There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Conlang Textbook Template
From: Gary Shannon
1b. Re: Conlang Textbook Template
From: Gary Shannon
2a. Re: Natlang question
From: David McCann
3. Kenakoliku Re: CHAT: Returned...
From: Mia Harper (Soderquist)
4a. Re: Viagra?? WAS: tiffanie3
From: Aidan Grey
5a. Information Density and Comprehension Speed
From: Logan Kearsley
5b. Re: Information Density and Comprehension Speed
From: Peter Cyrus
5c. Re: Information Density and Comprehension Speed
From: And Rosta
5d. Re: Information Density and Comprehension Speed
From: Logan Kearsley
5e. Re: Information Density and Comprehension Speed
From: Dale McCreery
5f. Re: Information Density and Comprehension Speed
From: Logan Kearsley
5g. Re: Information Density and Comprehension Speed
From: Sam Stutter
5h. Re: Information Density and Comprehension Speed
From: MorphemeAddict
6a. Re: conlang cards
From: CJ Miller
6b. Re: conlang cards
From: Tony Harris
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Conlang Textbook Template
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:25 am ((PST))
That's interesting. The format is THIS book:
http://www.archive.org/details/firstspanishcour00hilluoft
literally page for page, paragraph for paragraph, but with the Spanish
translated into [[English-to-be-translated-into-conlang]], and the
grammar specifics replaced by generic topic comments, which are to be
replaced by the textbook author with specific conlang grammar.
--gary
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:10 AM, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
> The layout of your templates matches closely Rick Morneau's lessons for his
> Interlinguas: New morphemes, New words, New grammar, Drills.
>
> stevo
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Conlang Textbook Template
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:11 pm ((PST))
Lessons 1 through 11 are now available at http://fiziwig.com/conlang/template/
I'm 1/5th of the way through. WOOT!
--gary
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Natlang question
Posted by: "David McCann" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:47 am ((PST))
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:00:10 +0000
Sam Stutter <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm pretty certain "onshore" come from off the land and "offshore"
> come from the sea, just like northerly winds come from the north.
No! "onshore. adj. Esp. of a wind: directed or moving from the sea
towards the land." (OED)
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. Kenakoliku Re: CHAT: Returned...
Posted by: "Mia Harper (Soderquist)" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:54 am ((PST))
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Matthew Turnbull <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm super looking forward to the post mortem of kenkoliku, I really
> enjoyed that project and wish it would've held steam for a little
> longer. Hope you get the chance to get one together, I never have :(
>
I thought that project was fun. I think we had some interesting
techniques that I might carry forward if/when I do another group
collaboration. And I learned a little more about what doesn't work,
too, so that will be helpful for next time too.
I'd definitely be interested in any specific comments you have. (And
that goes for anyone else, even those only involved in passing.)
Mia.
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Viagra?? WAS: tiffanie3
Posted by: "Aidan Grey" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:34 am ((PST))
I was hacked. I've changed my passwords, but I don't know if there's anything
else I should do - it's been reported already.
Apologies to everyone.
Aidan
>________________________________
> From: Koppa Dasao <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 11:08 AM
>Subject: Re: Viagra?? WAS: tiffanie3
>
>What the heck? If you really want a stiff one, take Viagra with
>lime... You'll never have a floppy afterwards...
>
>Either, mr. Gray goofed, or mr. Gray really goofed. Anyway, I hope he
>changes to mr. Red...
>
>Koppa Dasao
>___
>Norway isn't the solution, but the appendix that's cut out!
>
>< SNIP SPAM>
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Information Density and Comprehension Speed
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:30 am ((PST))
I think this article has been mentioned before, but here it is again
as a refresher just in case before I move on:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2091477,00.html
To summarize, the rate of normal speech is inversely proportional to
the average bits/syllable in a language, such that the rate of
information transfer is roughly equal across languages. Makes sense,
otherwise it's be a lot harder to synchronize dubbed-over speech. Also
totally shoots down the last vestiges of hope that Speedtalk might be
a good idea.
It seems there've been some new studies done that extend this result to reading:
http://persquaremile.com/2011/12/21/which-reads-faster-chinese-or-english/
So, if you have a writing system with very short words that let you
pack text in a small space, you'll read each word slower, so it takes
just as much time to process the same content as it does if your words
are longer. As with speech, the speed at which you read an will be
inversely proportional to the average bits/grapheme in the writing
system.
This has interesting implications for how fast humans generically are
able to absorb information, which I'm sure will turn out to be useful
to know for things like signage and human/computer interface design.
>From a conlanging perspective, though, this discovery has seriously
updated (liberalized, I might say) some of my opinions on good
language design. I'm a big fan of concision, making use of multiple
channels (e.g., syllables+syntax+prosody), keeping words optimally
short, etc. But it turns out that that all really makes no difference
to have quickly you can communicate in speech or writing. So, making
your words optimally short may be a fun project, but it turns out to
be totally unnecessary for concision of speech (within reasonable
limits, anyway; I suspect there are some outer limits beyond which
we'd find natural language don't range; if, say, you only had
1bit/syllable, it might become impossibly difficult to articulate the
sounds fast enough to match the standard data rate).
So really, I guess the only thing left to optimize for is cost of
paper; it's nice to have a dense writing system because you'll read it
just as quickly as a less dense one, but you won't need as many pages.
-l.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: Information Density and Comprehension Speed
Posted by: "Peter Cyrus" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:45 am ((PST))
It sure is much slower reading a bad font, like the damaged fonts of
the last few years.
It would be interesting to add a more phonetic language to the
comparison, say Finnish or Russian. English words can be as arbitrary
as characters, so maybe all this study compares is whether the
characters are square or long and thin.
I read once that Hebrew reads more slowly because so many of its
letters look alike.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Logan Kearsley <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think this article has been mentioned before, but here it is again
> as a refresher just in case before I move on:
> http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2091477,00.html
>
> To summarize, the rate of normal speech is inversely proportional to
> the average bits/syllable in a language, such that the rate of
> information transfer is roughly equal across languages. Makes sense,
> otherwise it's be a lot harder to synchronize dubbed-over speech. Also
> totally shoots down the last vestiges of hope that Speedtalk might be
> a good idea.
>
> It seems there've been some new studies done that extend this result to
> reading:
> http://persquaremile.com/2011/12/21/which-reads-faster-chinese-or-english/
>
> So, if you have a writing system with very short words that let you
> pack text in a small space, you'll read each word slower, so it takes
> just as much time to process the same content as it does if your words
> are longer. As with speech, the speed at which you read an will be
> inversely proportional to the average bits/grapheme in the writing
> system.
>
> This has interesting implications for how fast humans generically are
> able to absorb information, which I'm sure will turn out to be useful
> to know for things like signage and human/computer interface design.
> From a conlanging perspective, though, this discovery has seriously
> updated (liberalized, I might say) some of my opinions on good
> language design. I'm a big fan of concision, making use of multiple
> channels (e.g., syllables+syntax+prosody), keeping words optimally
> short, etc. But it turns out that that all really makes no difference
> to have quickly you can communicate in speech or writing. So, making
> your words optimally short may be a fun project, but it turns out to
> be totally unnecessary for concision of speech (within reasonable
> limits, anyway; I suspect there are some outer limits beyond which
> we'd find natural language don't range; if, say, you only had
> 1bit/syllable, it might become impossibly difficult to articulate the
> sounds fast enough to match the standard data rate).
>
> So really, I guess the only thing left to optimize for is cost of
> paper; it's nice to have a dense writing system because you'll read it
> just as quickly as a less dense one, but you won't need as many pages.
>
> -l.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. Re: Information Density and Comprehension Speed
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:34 pm ((PST))
Logan Kearsley, On 22/12/2011 18:30:
> I think this article has been mentioned before, but here it is again
> as a refresher just in case before I move on:
> http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2091477,00.html
To save others the considerable hassle of tracking down the study this article
purports to describe, it is:
Across-Language Perspective on Speech Information Rate
François Pellegrino
Christophe Coupé
Egidio Marsico
Language, Volume 87, Number 3, September 2011, pp. 539-558
> To summarize, the rate of normal speech is inversely proportional to
> the average bits/syllable in a language, such that the rate of
> information transfer is roughly equal across languages. Makes sense,
> otherwise it's be a lot harder to synchronize dubbed-over speech. Also
> totally shoots down the last vestiges of hope that Speedtalk might be
> a good idea.
I haven't read the (Lg) articleyet, but the abstract does say "However, these
strategies do not necessarily lead to a constant information rate".
> This has interesting implications for how fast humans generically are
> able to absorb information, which I'm sure will turn out to be useful
> to know for things like signage and human/computer interface design.
> From a conlanging perspective, though, this discovery has seriously
> updated (liberalized, I might say) some of my opinions on good
> language design. I'm a big fan of concision, making use of multiple
> channels (e.g., syllables+syntax+prosody), keeping words optimally
> short, etc. But it turns out that that all really makes no difference
> to have quickly you can communicate in speech or writing. So, making
> your words optimally short may be a fun project, but it turns out to
> be totally unnecessary for concision of speech
How do you reach these conclusions? The web articles you point to claim that
information is transmitted at a constant rate. From that the conlanger may
conclude that there is no concision to be gained in speech from maximizing the
number of paradigmatic phonological contrasts; IOW the more bits of data
transmitted simultaneously, the slower the transmission rate. But you seem to
be leaping to the further unwarranted conclusion that there is no concision to
be gained from a redundancy-minimizing encoding that minimizes the number of
bits per word.
--And.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
5d. Re: Information Density and Comprehension Speed
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:38 pm ((PST))
On 22 December 2011 11:45, Peter Cyrus <[email protected]> wrote:
> It sure is much slower reading a bad font, like the damaged fonts of
> the last few years.
>
> It would be interesting to add a more phonetic language to the
> comparison, say Finnish or Russian. English words can be as arbitrary
> as characters, so maybe all this study compares is whether the
> characters are square or long and thin.
While I agree it would be a good idea to do the experiment and get
actual data, I suspect there would be little difference. Even when
using a more phonemic script, after all, a fluent reader recognizes
entire words, not individual letters to be sounded out. Phonemic
writing just makes it easier to figure out new words that you haven't
seen before.
> I read once that Hebrew reads more slowly because so many of its
> letters look alike.
I know little of Hebrew specifically, but I can imagine as how there
might be variances in reading speed due to the difficulty of
recognizing symbols, apart from the time required to interpret them.
So, it would certainly be useful to get data to compare a wider
variety of languages and writing systems. It would be particularly
interesting to try out different fonts to try to determine whether the
difficulty of reading some of them is an inherent feature of the
symbols being harder to process or just the result of being different
from what the reader is accustomed to.
On 22 December 2011 18:34, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
> Logan Kearsley, On 22/12/2011 18:30:
>
>> I think this article has been mentioned before, but here it is again
>> as a refresher just in case before I move on:
>> http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2091477,00.html
>
> To save others the considerable hassle of tracking down the study this
> article purports to describe, it is:
>
> Across-Language Perspective on Speech Information Rate
> François Pellegrino
> Christophe Coupé
> Egidio Marsico
> Language, Volume 87, Number 3, September 2011, pp. 539-558
To save slightly more hassle, a pdf is available at
http://ohll.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/fulltext/pellegrino/Pellegrino_2011_Language.pdf
>> To summarize, the rate of normal speech is inversely proportional to
>> the average bits/syllable in a language, such that the rate of
>> information transfer is roughly equal across languages. Makes sense,
>> otherwise it's be a lot harder to synchronize dubbed-over speech. Also
>> totally shoots down the last vestiges of hope that Speedtalk might be
>> a good idea.
>
> I haven't read the (Lg) articleyet, but the abstract does say "However,
> these strategies do not necessarily lead to a constant information rate".
I have, and it's true that the rates are not absolutely constant
because there are other factors involved. Quote:
"""
Information rate is shown to result from a density/rate trade-off
illustrated by a very
strong negative correlation between [information density] and [speech rate].
...
However, [information rate] exhibits a greater than 30% degree of
variation between Japanese (0.74)
and English (1.08), invalidating the first hypothesis of a strict
cross-language equality
of rates of information. The linear mixed-effect model nevertheless
reveals that no significant
contrast exists among five of the seven languages (German, Mandarin, Italian,
Spanish, and French) and highlights the fact that texts themselves and
speakers are very
significant sources of variation. Consequently, one has to consider
the alternative loose
hypothesis that [information rate] varies within a range of values
that guarantee efficient communication,
fast enough to convey useful information and slow enough to limit the
communication
cost (in its articulatory, perceptual, and cognitive dimensions).
...
These results support the idea that, despite the large variation
observed in phonological
complexity among languages, a trend toward regulation of the
information rate is at
work, as illustrated here by Mandarin and Spanish reaching almost the
same average
information rate with two opposite strategies: slower, denser, and
more complex for
Mandarin vs. faster, less dense, and less complex for Spanish.
"""
So, the optimum Information Rate may vary due to other factors, but
all other things being held equal, people adjust their rate of speech
to account for information density, to keep it in a certain range.
If you look at the graphs, it seems like there's a very weak
correlation between information density and information rate, but the
actual statistical correlation isn't given (unless I just missed it).
Whether or not the correlation is significant, though, it's far from
monotonically increasing, which tells me that a language's average
information rate is significantly influenced by factors other than
information density.
A further interesting result is that information density has no
correlation with syllable complexity; apparently, just having the
ability to use a larger number of syllables does not mean that a
natural language will actually employ them contrastively.
>> This has interesting implications for how fast humans generically are
>> able to absorb information, which I'm sure will turn out to be useful
>> to know for things like signage and human/computer interface design.
>> From a conlanging perspective, though, this discovery has seriously
>> updated (liberalized, I might say) some of my opinions on good
>> language design. I'm a big fan of concision, making use of multiple
>> channels (e.g., syllables+syntax+prosody), keeping words optimally
>> short, etc. But it turns out that that all really makes no difference
>> to have quickly you can communicate in speech or writing. So, making
>> your words optimally short may be a fun project, but it turns out to
>> be totally unnecessary for concision of speech
>
> How do you reach these conclusions? The web articles you point to claim that
> information is transmitted at a constant rate. From that the conlanger may
> conclude that there is no concision to be gained in speech from maximizing
> the number of paradigmatic phonological contrasts; IOW the more bits of data
> transmitted simultaneously, the slower the transmission rate. But you seem
> to be leaping to the further unwarranted conclusion that there is no
> concision to be gained from a redundancy-minimizing encoding that minimizes
> the number of bits per word.
I don't see how you gained that interpretation from what I wrote.
Making words optimally short (maximizing bits per segment) and
eliminating redundancy (minimizing the number of bits that are
transmitted at all) are entirely different matters. The use of a
language in an extremely high-context social setting may seem to be
much more concise than another language in a low-context setting, but
that's not necessarily because they're transmitting information more
quickly- it's because they're finding ways of transmitting less. And
that particular study did not attempt to control for redundancy, so I
have no idea what effect it may have had on the given data. My
suspicion is that removing explicit redundancy from the language would
result in a compensatory reduced speech rate in some circumstances in
order to mitigate the possibility of transmission error. But
optimizing for minimal redundancy may still be a useful thing to do in
general; that's worth studying.
-l.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
5e. Re: Information Density and Comprehension Speed
Posted by: "Dale McCreery" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:28 pm ((PST))
I've listened to a lot of guys from eastern Canada who spoke at what
seemed to be at least twice as fast as I did at the time, and I was a fast
speaker. Sort of based on that assumption (that some people speak all the
time much faster) I have a question and a supposition.
First - do we speak anywhere nears as fast as we read? It seems to me
that while reading speed might max out based on purely cognitive limits,
spoken speed could very easily face other types of limitations...
And secondly, I had the general impression that most of the guys I heard
speaking English ridiculously fast used a lot of set phrases, sort of
poetic turns of speech, etc., and was wondering if there have any been any
studies evaluating language speed as it related to the density of set
phrases and structures? I would suspect that the more poetic or formulaic
the speech (in a community where this style was heavily established) the
faster the general flow of speech would be...
-dale-
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
5f. Re: Information Density and Comprehension Speed
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:02 pm ((PST))
On 22 December 2011 22:28, Dale McCreery <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've listened to a lot of guys from eastern Canada who spoke at what
> seemed to be at least twice as fast as I did at the time, and I was a fast
> speaker. Sort of based on that assumption (that some people speak all the
> time much faster) I have a question and a supposition.
And the authors of the paper do note the (presumably obvious) fact
that the individual speaker is a significant factor in rate-of-speech.
> First - do we speak anywhere nears as fast as we read? It seems to me
> that while reading speed might max out based on purely cognitive limits,
> spoken speed could very easily face other types of limitations...
I know I don't, most of the time. I read much slower reading out loud
than I do reading silently, even when reading as fast as I can, which
is a strain to keep up for more than ten minutes or so at a time. And
I can usually read subtitles faster than the words are spoken.
On the other hand, sometimes I *can't* keep up with reading subtitles,
which means that at least some people can speak faster than I can
read.
> And secondly, I had the general impression that most of the guys I heard
> speaking English ridiculously fast used a lot of set phrases, sort of
> poetic turns of speech, etc., and was wondering if there have any been any
> studies evaluating language speed as it related to the density of set
> phrases and structures? I would suspect that the more poetic or formulaic
> the speech (in a community where this style was heavily established) the
> faster the general flow of speech would be...
That's a very interesting question. You'd want to have some way to
distinguish whether particular formulaic phrases were conveying a
particularly large density of information, or whether rate of speech
is increased precisely because poeticisms expand the volume of speech
without increasing its informative content. And the answer might
actually turn out to be both, as some formulaic patterns are
high-context means of suggesting larger blocks of information that the
hearer is expected to already know and thus avoiding transmitting it.
-l.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
5g. Re: Information Density and Comprehension Speed
Posted by: "Sam Stutter" [email protected]
Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:47 am ((PST))
On 23 Dec 2011, at 05:28, Dale McCreery <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've listened to a lot of guys from eastern Canada who spoke at what
> seemed to be at least twice as fast as I did at the time, and I was a fast
> speaker.
Isn't there a joke that Canadians. Speak. Very. Slowly? :)
> Sort of based on that assumption (that some people speak all the
> time much faster) I have a question and a supposition.
>
> First - do we speak anywhere nears as fast as we read?
Largely, I'd say no. I'd also say I have three reading speeds: skimming,
reading fully and "trying sounds out in my head". Skimming is probably twice as
fast as speaking, reading fully about 50% faster and sounding exactly the same
speed.
> It seems to me
> that while reading speed might max out based on purely cognitive limits,
> spoken speed could very easily face other types of limitations...
>
> And secondly, I had the general impression that most of the guys I heard
> speaking English ridiculously fast used a lot of set phrases, sort of
> poetic turns of speech, etc., and was wondering if there have any been any
> studies evaluating language speed as it related to the density of set
> phrases and structures? I would suspect that the more poetic or formulaic
> the speech (in a community where this style was heavily established) the
> faster the general flow of speech would be...
>
Horse racing bookies are scarily fast.
> -dale-
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
5h. Re: Information Density and Comprehension Speed
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:28 am ((PST))
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Peter Cyrus <[email protected]> wrote:
> It sure is much slower reading a bad font, like the damaged fonts of
> the last few years.
>
> It would be interesting to add a more phonetic language to the
> comparison, say Finnish or Russian. English words can be as arbitrary
> as characters, so maybe all this study compares is whether the
> characters are square or long and thin.
>
> I read once that Hebrew reads more slowly because so many of its
> letters look alike.
>
I would expect this to be even more true of Arabic.
stevo
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Logan Kearsley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > I think this article has been mentioned before, but here it is again
> > as a refresher just in case before I move on:
> > http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2091477,00.html
> >
> > To summarize, the rate of normal speech is inversely proportional to
> > the average bits/syllable in a language, such that the rate of
> > information transfer is roughly equal across languages. Makes sense,
> > otherwise it's be a lot harder to synchronize dubbed-over speech. Also
> > totally shoots down the last vestiges of hope that Speedtalk might be
> > a good idea.
> >
> > It seems there've been some new studies done that extend this result to
> reading:
> >
> http://persquaremile.com/2011/12/21/which-reads-faster-chinese-or-english/
> >
> > So, if you have a writing system with very short words that let you
> > pack text in a small space, you'll read each word slower, so it takes
> > just as much time to process the same content as it does if your words
> > are longer. As with speech, the speed at which you read an will be
> > inversely proportional to the average bits/grapheme in the writing
> > system.
> >
> > This has interesting implications for how fast humans generically are
> > able to absorb information, which I'm sure will turn out to be useful
> > to know for things like signage and human/computer interface design.
> > From a conlanging perspective, though, this discovery has seriously
> > updated (liberalized, I might say) some of my opinions on good
> > language design. I'm a big fan of concision, making use of multiple
> > channels (e.g., syllables+syntax+prosody), keeping words optimally
> > short, etc. But it turns out that that all really makes no difference
> > to have quickly you can communicate in speech or writing. So, making
> > your words optimally short may be a fun project, but it turns out to
> > be totally unnecessary for concision of speech (within reasonable
> > limits, anyway; I suspect there are some outer limits beyond which
> > we'd find natural language don't range; if, say, you only had
> > 1bit/syllable, it might become impossibly difficult to articulate the
> > sounds fast enough to match the standard data rate).
> >
> > So really, I guess the only thing left to optimize for is cost of
> > paper; it's nice to have a dense writing system because you'll read it
> > just as quickly as a less dense one, but you won't need as many pages.
> >
> > -l.
>
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: conlang cards
Posted by: "CJ Miller" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:35 pm ((PST))
I sent my letters out back on the 5th, to make sure they'd all get there in
time.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
6b. Re: conlang cards
Posted by: "Tony Harris" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:45 pm ((PST))
You are very organized. Mine went out on something like the 12th, and I
figured I'd be one of the late ones.
On 12/22/2011 04:35 PM, CJ Miller wrote:
> I sent my letters out back on the 5th, to make sure they'd all get there in
> time.
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
