There are 24 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Elision (was: [CONLANG] Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit)
From: Alex Fink
1b. Re: Elision (was: [CONLANG] Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit)
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
2a. Re: Elision (was: [CONLANG] Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit
From: Toms Deimonds Barvidis
3.1. writing system
From: MorphemeAddict
3.2. Re: writing system
From: Philip Newton
4a. TECH: Converting MediaWiki markup to HTML
From: Eric Christopherson
4b. Re: TECH: Converting MediaWiki markup to HTML
From: Philip Newton
4c. Re: TECH: Converting MediaWiki markup to HTML
From: Rebecca Bettencourt
5a. Re: OT: Funny Website about Latin
From: Carsten Becker
6a. OT: Grave accent as opening quote (was Re: Elision (was: [CONLANG]
From: Eric Christopherson
6b. Re: OT: Grave accent as opening quote (was Re: Elision (was: [CONLAN
From: Eugene Oh
6c. Re: OT: Grave accent as opening quote (was Re: Elision (was: [CONLAN
From: Eric Christopherson
6d. Re: OT: Grave accent as opening quote (was Re: Elision
From: Carsten Becker
6e. Re: OT: Grave accent as opening quote (was Re: Elision
From: David Peterson
6f. Re: OT: Grave accent as opening quote (was Re: Elision
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
7a. Romanization for the flap/tap
From: Karen Badham
7b. Re: Romanization for the flap/tap
From: David Peterson
7c. Re: Romanization for the flap/tap
From: vii iiix
7d. Re: Romanization for the flap/tap
From: R A Brown
7e. Re: Romanization for the flap/tap
From: <deinx nxtxr>
7f. Re: Romanization for the flap/tap
From: <deinx nxtxr>
7g. Re: Romanization for the flap/tap
From: Daniel Prohaska
7h. Re: Romanization for the flap/tap
From: David McCann
8a. Re: Derivational productivity (longish) (was: Translation excercise:
From: Benct Philip Jonsson
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Elision (was: [CONLANG] Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit)
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2010 10:39 am ((PDT))
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 13:05:41 +0200, BPJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>When
>writing LaTeX I almost consistently mistype '' for
>" because an English opening double quote is `` in
>LaTeX, and need to do a s/''/"/g from time to
>time.
But '' (^^27^^27) is the closing double-quote in LaTeX! That's what I use
myself, and what every manual I've read says. Some of those don't even
mention " (^^22) at all; others regard it as a shortcut for ''.
Alex
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Elision (was: [CONLANG] Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit)
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2010 4:33 am ((PDT))
D'oh! So I've been substituting needlessly for over a decade? I don't
know what put me into this originally. Probably I just saw everyone
else using the ASCII doublequote and thought that was the way it must
be done. Also Swedish uses the 99 quote as the normal both opening and
closing quote, so everyone just uses " when LaTeXing in Swedish. /BP
ex phono cellulare
2010/8/7, Alex Fink <[email protected]>:
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 13:05:41 +0200, BPJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>When
>>writing LaTeX I almost consistently mistype '' for
>>" because an English opening double quote is `` in
>>LaTeX, and need to do a s/''/"/g from time to
>>time.
>
> But '' (^^27^^27) is the closing double-quote in LaTeX! That's what I use
> myself, and what every manual I've read says. Some of those don't even
> mention " (^^22) at all; others regard it as a shortcut for ''.
>
> Alex
>
--
/ BP
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Elision (was: [CONLANG] Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit
Posted by: "Toms Deimonds Barvidis" [email protected]
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2010 10:41 am ((PDT))
Quoting "BPJ" <[email protected]>:
> 2010-08-05 21:26, Toms Deimonds Barvidis skrev:
>> ''intuilnaj'dha'' (the ' stands for an elided repeated vowel,
>> as the word should've been ''-tuilajadha'')
>
> Why does the elision happen? I guess one or more
> of the following:
>
> 1) Because there are two/three identical
> vowels in a row?
> 2) Because [aj] was a virtual diphthong and the
> following vowel was also /a/?
> 3) Because the word had very many syllables?
> 4) Because there were (too) many unstressed
> syllables (if the stress was on the first or
> second syllable)?
> 5) The virtual/secondary diphthong /aj/ arose thru
> the influence of the presence of the diphthong
> /ui/ in the preceding syllable.
>
> I guess one of the two first, given that you said
> "elided repeated vowel".
I'd give something between the first, third and fourth reason.
Elision in Longrimol occurs only when at least two identical vowels are in a
row (your first reason) and neither of
them is stressed (your fourth reason). However, elision does not occur if the
word has only three syllables, so only
longer words are subject to it (your third reason).
And the stress in "intuilnaj'dha" falls on the second syllable, since the first
(in-) is a prefix and those are never
stressed.
> Assuming that the diphthong /ai/ exists in
> the language, would /ajð/ differ phonetically
> from /aið/?
No, there is no difference between /ajð/ and /aið/. The /j/ in
''intuilnaj'dha'' is kept because of etymological reason;
the original word is ''intuilnajadha'' and not *intuilnaiadha.
As for pronunciation, I always use /j/ in stead of just /i/ to denote
diphthongs, because I can't help myself
pronouncing, for example, /ai/ as a sequence of two vowels /a.i/, and not a
diphthong.
> BTW I guess that you use doubled single apostrophe
> with some special significance? What would that
> be? I'm asking out of sheer curiosity. When
> writing LaTeX I almost consistently mistype '' for
> " because an English opening double quote is `` in
> LaTeX, and need to do a s/''/"/g from time to
> time. I've even considered a markup where ``foo''
> and "foo" differ semantically and ``foo" would be
> an error. That would seem cleaner and more
> consistent to me.
I use the double single apostrophe for quoting and I have no idea why I do so.
Probably because it's easier for me to
type it :)
--
In mist and twilight I shall linger
~TDB~
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. writing system
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2010 11:53 am ((PDT))
My daughter just asked me about a photo that was taken many years. It shows
a large (truck-sized) rock with writing painted on it. In white there is a
set of linear squiggles and dots and below that is a tesseract.
The rock is in Fort Irwin, California, where I participated in too many
field exercises during my army years. The figure above the tesseract is my
given name (Steven), written vertically in binary with the adjacent
dots-for-ones connected.
S 19 10011
T 20 10100
E 5 00101
V 22 10110
E 5 00101
N 14 01110
|*..**
|*.*..
|..*.*
|.*.**
|..*.*
|.***.
Has anyone else done something like this?
stevo
Messages in this topic (56)
________________________________________________________________________
3.2. Re: writing system
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [email protected]
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2010 9:08 pm ((PDT))
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 8:50 PM, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
> My daughter just asked me about a photo that was taken many years. It shows
> a large (truck-sized) rock with writing painted on it. In white there is a
> set of linear squiggles and dots and below that is a tesseract.
> The rock is in Fort Irwin, California, where I participated in too many
> field exercises during my army years. The figure above the tesseract is my
> given name (Steven), written vertically in binary with the adjacent
> dots-for-ones connected.
>
> S 19 10011
> T 20 10100
> E 5 00101
> V 22 10110
> E 5 00101
> N 14 01110
>
> |*..**
> |*.*..
> |..*.*
> |.*.**
> |..*.*
> |.***.
>
> Has anyone else done something like this?
While not based on binary, I saw someone write Braille, but with
adjacent dots connected (so "g" looked like a square, "x" like a
vertically-widened equals sign, etc.). And I occasionally hand-write
Braille like that, too, since it's easier than writing individual dots
precisely.
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <[email protected]>
Messages in this topic (56)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. TECH: Converting MediaWiki markup to HTML
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" [email protected]
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2010 12:00 pm ((PDT))
Does anyone have some recommendations for software to convert MediaWiki markup
to HTML, without the use of MediaWiki itself? I've asked on IRC, and everyone
there said just to use MW, but I thought I'd ask here for a second opinion.
Reason: I'd like to work on conlang documentation with some sort of markup on
my own computer, and I'd like to be able to see it formatted nicely without
having to go to FrathWiki or the like (or having to install MW myself). I would
prefer to use MediaWiki rather than e.g. markdown, since a) I'm somewhat
familiar with it and b) I would like to be able to stick it on FrathWiki
without making any changes to it.
Alternatively, is it possible to create private pages on FrathWiki? I could
settle for that.
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: TECH: Converting MediaWiki markup to HTML
Posted by: "Philip Newton" [email protected]
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2010 1:13 pm ((PDT))
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Eric Christopherson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Does anyone have some recommendations for software to convert MediaWiki
> markup to HTML, without the use of MediaWiki itself?
I think the answer will depend on whether you mean the question
literally as written ("MediaWiki markup"), or whether you would be
content with a carefully-chosen subset of MediaWiki markup, since the
whole hog is pretty powerful and likely arcane enough that you'd only
want to use the original source.
But if you restrict yourself to something like (say) ''xyz'' =
italics, '''xyz''' = bold, [[xyz]] = link, *xyz = unordered list,
==xyz== = heading, you can surely either (a) roll your own or (b) have
a look at the dozens of wikis out there and extract the appropriate
code from them.
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <[email protected]>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: TECH: Converting MediaWiki markup to HTML
Posted by: "Rebecca Bettencourt" [email protected]
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2010 6:42 pm ((PDT))
There is one wiki markup parser called Creole that's nice and
lightweight. It's originally written in Perl, and I've ported it to
PHP for my own purposes.
-- Rebecca Bettencourt
"I could counter with the fact that a disproportionate number of TG
women I know are computer programmers. ::grin:: In fact, there's a
joke going around that says exposure to computer screens causes
transsexuality." -- Kate Bornstein
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Philip Newton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Eric Christopherson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Does anyone have some recommendations for software to convert MediaWiki
>> markup to HTML, without the use of MediaWiki itself?
>
> I think the answer will depend on whether you mean the question
> literally as written ("MediaWiki markup"), or whether you would be
> content with a carefully-chosen subset of MediaWiki markup, since the
> whole hog is pretty powerful and likely arcane enough that you'd only
> want to use the original source.
>
> But if you restrict yourself to something like (say) ''xyz'' =
> italics, '''xyz''' = bold, [[xyz]] = link, *xyz = unordered list,
> ==xyz== = heading, you can surely either (a) roll your own or (b) have
> a look at the dozens of wikis out there and extract the appropriate
> code from them.
>
> Cheers,
> Philip
> --
> Philip Newton <[email protected]>
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: OT: Funny Website about Latin
Posted by: "Carsten Becker" [email protected]
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2010 3:25 pm ((PDT))
As far as I know, Nyland died last year. Too late for a crackpots
discussion, sadly.
Carsten
Am 06.08.2010 09:30 schrieb Garth Wallace:
> I say we hold a debate between this guy and Edo Nyland.
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. OT: Grave accent as opening quote (was Re: Elision (was: [CONLANG]
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" [email protected]
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2010 4:14 pm ((PDT))
On Aug 7, 2010, at 6:05 AM, BPJ wrote:
> 2010-08-05 21:26, Toms Deimonds Barvidis skrev:
>> ''intuilnaj'dha'' (the ' stands for an elided repeated vowel,
>> as the word should've been ''-tuilajadha'')
>
> Why does the elision happen? I guess one or more
> of the following:
>
> 1) Because there are two/three identical
> vowels in a row?
> 2) Because [aj] was a virtual diphthong and the
> following vowel was also /a/?
> 3) Because the word had very many syllables?
> 4) Because there were (too) many unstressed
> syllables (if the stress was on the first or
> second syllable)?
> 5) The virtual/secondary diphthong /aj/ arose thru
> the influence of the presence of the diphthong
> /ui/ in the preceding syllable.
>
> I guess one of the two first, given that you said
> "elided repeated vowel".
>
> Assuming that the diphthong /ai/ exists in
> the language, would /ajð/ differ phonetically
> from /aið/?
>
> BTW I guess that you use doubled single apostrophe
> with some special significance? What would that
> be? I'm asking out of sheer curiosity. When
> writing LaTeX I almost consistently mistype '' for
> " because an English opening double quote is `` in
> LaTeX, and need to do a s/''/"/g from time to
> time. I've even considered a markup where ``foo''
> and "foo" differ semantically and ``foo" would be
> an error. That would seem cleaner and more
> consistent to me.
I've always hated the practice (typically seen in Unix software, although maybe
elsewhere as well) of using the grave accent (`) as an opening quote, paired
with the apostrophe (') as closing quote (either singly or doubly). I know of
very few fonts where the two look as though they go together -- typically the
grave accent looks like a diagonal like, and the apostrophe is either a
straight line or a curve.
The commonly-used font with the closest match I know of is the old PC text mode
8x16 font, but IIRC in that one there is a one-pixel difference in vertical
position, so it's a little jarring anyway.
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
6b. Re: OT: Grave accent as opening quote (was Re: Elision (was: [CONLAN
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" [email protected]
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2010 4:33 pm ((PDT))
2010/8/8 Eric Christopherson <[email protected]>
>
>
> I've always hated the practice (typically seen in Unix software, although
> maybe elsewhere as well) of using the grave accent (`) as an opening quote,
> paired with the apostrophe (') as closing quote (either singly or doubly). I
> know of very few fonts where the two look as though they go together --
> typically the grave accent looks like a diagonal like, and the apostrophe is
> either a straight line or a curve.
>
> The commonly-used font with the closest match I know of is the old PC text
> mode 8x16 font, but IIRC in that one there is a one-pixel difference in
> vertical position, so it's a little jarring anyway.
>
Opinion generally seconded. It is even more irritating when sometimes you
catch such errors on big media/news sites.
Eugene
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
6c. Re: OT: Grave accent as opening quote (was Re: Elision (was: [CONLAN
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" [email protected]
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2010 9:51 pm ((PDT))
On Aug 7, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Eugene Oh wrote:
> 2010/8/8 Eric Christopherson <[email protected]>
>>
>>
>> I've always hated the practice (typically seen in Unix software, although
>> maybe elsewhere as well) of using the grave accent (`) as an opening quote,
>> paired with the apostrophe (') as closing quote (either singly or doubly). I
>> know of very few fonts where the two look as though they go together --
>> typically the grave accent looks like a diagonal like, and the apostrophe is
>> either a straight line or a curve.
>>
>> The commonly-used font with the closest match I know of is the old PC text
>> mode 8x16 font, but IIRC in that one there is a one-pixel difference in
>> vertical position, so it's a little jarring anyway.
>>
>
> Opinion generally seconded. It is even more irritating when sometimes you
> catch such errors on big media/news sites.
Tell me about it. While not a "big" news site, the web site for my local
newspaper used to (not sure if they still do) use _ for a long dash.
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
6d. Re: OT: Grave accent as opening quote (was Re: Elision
Posted by: "Carsten Becker" [email protected]
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2010 11:09 pm ((PDT))
Ditto. I see people using ´ instead of the apostrophe on the internet
frequently. It hurts my aesthetics. Also: the accent key – in the
numbers row, to the left of the backspace key – is much further away
from the letters area of the keyboard than the apostrophe key, which is
on the home row, to the left of the enter key on standard keyboards
here. It's more inconvenient, still people prefer it, probably because ´
looks more like ’ (9) than '. On the other hand, hardly anyone seems to
use ,, ´´ for "proper" quotes, as a replacement for „“, or >><< instead
of »«.
Carsten
Am 08.08.2010 01:32 schrieb Eugene Oh:
> Opinion generally seconded. It is even more irritating when sometimes you
> catch such errors on big media/news sites.
>
> Eugene
>
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
6e. Re: OT: Grave accent as opening quote (was Re: Elision
Posted by: "David Peterson" [email protected]
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2010 11:21 pm ((PDT))
On Aug 7, 2010, at 11◊07 PM, Carsten Becker wrote:
> Ditto. I see people using ´ instead of the apostrophe on the internet
> frequently.
I've seen something equally silly in sports: People using an apostrophe instead
of an accent mark. So, for example, there's a basketball player whose name is
Amare Stoudemire--at least, that's how it used to be spelled. It's now spelled
Amar'e Stoudemire, using an apostrophe before the "e". He claims that that's
the way that it's always been spelled, but I wonder: Why was it spelled
that way in the first place? My guess is that it was because it was used in
place
of an acute accent.
I've also seen names like Donté Stallworth spelled Donte' Stallworth--with the
apostrophe mark after the "e". In that case, I believe the name is "supposed"
to be spelled "Donté", but if someone can't render the accented character, for
whatever reason, why throw an apostrophe after it?!
-David
*******************************************************************
"Sunlü eleškarez ügrallerüf üjjixelye ye oxömeyze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
-Jim Morrison
http://dedalvs.com/
LCS Member Since 2007
http://conlang.org/
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
6f. Re: OT: Grave accent as opening quote (was Re: Elision
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2010 5:12 am ((PDT))
Actually CITTA' is how Italian città is written in all caps. But
before the vowel looks totally weird -- not that seeing ide' for
Swedish idé or the spacing acute accent as apostrophe doesn't hurt my
eyes. We got a dead key for the accent and the apo is rarely used too,
so a lot of people can't tell them apart. /BP
2010/8/8, David Peterson <[email protected]>:
> On Aug 7, 2010, at 11◊07 PM, Carsten Becker wrote:
>
>> Ditto. I see people using ´ instead of the apostrophe on the internet
>> frequently.
>
> I've seen something equally silly in sports: People using an apostrophe
> instead
> of an accent mark. So, for example, there's a basketball player whose name
> is
> Amare Stoudemire--at least, that's how it used to be spelled. It's now
> spelled
> Amar'e Stoudemire, using an apostrophe before the "e". He claims that that's
> the way that it's always been spelled, but I wonder: Why was it spelled
> that way in the first place? My guess is that it was because it was used in
> place
> of an acute accent.
>
> I've also seen names like Donté Stallworth spelled Donte' Stallworth--with
> the
> apostrophe mark after the "e". In that case, I believe the name is
> "supposed"
> to be spelled "Donté", but if someone can't render the accented character,
> for
> whatever reason, why throw an apostrophe after it?!
>
> -David
> *******************************************************************
> "Sunlü eleškarez ügrallerüf üjjixelye ye oxömeyze."
> "No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
>
> -Jim Morrison
>
> http://dedalvs.com/
>
> LCS Member Since 2007
> http://conlang.org/
>
--
/ BP
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. Romanization for the flap/tap
Posted by: "Karen Badham" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2010 12:23 am ((PDT))
I'm looking for opinions on the best way to romanize the alveolar flap/tap
sound in a conlang that also has the alveolar trill and the alveolar
approximate.
If the goal with the romanization is ease of remembering/understanding the
proper pronunciation: I had the idea to use D if no alveolar plosive is
present, and then the approximate can use R, and the trill can use RR. How
close do you think a reader would get to the correct pronunciation using a
romanization like that? Do you have any other ideas that may be easier? What
if the alveolar plosive is present in said conlang, what would you use then?
-Karen Terry
http://anti-moliminous.blogspot.com/
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
7b. Re: Romanization for the flap/tap
Posted by: "David Peterson" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2010 12:36 am ((PDT))
On Aug 8, 2010, at 12◊20 AM, Karen Badham wrote:
> I'm looking for opinions on the best way to romanize the alveolar flap/tap
> sound in a conlang that also has the alveolar trill and the alveolar
> approximate.
>
> If the goal with the romanization is ease of remembering/understanding the
> proper pronunciation: I had the idea to use D if no alveolar plosive is
> present, and then the approximate can use R, and the trill can use RR. How
> close do you think a reader would get to the correct pronunciation using a
> romanization like that? Do you have any other ideas that may be easier? What
> if the alveolar plosive is present in said conlang, what would you use then?
How do these sounds work in the phonology? In English, for example,
there is no standard way to realize the tap, and "r" works for the approximant
(and we have no trill). But the reason we don't need a standard way to
realize the tap is because it's an automatic realization of other phonemes.
That is, if one starts out with the question "How does one romanize labio-dental
and bilabial fricatives?", it might receive a rather different answer than if
one had added that the bilabial fricatives only originate from intervocalic
versions of the corresponding bilabial stops (in which case, I'd say "f" for
[f],
"v" for [v], "p" for [p\] and "b" for [B]). So how exactly are each of these
three
sounds in a single language?
If they're each a separate phoneme (with each occurring in all positions),
I guess I'd say "r" for the tap, "rr" for the trill and "rw" for the approximant
(and hope that a tap could never be followed by "w").
-David
*******************************************************************
"A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
-Jim Morrison
http://dedalvs.com/
LCS Member Since 2007
http://conlang.org/
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
7c. Re: Romanization for the flap/tap
Posted by: "vii iiix" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2010 1:05 am ((PDT))
> Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 00:33:53 -0700
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Romanization for the flap/tap
> To: [email protected]
>
> On Aug 8, 2010, at 12◊20 AM, Karen Badham wrote:
>
> > I'm looking for opinions on the best way to romanize the alveolar flap/tap
> > sound in a conlang that also has the alveolar trill and the alveolar
> > approximate.
> >
> > If the goal with the romanization is ease of remembering/understanding the
> > proper pronunciation: I had the idea to use D if no alveolar plosive is
> > present, and then the approximate can use R, and the trill can use RR. How
> > close do you think a reader would get to the correct pronunciation using a
> > romanization like that? Do you have any other ideas that may be easier? What
> > if the alveolar plosive is present in said conlang, what would you use then?
>
> If they're each a separate phoneme (with each occurring in all positions),
> I guess I'd say "r" for the tap, "rr" for the trill and "rw" for the
> approximant
> (and hope that a tap could never be followed by "w").
>
I'd say 'r' for the approximant, 'rr' for the trill, and 'hr' or 'rh' for the
tap, or you could go 'r' for the tap aand 'rh' or 'hr' for the approximant,
though i would reccomend the former three as opesed to the latter, but then
again im sure there would be many varied opinions about this. you should just
got for what feels best for you :D
cheer,s
vii
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
7d. Re: Romanization for the flap/tap
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2010 5:59 am ((PDT))
David Peterson wrote:
> On Aug 8, 2010, at 12◊20 AM, Karen Badham wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for opinions on the best way to romanize
>> the alveolar flap/tap sound in a conlang that also has
>> the alveolar trill and the alveolar approximate.
[snip]
>
> How do these sounds work in the phonology? In English,
> for example, there is no standard way to realize the tap,
> and "r" works for the approximant (and we have no trill).
>
Some varieties of Brit English do :)
The trilled r is common enough in Scotland and in Wales
outside of the anglicized south-east. IIRC it occurs in some
South African varieties of English
> But the reason we don't need a standard way to realize
> the tap is because it's an automatic realization of other
> phonemes.
Exactly - _r_ does for whatever regional or positional
variant we have of the phoneme /r/.
[snip]
>
> If they're each a separate phoneme (with each occurring
> in all positions), I guess I'd say "r" for the tap, "rr"
> for the trill
..which, of course, is what Spanish does.
> and "rw" for the approximant (and hope that
> a tap could never be followed by "w").
Or, maybe, _wr_ for the approximant. I have seen it claimed
that the common modern pronunciation of /r/ as an
approximate resulted from Old English _wr_ combo, and that
this was then generalized to all occurrences of pre- and
inter-vocalic /r/. Whether that was someone's guesswork or
whether there is any evidence for that, I don't know.
-----------------------------------------------------
vii iiix wrote:
[snip]
>
> I'd say 'r' for the approximant, 'rr' for the trill, and
> 'hr' or 'rh' for the tap, or you could go 'r' for the tap
> aand 'rh' or 'hr' for the approximant,
I must confess I do not like either the Old English _hr_ or
the modern Welsh _rh_ for any of these sounds. To me, the
presence of the _h_ suggests aspiration (and/or devoicing).
Whenever I see _rh_, I'm always tempted to read it as
Welsh [r_h].
Maybe I know too many languages for my own good ;)
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
[J.G. Hamann, 1760]
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
7e. Re: Romanization for the flap/tap
Posted by: "<deinx nxtxr>" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2010 7:47 am ((PDT))
On 8/8/10 3:20 AM, Karen Badham wrote:
> I'm looking for opinions on the best way to romanize the alveolar flap/tap
> sound in a conlang that also has the alveolar trill and the alveolar
> approximate.
Or maybe <r> with some type of diacritic like <ŕ>.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
7f. Re: Romanization for the flap/tap
Posted by: "<deinx nxtxr>" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2010 7:51 am ((PDT))
On 8/8/10 3:33 AM, David Peterson wrote:
> If they're each a separate phoneme (with each occurring in all positions),
> I guess I'd say "r" for the tap, "rr" for the trill and "rw" for the
> approximant
> (and hope that a tap could never be followed by "w").
If you don't mind diagraphs, I'd say this is a good solution, not unlike
how Spanish distinguises the tap <r> from the trill <rr>.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
7g. Re: Romanization for the flap/tap
Posted by: "Daniel Prohaska" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2010 8:01 am ((PDT))
If you developed a historicizing orthography with Roman letters, you could show
the letters your respective r-sounds developed from, examples from English:
Approximant: from historical <r>, <wr> and <hr>;
Flap: intervocalic <d> or <t>;
Glottal stop: allophone of <t> etc.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: R A Brown
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 3:01 PM
David Peterson wrote:
> On Aug 8, 2010, at 12◊20 AM, Karen Badham wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for opinions on the best way to romanize
>> the alveolar flap/tap sound in a conlang that also has
>> the alveolar trill and the alveolar approximate.
[snip]
>
> How do these sounds work in the phonology? In English,
> for example, there is no standard way to realize the tap,
> and "r" works for the approximant (and we have no trill).
>
Some varieties of Brit English do :)
The trilled r is common enough in Scotland and in Wales outside of the
anglicized south-east. IIRC it occurs in some South African varieties of English
> But the reason we don't need a standard way to realize
> the tap is because it's an automatic realization of other
> phonemes.
Exactly - _r_ does for whatever regional or positional variant we have of the
phoneme /r/.
[snip]
>
> If they're each a separate phoneme (with each occurring
> in all positions), I guess I'd say "r" for the tap, "rr"
> for the trill
..which, of course, is what Spanish does.
> and "rw" for the approximant (and hope that
> a tap could never be followed by "w").
Or, maybe, _wr_ for the approximant. I have seen it claimed that the common
modern pronunciation of /r/ as an approximate resulted from Old English _wr_
combo, and that this was then generalized to all occurrences of pre- and
inter-vocalic /r/. Whether that was someone's guesswork or whether there is any
evidence for that, I don't know.
-----------------------------------------------------
vii iiix wrote:
[snip]
>
> I'd say 'r' for the approximant, 'rr' for the trill, and
> 'hr' or 'rh' for the tap, or you could go 'r' for the tap
> aand 'rh' or 'hr' for the approximant,
I must confess I do not like either the Old English _hr_ or the modern Welsh
_rh_ for any of these sounds. To me, the presence of the _h_ suggests
aspiration (and/or devoicing).
Whenever I see _rh_, I'm always tempted to read it as Welsh [r_h].
Maybe I know too many languages for my own good ;)
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
[J.G. Hamann, 1760]
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
7h. Re: Romanization for the flap/tap
Posted by: "David McCann" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2010 8:32 am ((PDT))
On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 03:20 -0400, Karen Badham wrote:
> I'm looking for opinions on the best way to romanize the alveolar flap/tap
> sound in a conlang that also has the alveolar trill and the alveolar
> approximate.
That's a rare one! I've only heard of that three way distinction in a
couple of Australian languages.
A quick look shows
pre-composed diacritics: ŕ ř ṙ ṛ ṟ
special letters: Ɍɍ Ʀʀ (Old Norse)
The trill is really just a repeated tap, so I'd go for {r} for /ɾ/, and
{rr}, {ʀ}, or {ŕ} for /r/. For /ɹ/, {rh}, {ř}, {ṟ}, or {ɍ}.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8a. Re: Derivational productivity (longish) (was: Translation excercise:
Posted by: "Benct Philip Jonsson" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2010 4:53 am ((PDT))
Yeah, but when I first saw the Norwegian _skriv_ in my first year
Nordistics course back in the eighties I found it cool but odd. BTW
that was in a context of a Dano-Norwegian traditionalist objecting to
the word, in a text written in the forties. Moreover the Norwegian
_skriv_ means _skrivelse_ 'petition, official document (or somesuch)'
while the newer Swedish homonym means _skriveri_ '(idle) writing,
spilling of ink' or in my line of work 'writing/typing work you have
to do with little intellectual or financial reward' (you'll know what
I mean since you're in a similar LoW!) and thus seems actually to be a
mock Orwellianism! /BP
2010/8/7, Lars Finsen <[email protected]>:
> Den 7. aug. 2010 kl. 11.24 skreiv BPJ:
>
>> for example it seems that backformation of nouns
>> from verbs and adjectives by removing suffixes
>> and using the root/stem as a noun has become
>> productive in Swedish under English influence. In
>> English the process probably arose 'organically'
>> due to the fact that most basic vocabulary words
>> of all three classes are suffixless and
>> backformation thus is a zero-derivation process,
>> unlike Swedish where backformation always[^2]
>> involves stripping a stem though it would seem
>> that the pattern has become more productive in
>> Swedish than it is in English, or is it just that
>> formations like _skriv_ instead of
>> _skrivning/skriveri_ <- _skriva_ and _tänk_
>> instead of _tänkande_ <- _tänka_ are more
>> noticeable to this linguistically aware Swedish
>> L1 speaker than similar zero-derived forms in
>> English are to the same person as an L2
>> reader/writer? What about German, Dutch,
>> Norwegian and other related languages -- or
>> indeed more remotely related and/or unrelated
>> languages? Has backformation become more
>> productive in them too in recent decades? Perhaps
>> it's more a symptom of the hastiness of our times
>> than English influence?
>
> I don't know. At least in Norwegian, the noun 'skriv' is quite old,
> and we have derivations like 'rundskriv'. Other similar nouns like
> 'kjør', 'vent' are newer, at least new enough to be candidates for
> English influence.
>
> LEF
>
--
/ BP
Messages in this topic (23)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
