Structuralist tradition. Typically, the phonology section of
such a grammar will have an inventory of phones (not just the phonemes); a
list, with examples, of major phonetic processes (= allophony); statements
concerning phonotactics--syllable structure, (dis)allowed consonant
clusters, etc; and stress. There will often be a section on
morphophonemics--the alternation of phonemes due to morphological
processes--but that will of course depend on the nature of the language
being described.
> Aidan
>
Dirk
--
Miapimoquitch: Tcf Pt*p+++12,4(c)v(v/c) W* Mf+++h+++t*a2c*g*n4 Sf++++argh
La----c++d++600
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: Phonology - Allophone presentation?
Posted by: "ROGER MILLS" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:43 pm ((PDT))
Aidan Grey wrote:
>
>Okay, if I understand you right, the standard practice is to include all
>possible phones, so that the list will include both /i/ and /I/ from my
>example. Then in the chunk on allophony, I can explain details.
>
>I am trying to do something fairly standard in the description, and by
>standard I mean what linguists do with real world languages here. As a
>phonologist, you're the ideal person to know this, Dirk!
Dirk is right-on. But the question arises: are you proposing an analysis of
English? or a new conlang. For Engl. it would be _possible_ but somewhat
obtuse to propose that [i ~ I] are allophones conditioned by the
presence/absence of a following double cons. But for some other language or
a conlang, it might be a valid approach, if the pronounciation of /sin:/ is
actually [sIn:].
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Sibilants
Posted by: "David McCann" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:01 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 10:54 -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:07 PM, David McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't care about all this #!*$ CXS stuff,
>
> Oookay. I don't think the tone is necessary. CXS may seem
> superfluous to you, but it does have the advantage of being easy to
> type, even for those of us who rarely have cause to enter IPA symbols
> outside of email to this very list...
My distaste for CXS and the like was not intended as a reflection in its
users (we're *nice* people on this list!); it just reflects my inability
to remember it and my utter bafflement as to why people are still using
it after a decade of Unicode and configurable keyboards.
> Those extra symbols allow for greater precision when providing a
> phonetic transcription out of context, which, coincidentally, happens
> a lot with conlangs, where we're not just transliterating phonemic
> writing systems or presenting transcribed speech to someone familiar
> with the language. Obviously you can't have enough symbols to
> represent every possible articulation precisely, but where there are
> obvious distinctions to be made, creating obvious gaps in the IPA, it
> makes sense to fill those gaps.
My point was that you only need such precision in an initial
description, and you can do it with diacritics added to familiar
symbols. The more symbols you have in general use, the more people will
grumble that it's a bother to type them and baffle me with Klingonese.
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Sibilants
Posted by: "Tristan McLeay" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:24 pm ((PDT))
David McCann wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 10:54 -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:07 PM, David McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I don't care about all this #!*$ CXS stuff,
>> Oookay. I don't think the tone is necessary. CXS may seem
>> superfluous to you, but it does have the advantage of being easy to
>> type, even for those of us who rarely have cause to enter IPA symbols
>> outside of email to this very list...
>
> My distaste for CXS and the like was not intended as a reflection in its
> users (we're *nice* people on this list!); it just reflects my inability
> to remember it and my utter bafflement as to why people are still using
> it after a decade of Unicode and configurable keyboards.
Why are you baffled? People often use computers they don't have enough
control over to alter the keyboard layout, either because they lack the
skill, they lack the permission or they lack the time. Until such a time
as it's a default feature (and keyboard layouts are freely changeable,
even on restricted machines), people will still need to use CXS or other
similar systems.
Also, last I heard the Listserv here still has issues with UTF-8, so I
always use CXS on this list for that reason.
>> Those extra symbols allow for greater precision when providing a
>> phonetic transcription out of context, which, coincidentally, happens
>> a lot with conlangs, where we're not just transliterating phonemic
>> writing systems or presenting transcribed speech to someone familiar
>> with the language. Obviously you can't have enough symbols to
>> represent every possible articulation precisely, but where there are
>> obvious distinctions to be made, creating obvious gaps in the IPA, it
>> makes sense to fill those gaps.
>
> My point was that you only need such precision in an initial
> description, and you can do it with diacritics added to familiar
> symbols. The more symbols you have in general use, the more people will
> grumble that it's a bother to type them and baffle me with Klingonese.
In an initial description, you're better off doing it with text and
graphs. The diacritic will be largely meaningless without them anyway
(what does [ð̟] mean? how retracted [or advanced, the symbol is too fuzzy
with this font smoothing to make out --- and has an evil red
"you're-an-idiot" mark under it to boot, and I just copied it from
elsewhere]? relative to what standard?), hence the diacritic is
superfluous if it's limited to that context. Obviously these same
concerns apply to additional symbols (or the current ones); IPA is
useful for phonemic and broad phonetic transcriptions, but if you're
trying to anything more precise, symbols are necessarily too simplistic.
--
Tristan.
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: Sibilants
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 6:17 am ((PDT))
Hi!
David McCann writes:
>...
> My distaste for CXS and the like was not intended as a reflection in its
> users (we're *nice* people on this list!); it just reflects my inability
> to remember it and my utter bafflement as to why people are still using
> it after a decade of Unicode and configurable keyboards.
That's simple:
a) I've used it for many years now and can read and write it
more fluently that IPA
b) I am still using my beloved Emacs for reading this list
and Emacs still has no decent Unicode support. Shame,
but that's reality. So I often do not see what you guys
are writing here in IPA, depending on the mood of my
Emacs.
c) Many mailers are still broken, seen in replies to UTF-8
posts where the characters often become garbage.
FWIW, I can easily type Unicode in my browser. If I am using it. :-)
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: Sibilants
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 7:19 am ((PDT))
Tristan McLeay skrev:
> David McCann wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 10:54 -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:07 PM, David McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> I don't care about all this #!*$ CXS stuff,
>>> Oookay. I don't think the tone is necessary. CXS may seem
>>> superfluous to you, but it does have the advantage of being easy to
>>> type, even for those of us who rarely have cause to enter IPA symbols
>>> outside of email to this very list...
>> My distaste for CXS and the like was not intended as a reflection in its
>> users (we're *nice* people on this list!); it just reflects my inability
>> to remember it and my utter bafflement as to why people are still using
>> it after a decade of Unicode and configurable keyboards.
>
> Why are you baffled? People often use computers they don't have enough
> control over to alter the keyboard layout, either because they lack the
> skill, they lack the permission or they lack the time. Until such a time
> as it's a default feature (and keyboard layouts are freely changeable,
> even on restricted machines), people will still need to use CXS or other
> similar systems.
Moreover changing keyboards back and forth is a hassle,
especially if you forget to do it at the right point.
I should know as when I need to type IPA I use a modified
keyboard on Windows and SCIM-KMFL on Ubuntu -- both with
their logic based on CSX as like Henrik I've used that
system for years and find it often more readable than IPA.
Shorthand notations like D\ or δ (or ᴆ if your font can show
it) are convenient and defensible if the CXS for a single
sound becomes five characters long D_-_o or the IPA a
double-stacked subscript diacritic monstrosity like ð̠̞
which most fonts still make a mess of. If you want
to write a discussion of retracted/mean/advanced and
fricative/approximant variants of [D] (or [z] as
the case may be if you discuss Icelandic) those
hard to read diacritics become hard to read indeed.
I once wrote a paper on Swedish /r/ and /l/ sounds
and quickly ran out of symbols in the more restricted
IPA of the day. This was back in the days of dot matrix
printers and I had to make my own bitmap fonts for
phonetics. It was hard enough to create the needed
diacriticized characters in the large sizes used for
'fine' printing those days. In the small sizes used
for screen display I created my own ad hoc symbols,
some of which like r\` ɻ later became recognized IPA.
It's also from that experience I know how hard it is
to visually distinguish inverted and rotated R...
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient
à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil
ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*,
c'est qu'elles meurent." (Victor Hugo)
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Tonal inflection?
Posted by: "Dana Nutter" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:14 pm ((PDT))
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Henry
> > For example nouns having a pattern of 135 would be
> nominative and 531 accusative while the dative may be 411,
> and the locative 252, etc.
> >
> > Verbs could have their own patterns to indicate tense and
> aspect, maybe a 135 to indicate the present continuous for
> example, while 13 might be past continuous, and 35 for the
future.
>
> Ithkuil uses tone for several inflectional categories
including
> degree of comparison and mood.
>
> How many syllables are your noun and verb roots liable to
have?
> It seems like those might be too many/complex tone
distinctions
> to make over a single syllable. But I'm not particularly
good
> with tones so maybe not the person you should ask about this.
What I wrote there were just examples of how it might work.
What I have of a language is still pretty much in the conceptual
stages. I'm thinking though that with a huge phonology, I can
probably get away with a lot of monosyllabic roots. If not, I
may just duplicate the tonal pattern for each syllable but I
suppose I could also spread it across the entire word as a
single unit.
I like the idea of tones for the comparatives. I could do that
too maybe though I'm leaning toward not having adjectives and
using stative verbs.
This whole thing is just an idea I'm playing with, I don't
realistically expect the language to be something speakable,
especially with the huge number of distinctions I'm making. I'm
experimenting with the idea of economizing speech. I figure
tonal contours, roundedness and position alone will give me a
huge number of possible vowels, then I expect I may have as many
as 60-80 consonants too, unless I decide to use some features as
suprasegmentals.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: Tonal inflection?
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:15 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Dana Nutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Henry
> I like the idea of tones for the comparatives. I could do that
> too maybe though I'm leaning toward not having adjectives and
> using stative verbs.
Stative verbs would need to have some way of being compared,
too. I don't know if languages with stative verbs and no separate
class of adjectives typically have morphological comparatives
or tend to use particles instead.
> This whole thing is just an idea I'm playing with, I don't
> realistically expect the language to be something speakable,
> especially with the huge number of distinctions I'm making. I'm
> experimenting with the idea of economizing speech. I figure
> tonal contours, roundedness and position alone will give me a
Don't forget nasality and length (maybe three degrees of length
as in Estonian?).
With about 15 basic vowels (not all the ones on the IPA chart, but a subset
that should be comparatively easy to distinguish) times 2 for oral/nasal,
times 3 for length, times ... hmm... let's modestly say 5 tones, you've
got 450 syllable nuclei, not counting possible syllabic consonants
(maybe 5 nasals and 3 lateral approximants, times 3 lengths and 5
tones, another 120 nuclei).
(Could the lateral approximants be nasalized and still sound
distinct from regular nasal consonants in the corresponding POA?)
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: Vowel length near-minimal pairs in Tirelat
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:51 pm ((PDT))
ROGER MILLS wrote:
> Herman Miller wrote:
>
> (snip examples)
>> So it looks like vowel length (and not stress) is distinctive.
>
> Yes, from that data.
>
> But
>> there's a complication: an unwritten schwa sound in some words, which
>> is always unstressed. E.g.:
>>
>> dbaxa /d@'baxa/ "to resist" (not /'[EMAIL PROTECTED]/)
>> knagi /k@'nagi/ "brass" (not /'[EMAIL PROTECTED]/)
>> tezn /'[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ "transparent plastic ball for gerbils" (not
>> /tE'[EMAIL PROTECTED]/)
>> zgaki /z@'gaki/ "similar" (not /'[EMAIL PROTECTED]/)
>
> That isn't phonemic, merely a phonetic/sub-phonemic transition sound in
> the surface structure, to facilitate the cluster. In my favorite
> generative terms, [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be a very late (maybe even the
> last) rule in
> the derivation, surely _after_ stress has been assigned. Is penultimate
> stress the rule? no problem in that case; or is it "stress the first
> (phonemic) vowel of the word?" or maybe something else-- still no
> problem, since whenever stress is assiged, [EMAIL PROTECTED] "isn't there
> yet" in
> phonological terms.
>
I'd agree that this isn't phonemic; in fact this epenthetic schwa is one
of the oldest features in the language, from before Tirelat even had a
phonemic schwa vowel. If you just look at the surface forms, though, you
have an apparent stress distinction between words like /k@'nagi/ and
words like /'[EMAIL PROTECTED]/.
But then, if you add a possessive prefix it becomes apparent what the
actual stems are. E.g.
lknagi /[EMAIL PROTECTED]'nagi/ "my brass"
lsəlagi /l@'[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ "my cod".
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. Re: "Register" a grammatical term
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:27 am ((PDT))
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:28:36 +0200, Benct Philip Jonsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I just wondered if "register" was ever used to
>refer to the familiar/honorific axis of grammar.
>I seem to remember so but it might be that I
>came up with it myself.
Without consulting a dictionary, but just remembering the many papers I've
read, I'd say the "formal vs informal" axis is frequently referred to as
"register"
(not that that's the only thing often called "register"), while the "honorific
vs
familiar vs humilific" axis is rarely referred to as "register".
Many people often get "formal" and "honorific" confused with each other, and
get "informal" and "familiar" confused with each other, at least at first;
especially if their native languages don't make such a distinction.
But they do differ.
Example: You're in court or in church and you speak to your wife or your
brother (assuming you're the same rank as them). You'd use a formal register
but speak to them familiarly.
Other example: You're at a company picnic playing volleyball. You're the team
captain and your boss is on your team. You'd use an informal register but
might use honorifics.
-------
Not everybody agrees on what "register" means.
I like to consider "register" and "genre" and "dialect" together, even though I
don't think they're synonyms; it's just that their effects on language deserve
to be considered consecutively IMO.
-------
I'm not sure what the standard linguistic term is for the "honorific vs
humilific
vs equal" axis.
Also note that even among equals, there may be a difference between familiar,
stranger, and something in-between. And I don't know what that's called
either.
Does anyone? If so, I'd love for you to tell us.
If your source isn't one of the standard glossaries/dictionaries of "linguistic
terms", it could be a paper or a chapter or a book; you would do us a favor if
you're able to tell us what the source is, as I haven't been able to, but don't
hold back what you know just because you have trouble remembering the
source exactly (if you do).
-------
Thanks,
eldin
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8. Social deixis, familiarity, etc.
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:36 am ((PDT))
<
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsFamiliarity.htm
>
What is familiarity?
Definition
Familiarity is a kind of social deixis that expresses a high degree of
solidarity
between the speaker and addressee.
Examples (French, German)
Some uses of the second-person pronouns tu in French and du in German
signal familiarity.
Source: Hartmann and Stork 1972 83
Generic
Familiarity is a kind of
What is solidarity?
Sources
Hartmann and Stork 1972 83
Pei and Gaynor 1954 72
Brown, R. and Gilman 1960 258
(R. Brown? Sounds familiar, alright. Solid, too.)
<
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsSolidarity.htm >
What is solidarity?
Definition
Solidarity is a scale of perceived like-mindedness or similarity of
behavioral
disposition between a speaker and addressee deriving from their similar
backgrounds acquaintance, or personal characteristics, such as sex.
In some languages, solidarity affects the choice of expressions of social
deixis.
Example
The choice between using familiar or polite second person pronouns in many
Indo-European languages, such as tu and vous, indicates the level of solidarity
between a speaker and addressee.
Kinds
Here are some kinds of solidarity:
What is familiarity?
What is intimate social deixis?
What is politeness?
Source
Brown, R. and Gilman 1960 258
<
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsSocialDeixis.htm
>
What is social deixis?
Definition
Social deixis is reference to the social characteristics of, or distinctions
between, the participants or referents in a speech event.
Example
The distinction, found in many Indo-European languages, between familiar
and polite second person pronouns is an expression of social deixis .
Kinds
Here are some kinds of social deixis:
What is absolute social deixis?
What is relational social deixis?
Generic
Social deixis is a kind of
What is deixis?
Sources
Levinson 1983 63, 93
Fillmore 1975 76
-----------
And follow-up some of the links.
Messages in this topic (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> 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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
