There are 18 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Genealogical classification of conlangs (was: Euroclones)
From: BPJ
1.2. Re: Genealogical classification of conlangs (was: Euroclones)
From: BPJ
1.3. Re: Genealogical classification of conlangs (was: Euroclones)
From: Padraic Brown
1.4. Re: Genealogical classification of conlangs (was: Euroclones)
From: Padraic Brown
1.5. Re: Genealogical classification of conlangs (was: Euroclones)
From: BPJ
1.6. Re: Genealogical classification of conlangs (was: Euroclones)
From: Jim Henry
1.7. Re: Genealogical classification of conlangs (was: Euroclones)
From: Logan Kearsley
1.8. Re: Genealogical classification of conlangs (was: Euroclones)
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
2.1. Re: Hieroglyphics (was: Topicality)
From: Padraic Brown
3a. Re: OT: gendered usage of "fiancé (e)" -- plus obCon lang vocabu
From: BPJ
3b. Re: OT: gendered usage of "fiancé (e)" -- plus obCo n lang vocabu
From: Puey McCleary
4.1. Re: OT: gendered usage of "fiancé(e)" -- plus obCon lang vocabul
From: Puey McCleary
4.2. Re: OT: gendered usage of "fiancé(e) " -- plus obCon lang vocabu
From: David Peterson
4.3. Re: OT: gendered usage of "fiancé(e) " -- plus obCo n lang vocabu
From: Puey McCleary
4.4. Re: OT: gendered usage of "fiancé(e) " -- plus obCo n lang vocab
From: David Peterson
4.5. Re: OT: gendered usage of "fiancé(e) " -- plus obCo n lang vocab
From: Puey McCleary
5.1. Re: Design Perameters for Romanization
From: Charles W Brickner
6a. Re: 9D grammar
From: neo gu
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Genealogical classification of conlangs (was: Euroclones)
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 7, 2011 6:05 am ((PST))
On 2011-12-07 02:31, Padraic Brown wrote:
> "real" as applied to natural languages is a well enough known
> figure of speech hereabouts
Proposition
-----------
A figure of speech we have, appropriately, been moving away
from.
Abstract
--------
The criterion for 'real language' is having (some) grammar
and vocabulary extant in human minds or writing. The
criterion for 'natural language' is 'having descended from
**Proto-Human'. These two definitions don't overlap.
Protract
--------
If you define "language" as 'a double-articulated system of
communication with a potentially infinite set of secondary
to n-ary signs having meaning composed by combining a
limited set of primary signs lacking meaning by themselves,
and rules for how to compose new signs from existing ones',
i.e. a phoneme/grapheme/chereme/chromeme... inventory, a
vocabulary, a morphology and a syntax which can at least
potentially be used together to communicate between people,
then most conlangs, as opposed to 'conlang sketches' with
only a fragmental grammar and morphology, are real
languages, since the only thing which distinguishes natlangs
from conlangs is that they have linearly descended from
**Proto-Human. Dead natlangs share with most conlangs that
they are not actually used to communicate, but could (still)
potentially be so used. Actually a fragmentarily attested
dead natlang like Gaulish is in fact similar to conlang
sketches in that both can potentially be expanded to
communicability -- except that if that expansion doesn't
happen by the discovery of further ancient sources you will
have a conlang Neo-Gaulish distinct from Gaulish -- so I'd
say that conlang sketches are at least potential languages,
and they are as real as any natlang, since both kinds exist
partially in people's minds and memories, partly in written
or audio records. I can't see that the quantity of
minds/records has any significance for realness, nor the
having or not having a community of native speakers, since
at least one conlang has acquired one, and several natlangs
like Latin and Sanskrit have lost their native speaker
communities -- except in as much as living Romance and_pÄramÄrthika_
Indo-Aryan languages are the modern form of Latin and
Sanskrit, and except the fact that Classical Latin and
Sanskrit always were conlangs; in the case of Sanskrit even
manifested in its name![^1] -- and yet they are still real
languages since they not only potentially can be, but
actually are used to communicate. Contrast with this the
galactic lingua franca of Star Wars: it is fictionally
supposed to exist, and yet it has no grammar or vocabulary
(possibly apart from some proper names); all we ever hear is
English! That I'd call an unreal language[^2].
/bpj
[^1]: _saá¹ská¹ta (bhÄá¹£Ä)_ and _prÄká¹ta (bhÄá¹£Ä)_ are arguably
the Sanskrit terms for 'conlang' and 'natlang'
respectively, the former meaning literally 'put
together' and the latter being derived from _praká¹ti_
'nature'. Their use as names of a specific language and
group of language respectively makes their use
difficult, but they imply that the *concepts* of conlang
and natlang existed two and a half millennia ago!
[^2]: Sanskrit terms for 'language' are actually interesting
from this perspective: most of them, like the most
common one _bhÄá¹£Ä_ are derived from words meaning
'utter, speak', but _vyÄhÄra_ is derived from a root
meaning 'carry, convey', i.e. in this context
'communicate'. An English-Hindi dictionary also gives
the Sanskritism _abhivyakti vidhi_, presumably
'manifestation of grammar'.
While looking for cognates of _vyÄhÄra_ I found this
triplet of philosophical terms:
* _vyÄvahÄrika_: 'relating to common life or practice
or action , practical , usual , current , actual ,
real (as opp. to , " ideal ")'.
* _pÄramÄrthika_: 'relating to a high or spiritual
object or to supreme truth , real , essential ,
true'.
* _prÄtibhÄsika_: 'having only the appearance of
anything , existing only in appearance'.
It would seem we agree that a _vyÄvahÄrika_ language is
real, and that a _prÄtibhÄsika_ language is not real,
but we don't agree whether a _pÄramÄrthika_ language is
real, not where the line between _pÄramÄrthika_ and
_prÄtibhÄsika_ goes.
Messages in this topic (153)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: Genealogical classification of conlangs (was: Euroclones)
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 7, 2011 6:22 am ((PST))
On 2011-12-07 15:04, I wrote:
> communities -- except in as much as living Romance and_pÄramÄrthika_
Seems "_pÄramÄrthika_" got pasted in quite out of place there.
I definitely meant _vyÄvahÄrika_ languages of both families!
/bpj
Messages in this topic (153)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: Genealogical classification of conlangs (was: Euroclones)
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 7, 2011 6:48 am ((PST))
--- On Wed, 12/7/11, BPJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: BPJ <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [CONLANG] Genealogical classification of conlangs (was:
> Euroclones)
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Wednesday, December 7, 2011, 9:04 AM
> On 2011-12-07 02:31, Padraic Brown
> wrote:
> > "real" as applied to natural languages is a well
> enough known
> > figure of speech hereabouts
>
> Proposition
> -----------
>
> A figure of speech we have, appropriately, been moving
> away from.
Probably a good thing. The *other* dichotomy, "real" vs. "fake" or "false"
has some negative connotations that we don't want applied to the languages
we devise or discover!
> Abstract
> --------
>
> The criterion for 'real language' is having (some) grammar
> and vocabulary extant in human minds or writing. The
> criterion for 'natural language' is 'having descended from
> **Proto-Human'. These two definitions don't overlap.
In any event, there is a valid distinction to be made between languages
that arise naturally (hence "natural language") and those that are
purposely devised by the genius of an individual or group (hence
"constructed language").
> Protract
> --------
>
> If you define "language" as 'a double-articulated system
> of
> communication with a potentially infinite set of secondary
> to n-ary signs having meaning composed by combining a
> limited set of primary signs lacking meaning by
> themselves,
> and rules for how to compose new signs from existing
> ones',
> i.e. a phoneme/grapheme/chereme/chromeme... inventory, a
> vocabulary, a morphology and a syntax which can at least
> potentially be used together to communicate between
> people,
> then most conlangs, as opposed to 'conlang sketches' with
> only a fragmental grammar and morphology, are real
> languages, since the only thing which distinguishes
> natlangs
Again, there are "real" languages and there are "real" languages. I'm
certainly not disputing the factual existence of a conlang. Only that
as far as determining relatedness is concerned, fiction and fact ought
to be kept separate.
But for what it's worth, I'd not say that a language sketch is any less
"real" than a full fledged conlang. A sketch still hints at realities
unrevealed. Just as a grammatical treatise of Gaulish hints at a moreness
that we can not now know; so a conlang sketch hints at something more than
what the conlanger has chosen to reveal.
This comes up from time to time when we talk about how many words are in
our conlangs' lexicons. Do we count only black-and-white dictionary
entries? Do we count derivatives? Do we count obvious lacunae (if the
lexicon contains a word for "left", even though I forgot to sort out a
word for "right", the language (if it's human anyway) must almost certainly
have the word)? Given a certain technological or cultural attainment, do
we count virtual words (if I have a word for "laptop" and a concept for a
device identical to a primary world conputer, then even if the words are
not revealed in the lexicon, the language must have words for "plastic"
and "SIMM" and "video card" and "monitor" and "lcd screen" etc)?
> from conlangs is that they have linearly descended from
> **Proto-Human. Dead natlangs share with most conlangs that
> they are not actually used to communicate, but could
> (still)
> potentially be so used. Actually a fragmentarily attested
> dead natlang like Gaulish is in fact similar to conlang
> sketches in that both can potentially be expanded to
> communicability -- except that if that expansion doesn't
> happen by the discovery of further ancient sources you
> will
> have a conlang Neo-Gaulish distinct from Gaulish -- so I'd
> say that conlang sketches are at least potential
> languages,
> and they are as real as any natlang, since both kinds
> exist
> partially in people's minds and memories, partly in
> written
> or audio records. I can't see that the quantity of
> minds/records has any significance for realness, nor the
> having or not having a community of native speakers, since
> at least one conlang has acquired one, and several
> natlangs
> like Latin and Sanskrit have lost their native speaker
> communities -- except in as much as living Romance
> and_pÄramÄrthika_
> Indo-Aryan languages are the modern form of Latin and
> Sanskrit, and except the fact that Classical Latin and
> Sanskrit always were conlangs; in the case of Sanskrit
> even
> manifested in its name![^1] -- and yet they are still real
> languages since they not only potentially can be, but
> actually are used to communicate. Contrast with this the
> galactic lingua franca of Star Wars: it is fictionally
> supposed to exist, and yet it has no grammar or vocabulary
> (possibly apart from some proper names); all we ever hear
> is
> English! That I'd call an unreal language[^2].
I'd just call that a theatrical fiction. Star Wars also assumes the
reality of interstellar travel, alien races, aliens that behave like
humans, inhabitable planets, and a whole host of other things that may
or may not actually exist. Not subjecting us to two hours of solid
conlang dialogue is simply a trade-off.
> [^1]: _saá¹ská¹ta (bhÄá¹£Ä)_ and _prÄká¹ta
> (bhÄá¹£Ä)_ are arguably
> the Sanskrit terms for 'conlang' and
> 'natlang'
> respectively, the former meaning literally
> 'put
> together' and the latter being derived from
> _praká¹ti_
> 'nature'. Their use as names of a specific
> language and
> group of language respectively makes their
> use
> difficult, but they imply that the *concepts*
> of conlang
> and natlang existed two and a half millennia
> ago!
Interesting; though I'm sure the implication isn't that Sankrit is a
conlang in the usual sense! I've seen it also defined as "refined", so
perhaps a conlang in extremum of Classical Latin. Engineered and altered
from an already existing base.
> [^2]: Sanskrit terms for 'language' are actually
> interesting
> from this perspective: most of them, like the
> most
> common one _bhÄá¹£Ä_ are derived from words
> meaning
> 'utter, speak', but _vyÄhÄra_ is derived
> from a root
> meaning 'carry, convey', i.e. in this
> context
> 'communicate'. An English-Hindi dictionary
> also gives
> the Sanskritism _abhivyakti vidhi_,
> presumably
> 'manifestation of grammar'.
>
> While looking for cognates of _vyÄhÄra_ I
> found this
> triplet of philosophical terms:
>
> * _vyÄvahÄrika_: 'relating
> to common life or practice
> or action , practical , usual ,
> current , actual ,
> real (as opp. to , " ideal
> ")'.
> * _pÄramÄrthika_:
> 'relating to a high or spiritual
> object or to supreme truth ,
> real , essential ,
> true'.
> * _prÄtibhÄsika_: 'having
> only the appearance of
> anything , existing only in
> appearance'.
>
> It would seem we agree that a _vyÄvahÄrika_
> language is
> real, and that a _prÄtibhÄsika_ language is
> not real,
> but we don't agree whether a _pÄramÄrthika_
> language is
> real, not where the line between
> _pÄramÄrthika_ and
> _prÄtibhÄsika_ goes.
>
Well, I hold more with Seusophilos: "There is nothing unreal: all things
exist. Somewhere or other" more than not. I guess I just illchose the
phrase "real language" rather than "natural language"! My argument had
nothing to do with existence or substance (for I assume the existence
and fundamental reality of conlangs as well as natlangs!). Only that, as
far as categorising naturally occuring languages, it's best not mix in
purposely created or engineered languages.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (153)
________________________________________________________________________
1.4. Re: Genealogical classification of conlangs (was: Euroclones)
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 7, 2011 6:55 am ((PST))
--- On Tue, 12/6/11, Philip Newton <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Philip Newton <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [CONLANG] Genealogical classification of conlangs (was:
> Euroclones)
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2011, 4:38 AM
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 21:10, Padraic
> Brown <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > I-E isn't a measure of vocabulary -- PIE itself has
> some non-IE words! (It
> > would have to, since it ancestral language, by
> definition, can not itself
> > be an I-E language!) I-E is a family of languages
> related by grammatical
> > affinity, not lexical.
>
> I would expect "family" to include the parents
Yet we don't call Vulgar Latin a Romance language. Obviously, IE *is*
"Indo-European"! But it is not one of the derivative "Indo-European
Languages".
> Finally, I was a bit amused by appeals to "all linguists
> except
> Michael Everson" on the one hand and "all of us" on the
> other -- the
> first because I'm sure there are all sorts of linguists
> with all sorts
> of ideas considered controversial by others, so it's
> probably hard to
> think of something that "all linguists" agree on in the
> first place,
> and the second, because I wonder how to know what all of us
> list
> members agree on.
Good point there. "All linguists" is certainly hyperbole.
> Philip
Padraic
Messages in this topic (153)
________________________________________________________________________
1.5. Re: Genealogical classification of conlangs (was: Euroclones)
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 7, 2011 9:45 am ((PST))
On 2011-12-07 15:48, Padraic Brown wrote:
> --- On Wed, 12/7/11, BPJ<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> From: BPJ<[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: [CONLANG] Genealogical classification of conlangs (was:
>> Euroclones)
>> To: [email protected]
>> Date: Wednesday, December 7, 2011, 9:04 AM
>> On 2011-12-07 02:31, Padraic Brown
>> wrote:
>>> "real" as applied to natural languages is a well
>> enough known
>>> figure of speech hereabouts
>>
>> Proposition
>> -----------
>>
>> A figure of speech we have, appropriately, been moving
>> away from.
>
> Probably a good thing. The *other* dichotomy, "real" vs. "fake" or "false"
> has some negative connotations that we don't want applied to the languages
> we devise or discover!
Exactly my point. Forgive me for being picky over the
definition of "real" -- as a modern Buddhist you have
to be!
>> Abstract
>> --------
>>
>> The criterion for 'real language' is having (some) grammar
>> and vocabulary extant in human minds or writing. The
>> criterion for 'natural language' is 'having descended from
>> **Proto-Human'. These two definitions don't overlap.
>
> In any event, there is a valid distinction to be made between languages
> that arise naturally (hence "natural language") and those that are
> purposely devised by the genius of an individual or group (hence
> "constructed language").
Sure. I've never denied that. The trouble is where to
draw the line. Is a heavily planned language like
Rumantsch Grischun or Sanskrit or standard Icelandic --
which has been purged of loanwords which once were in
use and of a good deal of the linguistic change which
actually did happen in 600 years -- natty conlangs or
conny natlangs? Are people conlanging when they think
that what they are doing is purifying/unifying/reviving
a natlang, or creating a literary/theatrical prop --
Tolkien being an exception, since in his case the
language come first, at least according to his
statement decades later.
>> Protract --------
>>
>> If you define "language" as 'a double-articulated
>> system of communication with a potentially infinite
>> set of secondary to n-ary signs having meaning
>> composed by combining a limited set of primary signs
>> lacking meaning by themselves, and rules for how to
>> compose new signs from existing ones', i.e. a
>> phoneme/grapheme/chereme/chromeme... inventory, a
>> vocabulary, a morphology and a syntax which can at
>> least potentially be used together to communicate
>> between people, then most conlangs, as opposed to
>> 'conlang sketches' with only a fragmental grammar
>> and morphology, are real languages, since the only
>> thing which distinguishes natlangs
>
> Again, there are "real" languages and there are
> "real" languages. I'm certainly not disputing the
> factual existence of a conlang. Only that as far as
> determining relatedness is concerned, fiction and
> fact ought to be kept separate.
The question to me, and I thought to you, is whether a
language can be considered 'real' when it possesses
only _langage_ and not _parole_ (terms which I really
wanted to avoid -- I'd rather say _vyÄhÄra_ and _bhÄá¹£Ä_
-- or _vakya_, _bhÄá¹£Ä_ rather being _langue_! :-). I
for one think the answer is yes. If you think the
answer is no the question is not whether conlangs
(other than Esperanto) are real in the sense of 'being
things', but whether they are _real languages_, i.e.
how many and how much of the characteristic features of
a typical language must a thing possess to be a
_langue_ -- I read you as saying that a language
without _parole_ is not a _real language_ -- claiming
that Brithenig or Ithkuil are not _real things_ would
be patently absurd! If having a _parole_ is essential
to being a _langue_, then very few conlangs are
_langues_, and very many natlangs -- the dead ones --
are not either.
> But for what it's worth, I'd not say that a language
> sketch is any less "real" than a full fledged
> conlang. A sketch still hints at realities
> unrevealed. Just as a grammatical treatise of Gaulish
> hints at a moreness that we can not now know; so a
> conlang sketch hints at something more than what the
> conlanger has chosen to reveal.
The question to me is how much of a _langage_ must be
manifest as opposed to potential, i.e. what degree of
_abhivyakti vidhi_ (literally 'manifestation of
grammar') must be developed for a conlang sketch to
become a _lang(u|ag)e_, or preserved in historical record
in the case of a dead natlang? One obvious measure is
if and how much you can speak/write in it. However
that measure is not without its problem, as a type,
either. Sohlob has big holes in its _langage_, but on
the other hand I don't feel free to fill those holes
with just anything: it has to 'fit' as Tolkien said. In
reality 'fit' is of course determined by some kind of
aesthetic and _Sprachgefühl_ on my part, but it damn
well feels sometimes as if I'm discovering something
which has a manifest existence outside my mind and my
writings! With a dead natlang the question is whether
that which you have spoken/written in it is really in
*that* language, or in a new conlang similar to it!
> This comes up from time to time when we talk about
> how many words are in our conlangs' lexicons. Do we
> count only black-and-white dictionary entries? Do we
> count derivatives? Do we count obvious lacunae (if
> the lexicon contains a word for "left", even though I
> forgot to sort out a word for "right", the language
> (if it's human anyway) must almost certainly have the
> word)? Given a certain technological or cultural
> attainment, do we count virtual words (if I have a
> word for "laptop" and a concept for a device
> identical to a primary world conputer, then even if
> the words are not revealed in the lexicon, the
> language must have words for "plastic" and "SIMM" and
> "video card" and "monitor" and "lcd screen" etc)?
This question is interesting WRT Sohlob, where most of
the original vocabulary got lost to file lock-up. In a
way I've ever since been trying to revive a dead
language; not dead because it/they once had _parole_
and lost it, but because it/they lost a large and
essential part of its/their _langage_! I'm not sure
how and to what extent I'm free to replace it. I have
a very real feeling that historical continuity has been
broken!
>> communicate. Contrast with this the galactic lingua
>> franca of Star Wars: it is fictionally supposed to
>> exist, and yet it has no grammar or vocabulary
>> (possibly apart from some proper names); all we ever
>> hear is English! That I'd call an unreal
>> language[^2].
>
> I'd just call that a theatrical fiction. Star Wars
> also assumes the reality of interstellar travel,
> alien races, aliens that behave like humans,
> inhabitable planets, and a whole host of other things
> that may or may not actually exist. Not subjecting us
> to two hours of solid conlang dialogue is simply a
> trade-off.
Exactly. A conlang is not a _fictional language_ (as
opposed to a _fiction language_, I'd say!) if it has
some measure of _langage_. If we only have a name of a
language, or a supposition that a language must (have)
exist(ed) because people must (have) talk(ed) to each
other, then we have a fictional language, or a truly
extinct language in the case of a natlang. Such a
language is in a very real sense not real, since it
lacks both _langage_ and _parole_!
>> [^1]: _saá¹ská¹ta (bhÄá¹£Ä)_ and _prÄká¹ta (bhÄá¹£Ä)_ are
>> arguably the Sanskrit terms for 'conlang' and
>> 'natlang' respectively, the former meaning literally
>> 'put together' and the latter being derived from
>> _praká¹ti_ 'nature'. Their use as names of a specific
>> language and group of language respectively makes
>> their use difficult, but they imply that the
>> *concepts* of conlang and natlang existed two and a
>> half millennia ago!
>
> Interesting; though I'm sure the implication isn't
> that Sankrit is a conlang in the usual sense! I've
> seen it also defined as "refined", so perhaps a
> conlang in extremum of Classical Latin. Engineered
> and altered from an already existing base.
And heavily so, having a rigidly adhered-to normative
grammar for one thing. My point was that if you are to
calque _constructed language_ and _natural language_
_saá¹ská¹ta bhÄá¹£Ä_ and _prÄká¹ta bhÄá¹£Ä_ happens to be
what you get!
>
>> [^2]: Sanskrit terms for 'language' are actually
>> interesting from this perspective: most of them,
>> like the most common one _bhÄá¹£Ä_ are derived from
>> words meaning 'utter, speak', but _vyÄhÄra_ is
>> derived from a root meaning 'carry, convey', i.e. in
>> this context 'communicate'. An English-Hindi
>> dictionary also gives the Sanskritism _abhivyakti
>> vidhi_, presumably 'manifestation of grammar'.
>>
>> While looking for cognates of _vyÄhÄra_ I found
>> this triplet of philosophical terms:
>>
>> * _vyÄvahÄrika_: 'relating to common life or
>> practice or action , practical , usual ,
>> current , actual , real (as opp. to , " ideal
>> ")'. * _pÄramÄrthika_: 'relating to a high or
>> spiritual object or to supreme truth , real ,
>> essential , true'. * _prÄtibhÄsika_: 'having
>> only the appearance of anything , existing only
>> in appearance'.
>>
>> It would seem we agree that a _vyÄvahÄrika_
>> language is real, and that a _prÄtibhÄsika_
>> language is not real, but we don't agree
>> whether a _pÄramÄrthika_ language is real, not
>> where the line between _pÄramÄrthika_ and _prÄ
>> tibhÄsika_ goes.
>>
>
> Well, I hold more with Seusophilos: "There is nothing
> unreal: all things exist. Somewhere or other" more
I'd say that if there are several perceivers perceiving
a phenomenon, then they -- perceivers and perceivers --
are known to the perceivers to be real. Otherwise it's
in doubt. I'd also say that reality is contingent on
_manifesting features_, not on _manifested features_,
or manifesting any specific features. (That's
incidentally how I understand a modern scientific
concept of reality as a state, and the concept of _bhÄ
va_ which the ancient Buddhists accepted, differs from
the ancient Hindu concept of _satyatÄ_ which the
Buddhists denied.) El Dorado certainly exists, though
not as a present or former place on Earth, excluding
the eponymous ones listed at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldorado> and possible
others.
> than not. I guess I just illchose the phrase "real
> language" rather than "natural language"! My argument
> had nothing to do with existence or substance (for I
> assume the existence and fundamental reality of
> conlangs as well as natlangs!). Only that, as far as
> categorising naturally occuring languages, it's best
> not mix in purposely created or engineered languages.
Absolutely agreed.
> Padraic
>
Messages in this topic (153)
________________________________________________________________________
1.6. Re: Genealogical classification of conlangs (was: Euroclones)
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 7, 2011 10:02 am ((PST))
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:04 AM, BPJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> The criterion for 'real language' is having (some) grammar
> and vocabulary extant in human minds or writing. The
> criterion for 'natural language' is 'having descended from
> **Proto-Human'. These two definitions don't overlap.
Since, lacking time travel, and given limitations of the comparative
method, we can't prove for sure that all natural languages are
descendants of one protolanguage, I would prefer a less assertive
definition. In the discussion on the "natlanginess of Esperanto" a
few months ago, I wrote:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
> using that coinage, and because "natlanginess" seems more suited to
> describe a whole cluster of properties that the typical natlang has
> and many or all conlangs lack -- this property but also several
> others, including "naturalism" in the artlang sense, and a history of
> having evolved from an unknown proto-language lost in the mists of
> time. (Conceivably, Esperanto or some other conlang that's spoken by
> enough people for enough time, lasting through a collapse and rise of
> civilizations, could acquire that property too; and long before that,
> it would probably acquire a high degree of artlang-naturalism too.)
If Esperanto or some other auxlang or engelang were spoken as a native
language by local communities without our current global communication
technology for enough centuries, it would develop natlang-like
irregularity, and local dialects which would eventually become
mutually incomprehensible languages. If enough knowledge of history
is lost in the interim, linguists of a newly-arisen civilization would
naturally asume that the protolanguage of this family is, further back
than they can trace things by the recently rediscovered comparative
method, somehow related to the protolanguages of the other families
reconstructable from the data they have available then. There would
probably be controversial theories relating it to the Romance family,
or perhaps to the multiple possibly-related (from their POV) families
descended from different Romance languages of today.
I don't think it's likely that the protolanguages of some current
language families were conlangs, but I do think it barely possible,
and I also think it possible though not likely that language was
independenty invented multiple times in prehistory. So I'd prefer not
to define natlangs as "descended from proto-World". Say rather,
descended from other natural languages as far back as historical
records can trace -- that is, not provably a conlang or descended from
a conlang.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (153)
________________________________________________________________________
1.7. Re: Genealogical classification of conlangs (was: Euroclones)
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 7, 2011 10:48 am ((PST))
On 7 December 2011 11:02, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> I don't think it's likely that the protolanguages of some current
> language families were conlangs, but I do think it barely possible,
> and I also think it possible though not likely that language was
> independenty invented multiple times in prehistory.
I would not find it surprising at all, considering the existence of
things like Twin languages. Nicaraguan Sign Language comes pretty
close.
> So I'd prefer not
> to define natlangs as "descended from proto-World". Say rather,
> descended from other natural languages as far back as historical
> records can trace -- that is, not provably a conlang or descended from
> a conlang.
I would prefer a definition that is not dependent on the level of
knowledge or ignorance of an observer; i.e., not subject to change
over time. A particular language either is natural or is not,
regardless of whether or not an observer in any particular historical
context may be able to prove it so.
So, perhaps, "descended from another language with a native speaking
community" (though that rules out de-novo constructions like
theoretical Proto-Human itself, or Nicaraguan Sign), or simply
"developed by a native speaker community". That eliminates any need to
appeal to history, puts planned/revived languages firmly in the
natlang category (as long as the planning is done by the language's
own speakers), and would mean that any mutually-unintelligible
daughters that might develop from Esperanto among descendants of it's
current speakers would count as natlangs as well.
-l.
Messages in this topic (153)
________________________________________________________________________
1.8. Re: Genealogical classification of conlangs (was: Euroclones)
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 7, 2011 11:57 am ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
On Wednesday 07 December 2011 19:02:30 Jim Henry wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:04 AM, BPJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The criterion for 'real language' is having (some) grammar
> > and vocabulary extant in human minds or writing. The
> > criterion for 'natural language' is 'having descended from
> > **Proto-Human'. These two definitions don't overlap.
>
> Since, lacking time travel, and given limitations of the comparative
> method, we can't prove for sure that all natural languages are
> descendants of one protolanguage,
Indeed not - I have seen several attempts to reconstruct Proto-
Human; all of them were from crackpots (or from academic linguists
who *should* have known that they were doing shenanigans, but
nevertheless acted like crackpots). Of course, none was
methodologically sound, because there is no way knowing with the
methods we have available today.
> I would prefer a less assertive
> definition. In the discussion on the "natlanginess of Esperanto" a
> few months ago, I wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
> > using that coinage, and because "natlanginess" seems more suited to
> > describe a whole cluster of properties that the typical natlang has
> > and many or all conlangs lack -- this property but also several
> > others, including "naturalism" in the artlang sense, and a history of
> > having evolved from an unknown proto-language lost in the mists of
> > time. (Conceivably, Esperanto or some other conlang that's spoken by
> > enough people for enough time, lasting through a collapse and rise of
> > civilizations, could acquire that property too; and long before that,
> > it would probably acquire a high degree of artlang-naturalism too.)
>
> If Esperanto or some other auxlang or engelang were spoken as a native
> language by local communities without our current global communication
> technology for enough centuries, it would develop natlang-like
> irregularity, and local dialects which would eventually become
> mutually incomprehensible languages.
Indeed, it would. Reminds me of a dormant project of mine.
Geoff Eddy once had a web page about his conlang family on which
he wrote that it gave him "lots of conlanging fun of a sort you
just can't get from Esperanto". My thought, "No, you are wrong,
Geoff. You *can* get that from Esperanto - by using it as a
protolanguage for a conlang family". My idea was that some time
in the future, human settlers on an alien planet decide to adopt
Esperanto as their community language. Centuries later, that
language has evolved and broken up into daughter languages, as
human languages usually do when they don't die out. However,
I haven't worked it out so far - I have enough other projects.
> If enough knowledge of history
> is lost in the interim, linguists of a newly-arisen civilization would
> naturally asume that the protolanguage of this family is, further back
> than they can trace things by the recently rediscovered comparative
> method, somehow related to the protolanguages of the other families
> reconstructable from the data they have available then. There would
> probably be controversial theories relating it to the Romance family,
> or perhaps to the multiple possibly-related (from their POV) families
> descended from different Romance languages of today.
Yes. I can imagine that. Perhaps they eventually end up with
the hypothesis that Proto-Esperantic was a Romance-based creole
spoken somewhere in the southeastern Alps, where it could easily
have adopted the obvious influences from nearby Germanic and
Slavic ;)
(One of the sillier projects I once had and abandoned again was
a story of a microstate bordering on Italy, Austria and Slovenia
where a creole-like language evolved from the three branches of
Indo-European meeting there that was identical to Esperanto.)
> I don't think it's likely that the protolanguages of some current
> language families were conlangs, but I do think it barely possible,
> and I also think it possible though not likely that language was
> independenty invented multiple times in prehistory.
Yes. We don't know how many languages have been made up in
history, and since when. Conlanging does not need to be a recent
phenomenon, but may sprout everywhere where people are aware that
there are many different languages, and that is not at all rare,
especially not in places like New Guinea.
> So I'd prefer not
> to define natlangs as "descended from proto-World". Say rather,
> descended from other natural languages as far back as historical
> records can trace -- that is, not provably a conlang or descended from
> a conlang.
Yes. "Proto-World" is an untestable hypothesis, and therefore
inappropriate as a reference point for a meaningful definition.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Êm, a Êm atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Êmel." - SiM 1:1
Messages in this topic (153)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Hieroglyphics (was: Topicality)
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 7, 2011 7:00 am ((PST))
--- On Mon, 12/5/11, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Cantonese has a rich system of
> interjections/sentence-final particles,
> whatever you want to call them, that convey all sorts of
> information about
> speaker attitude and such -- different levels of
> belief/surprise/annoyance/sarcasm/etc.
Sounds a lot like the extra-sentential particles/words/phrases we use in
English to do the same thing. You know, things like "eh", "donch know",
"right?", "so they say", etc.
> And Standard Written Chinese has
> characters for none (or very few) of them. So all
> this information is lost
> unless you write in those terrible uneducated "dialect"
> characters -- you
> know those characters that Mandarin doesn't need and so
> they aren't "real"
> words.
>
> This page http://www.cantonese.sheik.co.uk/essays/cantonese_particles.htm
> has
> a fairly long list of particles/interjections used in
> Cantonese and some of
> the variant characters used to write them.
A fantastic resource, even if the symbols themselves are meaningless to
a non-Cantonese speaker!
Padraic
> Adam
Messages in this topic (153)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: OT: gendered usage of "fiancé (e)" -- plus obCon lang vocabu
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 7, 2011 8:29 am ((PST))
On 2011-12-07 17:20, Puey McCleary wrote:
> What language is spoken in Oz?
>
> Ozzish, of course which, by coincidence, is the same as American
> English,
I thought Ozzish was the same as Brummie! ;-)
/bpj
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: OT: gendered usage of "fiancé (e)" -- plus obCo n lang vocabu
Posted by: "Puey McCleary" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 7, 2011 8:32 am ((PST))
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:28 AM, BPJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2011-12-07 17:20, Puey McCleary wrote:
>
>> What language is spoken in Oz?
>>
>> Ozzish, of course which, by coincidence, is the same as American
>> English,
>>
>
> I thought Ozzish was the same as Brummie! ;-)
>
> /bpj
>
I was naive enough to think that Ozzish had something to do with Australia.
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4.1. Re: OT: gendered usage of "fiancé(e)" -- plus obCon lang vocabul
Posted by: "Puey McCleary" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 7, 2011 8:30 am ((PST))
A discussion on Phillip Jose Farmer would actually be pertinent to the
discussion of whether literature, and art, and constructed languages are
real or not, and what one means by real. Im not a great fan of
Farmer, but I do like how he thought about fictional realities in ways that
I would not have considered such as his Wold Newton hypothesis.
However, Farmer is a whole new can of worms.
Anyway, according to:
http://thewizardofoz.info/wiki/About_the_Land_of_Oz#What_language_is_spoken_in_Oz.3F
Quote:
What language is spoken in Oz?
Ozzish, of course which, by coincidence, is the same as American
English, as Ruth Plumly Thompson points out in The Royal Book of Oz. Ozzish
is spoken in most other countries on the Continent of Imagination as well.
There have been words of Old Ozzish in a few books. Philip Jose Farmer's
non-canonical science-fiction novel, A Barnstormer in Oz, invents a
completely new version of Ozzish, derived from Middle German. There are
some examples of two Ozian languages, Dan-Rur and Old Ozzish, in the "I Can
Eat Glass" project, currently housed at
http://wbww.reocities.com/nodotus/hbglass.htmln/ .
These languages were invented by Oz fan and amateur linguist Aaron Adleman,
but so far the most extensive writings in these languages are on the "I Can
Eat Glass" site.
Unquote.
And in the above link:
Quote:
Old Ozzish
Spoken in: L. Frank Baum's Oz by humans before the Era of the Wizard. From
the language family of Imaginary-Nonestic, which Professor Dharnenblaug of
the Royal Athletic College of Oz believes is descended from Nostratic.
In Old Ozzish: "Iklan-ketel zaglu uni; nal-kepa ni."
Literally: "To-be-able-to-eat glass I; not-hurt me."
Pronounced: As written, not as English speakers would pronounce it. Accent
is on the penultimate syllable.
Unquote
So Ozzish might come from Nostratic??
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
4.2. Re: OT: gendered usage of "fiancé(e) " -- plus obCon lang vocabu
Posted by: "David Peterson" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 7, 2011 1:17 pm ((PST))
On Dec 7, 2011, at 8â20 AM, Puey McCleary wrote:
> Quote:
>
> What language is spoken in Oz?
Since it was brought up, there's a really amusing scene in, I think, Tik Tok of
Oz, where the Scarecrow is speaking to some other character (I can't remember
which; we'll call him A). He asks another character (we'll call her C) to
translate for him. At this point, the Scarecrow says something (like "We come
in peace"), and C translates it to A as an insult (e.g. "You're fat and you
smell bad"). A gets insulted, and says something back to the Scarecrow, which C
likewise mistranslates. They keep getting more and more agitated until C starts
laughing and explains to them that they both speak the same language.
David Peterson
LCS President
[email protected]
www.conlang.org
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
4.3. Re: OT: gendered usage of "fiancé(e) " -- plus obCo n lang vocabu
Posted by: "Puey McCleary" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 7, 2011 7:28 pm ((PST))
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:17 PM, David Peterson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2011, at 8â20 AM, Puey McCleary wrote:
>
> > Quote:
> >
> > What language is spoken in Oz?
>
> Since it was brought up, there's a really amusing scene in, I think, Tik
> Tok of Oz, where the Scarecrow is speaking to some other character (I can't
> remember which; we'll call him A). He asks another character (we'll call
> her C) to translate for him. At this point, the Scarecrow says something
> (like "We come in peace"), and C translates it to A as an insult (e.g.
> "You're fat and you smell bad"). A gets insulted, and says something back
> to the Scarecrow, which C likewise mistranslates. They keep getting more
> and more agitated until C starts laughing and explains to them that they
> both speak the same language.
>
> David Peterson
> LCS President
> [email protected]
> www.conlang.org
>
##
I think I've found the scene, from "The Marvelous Land of Oz," the second
Oz book -- the one that introduces Ozma, I think:
"Then you shall be our interpreter," said the Scarecrow, "and explain to
this Pumpkinhead all that I say, and also explain to me all that he says.
Is this arrangement satisfactory?" he asked, turning toward his guest.
"Very satisfactory indeed," was the reply.
"Then ask him, to begin with," resumed the Scarecrow, turning to Jellia,
"what brought him to the Emerald City?"
But instead of this the girl, who had been staring at Jack, said to him:
"You are certainly a wonderful creature. Who made you?"
"A boy named Tip," answered Jack.
"What does he say?" inquired the Scarecrow. "My ears must have deceived me.
What did he say?"
"He says that your Majesty's brains seem to have come loose," replied the
girl, demurely.
The Scarecrow moved uneasily upon his throne, and felt of his head with his
left hand.
"What a fine thing it is to understand two different languages," he said,
with a perplexed sigh. "Ask him, my dear, if he has any objection to being
put in jail for insulting the ruler of the Emerald City."
"I didn't insult you!" protested Jack, indignantly.
"Tutâtut!" cautioned the Scarecrow "wait, until Jellia translates my
speech. What have we got an interpreter for, if you break out in this rash
way?"
"All right, I'll wait," replied the Pumpkinhead, in a surly toneâalthough
his face smiled as genially as ever. "Translate the speech, young woman."
"His Majesty inquires if you are hungry," said Jellia.
"Oh, not at all!" answered Jack, more pleasantly, "for it is impossible for
me to eat."
"It's the same way with me," remarked the Scarecrow. "What did he say,
Jellia, my dear?"
"He asked if you were aware that one of your eyes is painted larger than
the other," said the girl, mischievously.
"Don't you believe her, your Majesty," cried Jack.
"Oh, I don't," answered the Scarecrow, calmly. Then, casting a sharp look
at the girl, he asked:
"Are you quite certain you understand the languages of both the Gillikins
and the Munchkins?"
"Quite certain, your Majesty," said Jellia Jamb, trying hard not to laugh
in the face of royalty.
"Then how is it that I seem to understand them myself?" inquired the
Scarecrow.
"Because they are one and the same!" declared the girl, now laughing
merrily. "Does not your Majesty know that in all the land of Oz but one
language is spoken?"
"Is it indeed so?" cried the Scarecrow, much relieved to hear this; "then I
might easily have been my own interpreter!"
"It was all my fault, your Majesty," said Jack, looking rather foolish, "I
thought we must surely speak different languages, since we came from
different countries."
"This should be a warning to you never to think," returned the Scarecrow,
severely. "Forunless one can think wisely it is better to remain a
dummyâwhich you most certainly are."
"I am!âI surely am!" agreed the Pumpkinhead.
--
Puey McCleary
http://pueyandtheprincess.conlang.org
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
4.4. Re: OT: gendered usage of "fiancé(e) " -- plus obCo n lang vocab
Posted by: "David Peterson" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 7, 2011 7:40 pm ((PST))
Snipping most.
On Dec 7, 2011, at 7â27 PM, Puey McCleary wrote:
> "This should be a warning to you never to think," returned the Scarecrow,
> severely. "For unless one can think wisely it is better to remain a
> dummyâwhich you most certainly are."
>
> "I am!âI surely am!" agreed the Pumpkinhead.
Ha, ha, ha! Yes, that's the one! Wow, it's been awhile. I absolutely adored the
Oz books. I read all the original 14 (and one of the other ones which wasn't
any good). Thanks for digging that up, Puey!
David Peterson
LCS President
[email protected]
www.conlang.org
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
4.5. Re: OT: gendered usage of "fiancé(e) " -- plus obCo n lang vocab
Posted by: "Puey McCleary" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 7, 2011 7:46 pm ((PST))
I think I have "Oz" on the brain since that series is, perhaps, the most
influential series which itself was influenced by the "Alice" books. There
may be similar social or economic circumstances pertinent to the rise of
both series. Plus, they're both filled with interesting verbal humor.
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5.1. Re: Design Perameters for Romanization
Posted by: "Charles W Brickner" [email protected]
Date: Wed Dec 7, 2011 12:38 pm ((PST))
Another good suggestion, but I have thought of something else. What about the
turned m <ɯ> used for the close back unrounded vowel /M/? Its cursive form
would be easy: <i> with one peak; <u> with two peaks; <ɯ> with three peaks!
Since it never occurs with <i> or <u>, there would be no need for a
differencing diacritic.
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Philip Newton
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 6:51 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Design Perameters for Romanization
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 17:08, Charles W Brickner <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> I continue to puzzle
>> over /U/. At present Iâm using <Å>, but someday Iâll find the right
>> grapheme.
>
> African would suggest <Ê Æ±>.
>
> I have toyed with that idea, but one of my concerns in developing an
> orthography is how to write it in cursive. I don't know how I would write
> <Ê> to distinguish it from <u>.
The obvious solution to me would be to join <u> at the bottom right and <Ê> at
the top right; then the question becomes how to distinguish <v> from <Ê>.
I drew a suggestion with curls on both sides here:
http://conlang.mizinamo.org/u-v-U.png .
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <[email protected]>
Messages in this topic (55)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: 9D grammar
Posted by: "neo gu" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 8, 2011 3:08 am ((PST))
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 00:39:46 -0500, neo gu <[email protected]>
wrote:
I've converted the phonology page to IPA, at worst you should get
boxes. I'll fix the rest later. I also made some minor morphosyntax
changes.
http://qiihoskeh.conlang.org/cl/o/9D/9DIntro.htm
--
neogu
Messages in this topic (8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
