There are 11 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Are right-branching languages easier to parse?
From: MorphemeAddict
1b. Re: Are right-branching languages easier to parse?
From: Gary Shannon
1c. Re: Are right-branching languages easier to parse?
From: R A Brown
1d. Re: Are right-branching languages easier to parse?
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
1e. Re: Are right-branching languages easier to parse?
From: Lee
1f. Re: Are right-branching languages easier to parse?
From: Micah Johnston
1g. Re: Are right-branching languages easier to parse?
From: Gary Shannon
2a. Language Phrase Books
From: Samuel Stutter
2b. Re: Language Phrase Books
From: Adam Walker
2c. Re: Language Phrase Books
From: Charlie
2d. Re: Language Phrase Books
From: Sylvia Sotomayor
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Are right-branching languages easier to parse?
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:23 am ((PDT))
I had thought of your first point, too, but didn't have any numbers to back
it up with. Then it occurred to me that even if it were true, maybe the
difference in ease was so small that it was basically irrelevant.
stevo
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
> My gut reaction is no.
>
> If this were true, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that most natlangs
> be right branching? Yet, according to WALS most natlangs are SOV, and the
> Universals Archive indicates OV languages tend to be left-branching.
> Examples: Japanese, Tamil, Turkish
>
> Desktop WALS indicates 501 SOV/OSV languages vs 111 VSO/VOS languages.
>
> Computationally, one could argue that left-branching languages are easier
> to parse via use of a stack. Another gut reaction: it depends on your
> approach.
>
> Lee
>
> --- On Sat, 7/31/10, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: MorphemeAddict <[email protected]>
> Subject: Are right-branching languages easier to parse?
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Saturday, July 31, 2010, 1:52 AM
>
> Is the following statement true?
>
> "Right-branching languages are inherently easier to parse for both
> computers
> and humans." -- Rick Morneau, APPENDIX E: Syntax of the Interlingua, *The
> Lexical Semantics of a Machine Translation Interlingua*
> I asked Rick years ago, but he didn't respond.
> stevo
>
>
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Are right-branching languages easier to parse?
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:52 am ((PDT))
Having examined my own parsing process introspectively (as much as is
possible) and having written numerous parsers for computer programming
languages and a couple of natlangs plus my own machine translation
interlingua http://fiziwig.com/chomp/index.html I have come to the
(unsupported and probably unsupportable) conclusion that people and
machines do parsing very differently because 1) humans understand the
words being parsed and so can better anticipate what's coming next, 2)
human brains are parallel processors, not serial programmed
processors, and 3) human memory is associative rather than linear.
I have also come to believe that the human mind relies a great deal
more on templates and stock patterns than on any actual word-by-word
parsing of the structure of a sentence. We understand almost every
sentence we hear or read by matching it to a familiar sentence
template, and only when that fails do we resort to actually parsing
the sentence. If that is actually true then regardless of how a
sentence is structured, SVO, SOV, VSO, or whatever, if, as a result of
constant exposure, we are familiar with the templates then we don't
really need to parse them at all, so the effort involved would be the
same in all cases; that of associatively narrowing in on the best
template match as each new word streams into our consciousness.
That's my story, anyway, and I'm sticking with it.
--gary
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:52 PM, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is the following statement true?
>
> "Right-branching languages are inherently easier to parse for both computers
> and humans." -- Rick Morneau, APPENDIX E: Syntax of the Interlingua, *The
> Lexical Semantics of a Machine Translation Interlingua*
> I asked Rick years ago, but he didn't respond.
> stevo
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Are right-branching languages easier to parse?
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:44 pm ((PDT))
Gary Shannon wrote:
> Having examined my own parsing process introspectively (as much as is
> possible) and having written numerous parsers for computer programming
> languages and a couple of natlangs plus my own machine translation
> interlingua http://fiziwig.com/chomp/index.html I have come to the
> (unsupported and probably unsupportable) conclusion that people and
> machines do parsing very differently
It's a while since I've written any compiler for a computer
programming language or written parsers for human language;
but I have done both in the past and I have no doubt at all
that machines and people parse differently.
> because 1) humans understand the
> words being parsed and so can better anticipate what's coming next,
Yes - humans have experience & real world knowledge. The
amount of anticipation a machine can do is limited of course
by the program itself and this tends IME to be to do with
syntax and morphology rather than real world context.
> 2)
> human brains are parallel processors, not serial programmed
> processors, and 3) human memory is associative rather than linear.
One thing's certain - the human brain ain't a von Neumann
machine ;)
[snip]
>>
>> "Right-branching languages are inherently easier to parse for both computers
>> and humans." -- Rick Morneau, APPENDIX E: Syntax of the Interlingua, *The
>> Lexical Semantics of a Machine Translation Interlingua*
>> I asked Rick years ago, but he didn't respond.
>> stevo
As others have observed, SOV languages are far more common
than VSO ones - and SOV languages tend to be left branching
in nearly all respects. Indeed, SVO languages are also far
more numerous than VSO ones, and they often have both
left-branching and right-branching constructs. So I really
find the assertion that "Right-branching languages are
inherently easier to parse ... for ... humans" somewhat
astonishing. It does not appear to match up with facts.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"'Celtic' of any sort is, nonetheless, a
magic bag, into which anything may be put,
and out of which almost anything may come
. ... Anything is possible in the fabulous
Celtic twilight, which is not so much a
twilight of the gods as of the reason."
[J.R.R. Tolkien]
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Are right-branching languages easier to parse?
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:04 pm ((PDT))
Hallo!
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:44:36 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
> Gary Shannon wrote:
> > Having examined my own parsing process introspectively (as much as is
> > possible) and having written numerous parsers for computer programming
> > languages and a couple of natlangs plus my own machine translation
> > interlinguahttp://fiziwig.com/chomp/index.html I have come to the
> > (unsupported and probably unsupportable) conclusion that people and
> > machines do parsing very differently
>
> It's a while since I've written any compiler for a computer
> programming language or written parsers for human language;
> but I have done both in the past and I have no doubt at all
> that machines and people parse differently.
Definitely. What I remember from my compiler design lessons back
when I studied computer science in university is very far removed
from the ways human beings process languages.
Consider stack-based languages such as Jeffrey Henning's Fith.
Trivially easy to parse with a computer (which is the reason why
the designers of FORTH, HP pocket calculators, PostScript and
several others chose to go for RPN), but virtually unmanageable
for a human brain.
> > because 1) humans understand the
> > words being parsed and so can better anticipate what's coming next,
>
> Yes - humans have experience& real world knowledge. The
> amount of anticipation a machine can do is limited of course
> by the program itself and this tends IME to be to do with
> syntax and morphology rather than real world context.
Indeed. Computers are infinitely stupid. You can tell them to do
things that don't even make the slightest sense, and they'll gladly
perform them. Consider the following code (assuming that there are
no complex numbers in play here):
do {
x = x*x;
} until x< 0;
Every human being who knows the basics of mathematics will be able
to tell that this loop won't ever terminate, and refuse to follow
these instructions. A computer cannot know, and will waste CPU
cycles on it until someone steps in and aborts the program (or it
runs into an overflow when x becomes too big).
> > 2)
> > human brains are parallel processors, not serial programmed
> > processors, and 3) human memory is associative rather than linear.
>
> One thing's certain - the human brain ain't a von Neumann
> machine ;)
This is indeed certain. I would rather guess that it is a quantum
information system. I think that is the only way how human beings
could have free will - which they evidently do, despite some
philosophers claiming the opposite.
> [snip]
> >>
> >> "Right-branching languages are inherently easier to parse for both
> computers
> >> and humans." -- Rick Morneau, APPENDIX E: Syntax of the Interlingua, *The
> >> Lexical Semantics of a Machine Translation Interlingua*
> >> I asked Rick years ago, but he didn't respond.
> >> stevo
>
> As others have observed, SOV languages are far more common
> than VSO ones - and SOV languages tend to be left branching
> in nearly all respects. Indeed, SVO languages are also far
> more numerous than VSO ones, and they often have both
> left-branching and right-branching constructs. So I really
> find the assertion that "Right-branching languages are
> inherently easier to parse ... for ... humans" somewhat
> astonishing. It does not appear to match up with facts.
Right. It does not appear to match up with the facts at all. If
about half of all human languages are predominantly left-branching,
and only about 10% or so consistently right-branching, there must
be something wrong with Rick's claim.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Are right-branching languages easier to parse?
Posted by: "Lee" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:54 pm ((PDT))
I think we are confusing parsing with understanding, and human languages with
programming languages.
To the latter, parsing programming languages will likely be a much easier
prospect compared to parsing most human language.
Back to whether right-branching human languages are easier to parse than
left-branching, I don't think left- or right-branching really matters. But
level of allowable complexity does.
Consider Eliza. Parsing is simple because the complexity is very low, even for
relatively complex sentences. It is little more than pattern matching and
replacing.
Tagging each and every word for part of speech is not as easy. Every word has
to be looked at. Often multiple passes are required to correctly tag every
word, especially for words where context determines their parts of speech.
Lee
--- On Sat, 7/31/10, Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Are right-branching languages easier to parse?
To: [email protected]
Date: Saturday, July 31, 2010, 4:02 PM
Hallo!
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:44:36 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
> Gary Shannon wrote:
> > Having examined my own parsing process introspectively (as much as is
> > possible) and having written numerous parsers for computer programming
> > languages and a couple of natlangs plus my own machine translation
> > interlinguahttp://fiziwig.com/chomp/index.html I have come to the
> > (unsupported and probably unsupportable) conclusion that people and
> > machines do parsing very differently
>
> It's a while since I've written any compiler for a computer
> programming language or written parsers for human language;
> but I have done both in the past and I have no doubt at all
> that machines and people parse differently.
Definitely. What I remember from my compiler design lessons back
when I studied computer science in university is very far removed
from the ways human beings process languages.
Consider stack-based languages such as Jeffrey Henning's Fith.
Trivially easy to parse with a computer (which is the reason why
the designers of FORTH, HP pocket calculators, PostScript and
several others chose to go for RPN), but virtually unmanageable
for a human brain.
> > because 1) humans understand the
> > words being parsed and so can better anticipate what's coming next,
>
> Yes - humans have experience& real world knowledge. The
> amount of anticipation a machine can do is limited of course
> by the program itself and this tends IME to be to do with
> syntax and morphology rather than real world context.
Indeed. Computers are infinitely stupid. You can tell them to do
things that don't even make the slightest sense, and they'll gladly
perform them. Consider the following code (assuming that there are
no complex numbers in play here):
do {
x = x*x;
} until x< 0;
Every human being who knows the basics of mathematics will be able
to tell that this loop won't ever terminate, and refuse to follow
these instructions. A computer cannot know, and will waste CPU
cycles on it until someone steps in and aborts the program (or it
runs into an overflow when x becomes too big).
> > 2)
> > human brains are parallel processors, not serial programmed
> > processors, and 3) human memory is associative rather than linear.
>
> One thing's certain - the human brain ain't a von Neumann
> machine ;)
This is indeed certain. I would rather guess that it is a quantum
information system. I think that is the only way how human beings
could have free will - which they evidently do, despite some
philosophers claiming the opposite.
> [snip]
> >>
> >> "Right-branching languages are inherently easier to parse for both
>computers
> >> and humans." -- Rick Morneau, APPENDIX E: Syntax of the Interlingua, *The
> >> Lexical Semantics of a Machine Translation Interlingua*
> >> I asked Rick years ago, but he didn't respond.
> >> stevo
>
> As others have observed, SOV languages are far more common
> than VSO ones - and SOV languages tend to be left branching
> in nearly all respects. Indeed, SVO languages are also far
> more numerous than VSO ones, and they often have both
> left-branching and right-branching constructs. So I really
> find the assertion that "Right-branching languages are
> inherently easier to parse ... for ... humans" somewhat
> astonishing. It does not appear to match up with facts.
Right. It does not appear to match up with the facts at all. If
about half of all human languages are predominantly left-branching,
and only about 10% or so consistently right-branching, there must
be something wrong with Rick's claim.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Are right-branching languages easier to parse?
Posted by: "Micah Johnston" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:00 pm ((PDT))
Right-branching languages are definitely easier to parse for a computer,
because you can know what kind of structure you're getting right from the
beginning and you have to remember less. I agree with what's been said about
human parsing. We don't parse in any way similar to the way compilers
usually do; we try to match the pattern of the text against a similar
pattern.
I don't think it's anything to do with the nature of the brain as a
processor, though (the brain being parallel, having associative memory,
etc.). It's more to do with the fact that compilers are rigid algorithms
designed for one task, parsing one language, while the brain's "software" is
built for learning and adapting, and parsing human languages is just one
thing that it's commonly adapted to do.
I think Lee makes a very good point. Because the nature of human languages is so
different from programming languages, having them be right-branching might
not make it any easier to parse for computers.
Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> > 2)
>> > human brains are parallel processors, not serial programmed
>> > processors, and 3) human memory is associative rather than linear.
>>
>> One thing's certain - the human brain ain't a von Neumann
>> machine ;)
>>
> This is indeed certain. I would rather guess that it is a quantum
> information system. I think that is the only way how human beings
> could have free will - which they evidently do, despite some
> philosophers claiming the opposite.
This seems a lot like wishful thinking to me. Given that completely
deterministic systems with simple foundations can produce unpredictably
complex outputs, e.g. the game of life cellular automaton, there doesn't
seem to be much reason to assume that the human brain is inherently random
and relies on quantum effects, except that it makes you feel happy that your
free will can't be predicted.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: Are right-branching languages easier to parse?
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2010 8:03 pm ((PDT))
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think we are confusing parsing with understanding, and human languages with
> programming languages.
>
> Tagging each and every word for part of speech is not as easy. Every word has
> to be looked at. Often multiple passes are required to correctly tag every
> word, especially for words where context determines their parts of speech.
>
> Lee
The Brill Tagger does a good job. Myself, I experimented with a parser
I called the "ignorant chunker" that parses without reference to parts
of speech. Here's my preliminary experiments from 2008:
http://fiziwig.com/ai/chatbot/chunking01.html It's based just on
matching up pairs of words.
Another of my experiments I called "fusion grammar" simply extracted
rules from specimen sentences so the parser writer never needs to know
anything about the formal grammar of the language being parsed:
http://fiziwig.com/ai/parser/fuse2.html
--gary
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Language Phrase Books
Posted by: "Samuel Stutter" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:01 pm ((PDT))
As part of a clear out of my bookshelf I've discovered a pre-
liberation-from-Franco Spanish holiday phrase book. This probably
seems pretty irrelevant to most of you, except for the fact that
really out-dated, old fashioned holidays (and if anyone has got
anything from 1910s, aristocratic tourism, then I'd love to see it)
really suit my conculture (anyone who's seen Scarborough's Spa will
know exactly what I mean).
And I think my conlang is at the stage where I could probably have a
go at putting together a holiday phrase book; filled with that special
kind of language which manages to be both slightly racist and tourist-
board-y. "The Spanish might be a decadent race of imbeciles, but their
country is lovely" kind of thing. (They're not decadent, actually, but
the sierra is gorgeous).
What I wanted to ask was, and I'm concerned that this might have been
discussed previously, but has anyone attempted this before? A full
phrase book I mean, from "hola" to (and I'm surprised by this) a
conversion guide for tyre pressures? What problems have people come up
against? Are there specific dangers when trying to put together
something intended for general consumption? Are anybody else's results
available to view?
In dà nåmås sút Já Fémm plú Gániku,
Sam
p.s. I also found all the documents relating to the deictic thingies.
Apparently "enandion" means *opposed to interacting with*, "sociative"
*interacts with* and "state commences" *begins to experience a state*.
What this actually means when you get down to actually using these in
your language, I haven't the foggiest :-D
(that is, if you're interested)
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Language Phrase Books
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:01 pm ((PDT))
I tried to do one for Carraxa a few years back and hit the wall
immediately after Hello. ~ Avi. when I realized I could not say Good
afternoon, since I had no word for Afternoon. At that point I went off
on a coining spree and never got back to the phrase book. Adam
On 7/31/10, Samuel Stutter <[email protected]> wrote:
> As part of a clear out of my bookshelf I've discovered a pre-
> liberation-from-Franco Spanish holiday phrase book. This probably
> seems pretty irrelevant to most of you, except for the fact that
> really out-dated, old fashioned holidays (and if anyone has got
> anything from 1910s, aristocratic tourism, then I'd love to see it)
> really suit my conculture (anyone who's seen Scarborough's Spa will
> know exactly what I mean).
> And I think my conlang is at the stage where I could probably have a
> go at putting together a holiday phrase book; filled with that special
> kind of language which manages to be both slightly racist and tourist-
> board-y. "The Spanish might be a decadent race of imbeciles, but their
> country is lovely" kind of thing. (They're not decadent, actually, but
> the sierra is gorgeous).
>
> What I wanted to ask was, and I'm concerned that this might have been
> discussed previously, but has anyone attempted this before? A full
> phrase book I mean, from "hola" to (and I'm surprised by this) a
> conversion guide for tyre pressures? What problems have people come up
> against? Are there specific dangers when trying to put together
> something intended for general consumption? Are anybody else's results
> available to view?
>
> In dà nåmås sút Já Fémm plú Gániku,
>
> Sam
>
> p.s. I also found all the documents relating to the deictic thingies.
> Apparently "enandion" means *opposed to interacting with*, "sociative"
> *interacts with* and "state commences" *begins to experience a state*.
> What this actually means when you get down to actually using these in
> your language, I haven't the foggiest :-D
> (that is, if you're interested)
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Language Phrase Books
Posted by: "Charlie" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:51 pm ((PDT))
Speaking of phrase books, I inherited a number of phrase books from my father.
They're issued by the Dept. of Defense for the military to use in various
countries. Mine are vintage WWII. A lot of different subjects are covered
from ordinary like "Do you speak..." and "Where is the..." to "How many tanks
did you see?" It might be interesting to render one of these in my conlang.
Charlie
--- In [email protected], Adam Walker <carra...@...> wrote:
>
> I tried to do one for Carraxa a few years back and hit the wall
> immediately after Hello. ~ Avi. when I realized I could not say Good
> afternoon, since I had no word for Afternoon. At that point I went off
> on a coining spree and never got back to the phrase book. Adam
>
> On 7/31/10, Samuel Stutter <sam.stut...@...> wrote:
> > As part of a clear out of my bookshelf I've discovered a pre-
> > liberation-from-Franco Spanish holiday phrase book. This probably
> > seems pretty irrelevant to most of you, except for the fact that
> > really out-dated, old fashioned holidays (and if anyone has got
> > anything from 1910s, aristocratic tourism, then I'd love to see it)
> > really suit my conculture (anyone who's seen Scarborough's Spa will
> > know exactly what I mean).
> > And I think my conlang is at the stage where I could probably have a
> > go at putting together a holiday phrase book; filled with that special
> > kind of language which manages to be both slightly racist and tourist-
> > board-y. "The Spanish might be a decadent race of imbeciles, but their
> > country is lovely" kind of thing. (They're not decadent, actually, but
> > the sierra is gorgeous).
> >
> > What I wanted to ask was, and I'm concerned that this might have been
> > discussed previously, but has anyone attempted this before? A full
> > phrase book I mean, from "hola" to (and I'm surprised by this) a
> > conversion guide for tyre pressures? What problems have people come up
> > against? Are there specific dangers when trying to put together
> > something intended for general consumption? Are anybody else's results
> > available to view?
> >
> > In dà nåmås sút Já Fémm plú Gániku,
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > p.s. I also found all the documents relating to the deictic thingies.
> > Apparently "enandion" means *opposed to interacting with*, "sociative"
> > *interacts with* and "state commences" *begins to experience a state*.
> > What this actually means when you get down to actually using these in
> > your language, I haven't the foggiest :-D
> > (that is, if you're interested)
>
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Language Phrase Books
Posted by: "Sylvia Sotomayor" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2010 8:24 pm ((PDT))
I have on my shelf a little gem I found in a used books store somewhere
called "Conversations Modernes en Francais, Anglais, Allemand, Italien,
Espagnol et Portugais" published in 1846. It is a phrase book for 6
languages and includes all sorts of situations that any well-off 19th
century tourist might get themselves into.
TOC includes: conjugations of to have and to be, verbs in general, numbers,
seasons, months, holidays;
elementary phrases: meeting, parting, asking and thanking, affirming and
denying, surprise, probability, sorrow, blame, anger, joy, consulting,
eating and drinking, news, going and coming, asking questions and answering,
age, time, weather;
easy dialogues: various mealtimes, at schhol, writing a letter, at the
market, inquiring the way, meeting a friend.
shopping: at a bookseller, an upholsterer, tailor, shoemaker, physician,
etc; playing at cards, at a ball, hiring carriages; models of bills of
exchange, models of commercial letters, foreign coins....
My favorite phrase was "Waltzing makes me giddy" ("La valse m'etourdit; Der
Walzer betäubt mich; Il valzer mi sbalordisce; El valse me aturde, me dexa
sin sentido; A valsa me tontea a cabeça.)
My favorite section is entitled Dialogue IV: Between a Frenchman and an
Englishman. "You are almost like an Englishman." and "It is true, sir; but a
man cannot help being partial to his own country." and "Besides, every one
allows that France is a finer country than ours." and "Don't be afraid of
that. I like French people, and it is always a pleasure for me to see them
in my house."
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Charlie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Speaking of phrase books, I inherited a number of phrase books from my
> father. They're issued by the Dept. of Defense for the military to use in
> various countries. Mine are vintage WWII. A lot of different subjects are
> covered from ordinary like "Do you speak..." and "Where is the..." to "How
> many tanks did you see?" It might be interesting to render one of these in
> my conlang.
>
> Charlie
>
> --- In [email protected], Adam Walker <carra...@...> wrote:
> >
> > I tried to do one for Carraxa a few years back and hit the wall
> > immediately after Hello. ~ Avi. when I realized I could not say Good
> > afternoon, since I had no word for Afternoon. At that point I went off
> > on a coining spree and never got back to the phrase book. Adam
> >
> > On 7/31/10, Samuel Stutter <sam.stut...@...> wrote:
> > > As part of a clear out of my bookshelf I've discovered a pre-
> > > liberation-from-Franco Spanish holiday phrase book. This probably
> > > seems pretty irrelevant to most of you, except for the fact that
> > > really out-dated, old fashioned holidays (and if anyone has got
> > > anything from 1910s, aristocratic tourism, then I'd love to see it)
> > > really suit my conculture (anyone who's seen Scarborough's Spa will
> > > know exactly what I mean).
> > > And I think my conlang is at the stage where I could probably have a
> > > go at putting together a holiday phrase book; filled with that special
> > > kind of language which manages to be both slightly racist and tourist-
> > > board-y. "The Spanish might be a decadent race of imbeciles, but their
> > > country is lovely" kind of thing. (They're not decadent, actually, but
> > > the sierra is gorgeous).
> > >
> > > What I wanted to ask was, and I'm concerned that this might have been
> > > discussed previously, but has anyone attempted this before? A full
> > > phrase book I mean, from "hola" to (and I'm surprised by this) a
> > > conversion guide for tyre pressures? What problems have people come up
> > > against? Are there specific dangers when trying to put together
> > > something intended for general consumption? Are anybody else's results
> > > available to view?
> > >
> > > In dà nåmås sút Já Fémm plú Gániku,
> > >
> > > Sam
> > >
> > > p.s. I also found all the documents relating to the deictic thingies.
> > > Apparently "enandion" means *opposed to interacting with*, "sociative"
> > > *interacts with* and "state commences" *begins to experience a state*.
> > > What this actually means when you get down to actually using these in
> > > your language, I haven't the foggiest :-D
> > > (that is, if you're interested)
> >
>
--
Sylvia Sotomayor
~~~<*,^^^^^,--------
LCS Member: http://conlang.org
Messages in this topic (4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
[email protected]
[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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
