There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: A Romance Language...
From: R A Brown
1b. Re: A Romance Language...
From: Logan Kearsley
1c. Re: A Romance Language...
From: Jim Henry
1d. Re: A Romance Language...
From: Logan Kearsley
1e. Re: A Romance Language...
From: Padraic Brown
1f. Re: A Romance Language...
From: Daniel Bowman
1g. Re: A Romance Language...
From: Roger Mills
1h. Re: A Romance Language...
From: Logan Kearsley
2a. Re: OT: Linguistics applied to computer security
From: Gary Shannon
2b. Re: OT: Linguistics applied to computer security
From: Logan Kearsley
2c. Re: OT: Linguistics applied to computer security
From: Koppa Dasao
2d. Re: OT: Linguistics applied to computer security
From: Lee
3a. I crave a dictionary!
From: Even Eclectic Tolo Dybevik
3b. Re: I crave a dictionary!
From: Ben Scerri
3c. Re: I crave a dictionary!
From: Patrick Dunn
3d. Re: I crave a dictionary!
From: Koppa Dasao
3e. Re: I crave a dictionary!
From: Sam Stutter
3f. Re: I crave a dictionary!
From: BPJ
4a. Natural World Taxonomies
From: Sam Stutter
4b. Re: Natural World Taxonomies
From: BPJ
5a. Conlang > Conlang dictionary
From: Ben Scerri
5b. Re: Conlang > Conlang dictionary
From: Koppa Dasao
5c. Re: Conlang > Conlang dictionary
From: Ben Scerri
6a. Re: Naisek Grammar Change Q
From: BPJ
6b. Re: Naisek Grammar Change Q
From: BPJ
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: A Romance Language...
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:29 am ((PST))
On 29/12/2011 07:09, Logan Kearsley wrote:
> ... of an entirely different sort.
Indeed - it has left me wondering whether in this context
'Romance Language' is not rather a language developed by
fiancé and fiancée, rather than one derived from the ancient
_lingua Romanica_ :)
Just one or two thinks that, for me at least, need
clarification;
[snip]
> inventory starts out with English, but with a simplified
> vowel system and the addition of voiced and unvoiced
> lateral (rr, ll) and palatal (y, h) fricatives and an ayn
> (').
"ayn (')" is s bit ambiguous. I assume it is referring to
the 16th letter of Hebrew and many other Semitic abjads.
This, I understand, represented a _voiced pharyngeal
fricative_ [ʕ]. I believe e in some varieties of Arabic it
is a voiced epiglottal fricative [ʢ], or even a
pharyngealized glottal stop [ʔˤ]. I understand that in
modern Israeli Hebrew it is either silent or pronounced as a
glottal stop [ʔ], i.e. just like the modern Israeli
pronunciation of aleph.
So I'm not clear what sound you have in mind.
> *That one exception is the sonority hierarchy. I'm
> putting to use my idea of last June for the dicluster
> root / template system, and so the syllabification rules
> that went along with that to resolve disallowed
> consonant clusters are in effect, with the addition than
> ayn (') syllabifies to /a/.
Remind me.
> The consonantal root system does not dominate the entire
> language;
Romance language? Sounds more like an Afro-Asiatic language.
[snip]
> having a smaller paradigm). This allows for easy
> vocabulary generation by stealing the consonants from an
> existing English/French/Russian/Latin word
I guess there may be some English borrowing and possibly the
odd Russian one in a Romance lang - but "stealing the
consonants"?
[snip]
>
> For now, a full paradigm includes Agent/Focus verb
> Agent/Patient verb Agent/Patient/Focus verb Agent+Patient
> (inherently reflexive) verb Patient verb Patient/Focus
> verb Abstract Nominal Agent Nominal Patient Nominal Focus
> Nominal
This seems rather foreign to a Romancelang.
> where Patient and Focus can also be Experiencer and
> Stimulus, depending on the root. Roots themselves are
> specified as static or dynamic in nature, which can be
> modified by various prefixes. The abstract nominal serves
> as a base for potential further concatenative derivation
> via noun-class affixes and such. Need to figure out
> participles somehow. Verbs don't conjugate at all, which
> simplified things a lot. Also note that there are no
> infinitives, but there are nominalizing suffixes.
>
> My next favorite part so far is the personal pronoun
> system, which looks like this:
> mi 1m.s.
> ma 1f.s.
> me 1.3.
> nu 1.2.
>
> ti 2m.s.
> ta 2f.s.
> vu 2p.
>
> ci 3m.s. lli 3m.p.
> ca 3f.s. lla 3f.p.
> on 3n.s. err 3n.p.
I understand (I think) some of this, but I find some confusing.
> Of particular note is the existence of a 1+2 plural
> pronoun, and a 1+3, but no single word to indicate a
> group of the speaker, addressee, and someone else all
> together.
I see, so 1.2 is inclusive plural and 1.3 is exclusive
plural. Good point - What do languages that make that
distinction do with "me + you + others?" Presumably use the
inclusive form?
[snip]
>
> The syntax makes clause boundaries (almost) always
> unambiguous, which makes for some really nice pithy
> constructions; e.g., there's no need for subordinating
> conjunctions, because prepositions can just take an
> unmarked clause as an object.
Sounds interesting - examples?
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: A Romance Language...
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:02 am ((PST))
On 29 December 2011 07:28, R A Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 29/12/2011 07:09, Logan Kearsley wrote:
>>
>> ... of an entirely different sort.
>
> Indeed - it has left me wondering whether in this context
> 'Romance Language' is not rather a language developed by
> fiancé and fiancée, rather than one derived from the ancient
> _lingua Romanica_ :)
Indeed. Typologically, this one is not very Roman-ish at all; but the
corpus tends to be driven by things desired to be communicated without
the knowledge of nosy roommates.
>> inventory starts out with English, but with a simplified
>> vowel system and the addition of voiced and unvoiced
>> lateral (rr, ll) and palatal (y, h) fricatives and an ayn
>> (').
>
> "ayn (')" is s bit ambiguous. I assume it is referring to
> the 16th letter of Hebrew and many other Semitic abjads.
> This, I understand, represented a _voiced pharyngeal
> fricative_ [ʕ].
This is the one I mean.
>> *That one exception is the sonority hierarchy. I'm
>> putting to use my idea of last June for the dicluster
>> root / template system, and so the syllabification rules
>> that went along with that to resolve disallowed
>> consonant clusters are in effect, with the addition than
>> ayn (') syllabifies to /a/.
>
> Remind me.
When an empty vowel brings clusters into hiatus, resulting disallowed
clusters may be broken up by using some consonants as syllabic nuclei.
Which consonants become syllabic is determined by a sonority
scale:terminal w, j, ' -> r -> l -> m,n -> non-terminal w, j, ' -> s,
zWhen a disallowed cluster is formed, if it contains any of
theseconsonants, the highest one on the hierarchy is converted into
asyllable nucleus to break up the cluster. If none of those
consonantsare present, then the derivation is impossible.
>> having a smaller paradigm). This allows for easy
>> vocabulary generation by stealing the consonants from an
>> existing English/French/Russian/Latin word
>
> I guess there may be some English borrowing and possibly the
> odd Russian one in a Romance lang - but "stealing the
> consonants"?
E.g., the root for "permission, allowance" is B-L, taken from the word
"able". The root for "tactile sensation" is T-TC, taken from "touch",
and the root for "sound, hearing" is SL-C, taken from Russian
"slushat' / slyshat'"
>> My next favorite part so far is the personal pronoun
>> system, which looks like this:
>> mi 1m.s.
>> ma 1f.s.
>> me 1.3.
>> nu 1.2.
>>
>> ti 2m.s.
>> ta 2f.s.
>> vu 2p.
>>
>> ci 3m.s. lli 3m.p.
>> ca 3f.s. lla 3f.p.
>> on 3n.s. err 3n.p.
>
>
> I understand (I think) some of this, but I find some confusing.
A prose summary, then:
In the first & second person, gender is distinguished in the singular,
but not in the plural. Thus, sentences containing a singular first
person will sound different if spoken by me or my fiancee (in general,
if spoken by a man or a woman, but who else is gonna be speaking it?).
E.g.,
"Res mi ta." -> "I love you" spoken by a man to a woman.
"Res ma ti." -> "I love you" spoken by a woman to a man.
The third person distinguishes gender in singular and plural numbers,
but uses the gendered forms only for homogenous groups, with a neutral
plural for actual neuters and for mixed groups of males and females.
>> Of particular note is the existence of a 1+2 plural
>> pronoun, and a 1+3, but no single word to indicate a
>> group of the speaker, addressee, and someone else all
>> together.
>
> I see, so 1.2 is inclusive plural and 1.3 is exclusive
> plural. Good point - What do languages that make that
> distinction do with "me + you + others?" Presumably use the
> inclusive form?
I intentionally didn't call it "inclusive & exclusive" for precisely
that question. My understanding is that you typically have "you, me,
and possibly others" (inclusive) and "me and others but not you"
(exclusive). So, here the exclusive is normal, but the "inclusive"
also excludes the third person.
>> The syntax makes clause boundaries (almost) always
>> unambiguous, which makes for some really nice pithy
>> constructions; e.g., there's no need for subordinating
>> conjunctions, because prepositions can just take an
>> unmarked clause as an object.
>
> Sounds interesting - examples?
Sure.
"Ahrva mi iza ti."
Possess-stuff I thanks-to you.
I have (whatever) thanks to you; you gave me something.
Here, "iza" is a preposition indicating causation. Then, consider
"Ahrva mi iza harvu ti mi on."
Possess-stuff I thanks-to give you me it.
I have stuff because you give it to me.
There is no special conjunction for "because"; instead, the causal
preposition "iza" is simply used with a clause as its object. Since
the syntax makes clause boundaries unambiguous, the subordinate clause
can just be dropped in unchanged from its independent form in place of
a noun.
-l.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: A Romance Language...
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:56 am ((PST))
On 12/29/11, Logan Kearsley <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... of an entirely different sort. My fiancee and I have made some
> excellent progress on our (as yet unnamed) collaborative conlang this
Spiffy! Congratulations.
Brett Williams, I think, proposed the term "dyadic conlang" for a
collaboration between two people; but we might want another more
specific term for this -- maybe "romantic" would be less ambiguous
than "Romance"? :) Leaving "amicable conlang", or something derived
from Greek "philia", for other dyadic conlangs.
> For now, a full paradigm includes
> Agent/Focus verb
.....
> where Patient and Focus can also be Experiencer and Stimulus,
That sounds really cool.
> My next favorite part so far is the personal pronoun system, which
> looks like this:
I like the gendered first and second-person pronouns; they seem
appropriate for this kind of language. One of my sketchlangs had
gendered first- and second-person pronouns, and gender marking on
verbs, plus suppletive verb stems for actions that men and women tend
to do in very different ways; but I didn't get very far with it. I
feel like I'd need to know more about the culture that speaks a
language like that before I develop it further -- maybe the first
instance of suppletion arose purely due to sound changes, but once
that's established, more suppletion with semantic distinction might
arise by analogy for cultural reasons. And that means I need to know
more about what this culture thinks about sex differences and gender
roles, to decide whether I need suppletive forms for e.g. "to speak"
or "to work" as well as "to dance" and "to pee".
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: A Romance Language...
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:48 am ((PST))
On 29 December 2011 09:56, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
>> My next favorite part so far is the personal pronoun system, which
>> looks like this:
>
> I like the gendered first and second-person pronouns; they seem
> appropriate for this kind of language. One of my sketchlangs had
So I thought. Usually I like to eliminate redundancy, and explicit
gender marking in a language only intended to be spoken or written by
two people who are quite sure of their own gender is somewhat
redundant. But it just seemed very aesthetically appropriate here,
enough so to overcome my other biases.
> gendered first- and second-person pronouns, and gender marking on
> verbs, plus suppletive verb stems for actions that men and women tend
> to do in very different ways; but I didn't get very far with it. I
> feel like I'd need to know more about the culture that speaks a
> language like that before I develop it further -- maybe the first
> instance of suppletion arose purely due to sound changes, but once
> that's established, more suppletion with semantic distinction might
> arise by analogy for cultural reasons. And that means I need to know
> more about what this culture thinks about sex differences and gender
> roles, to decide whether I need suppletive forms for e.g. "to speak"
> or "to work" as well as "to dance" and "to pee".
I think I would run with that if it were an artlang with a conculture behind it.
The choice to use gendered pronouns was largely a reaction to the
decision to have no verb conjugation at all- thus, gender had to be in
the pronouns if it was gonna be anywhere- and that desire for
unchanging verb forms combined with the reassertion of my dislike of
pragmatic redundancy works against using gendered verb stems. It
hasn't turned out to be of practical importance, yet, but I'm working
under something of a reverse philosophy of trying to emphasize status
equivalence and symmetry between me and her; e.g., the word for "to
cuddle or snuggle with someone" comes in intransitive or reciprocal
forms that require a plural subject, eliminating the grammatical
distinction between snugglee and snuggler; that's one of my favorite
words so far, actually:
"yorrik": v.i. [j\oK\ik] Y-RR 2 A/P reciprocal
I't just ridiculously fun to pronounce with those non-Englishy
fricatives. And by an accident of orthographic choices, it causes me
to associate snuggling with _Hamlet_.
-l.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: A Romance Language...
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:08 am ((PST))
--- On Thu, 12/29/11, Logan Kearsley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 29 December 2011 09:56, Jim Henry
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> [...]
> >> My next favorite part so far is the personal
> pronoun system, which
> >> looks like this:
> >
> > I like the gendered first and second-person pronouns;
> they seem
> > appropriate for this kind of language. One of my
> sketchlangs had
>
> So I thought. Usually I like to eliminate redundancy, and
> explicit
> gender marking in a language only intended to be spoken or
> written by
> two people who are quite sure of their own gender is
> somewhat
> redundant. But it just seemed very aesthetically
> appropriate here, enough so to overcome my other biases.
Perhaps you could look at it not so much as the "masculine" first person
pronoun, but rather as "Logan's" first person pronoun. In such a private
language, that pronoun can only refer to you, just like her pronoun can
only refer to her. Doesn't make much sense to identify it as a gendered
pronoun. It's more of a individualized pronoun.
> > gendered first- and second-person pronouns, and gender
> marking on
> > verbs, plus suppletive verb stems for actions that men
> and women tend
> > to do in very different ways; but I didn't get very
> far with it. I
> > feel like I'd need to know more about the culture that
> speaks a
> > language like that before I develop it further --
> maybe the first
> > instance of suppletion arose purely due to sound
> changes, but once
> > that's established, more suppletion with semantic
> distinction might
> > arise by analogy for cultural reasons. And that
> means I need to know
> > more about what this culture thinks about sex
> differences and gender
> > roles, to decide whether I need suppletive forms for
> e.g. "to speak"
> > or "to work" as well as "to dance" and "to pee".
>
> I think I would run with that if it were an artlang with a
> conculture behind it.
I like the basic concept as well. Reminds me of the men's and women's
languages in (I think) Australia.
> The choice to use gendered pronouns was largely a reaction
> to the
> decision to have no verb conjugation at all- thus, gender
> had to be in
> the pronouns if it was gonna be anywhere- and that desire
> for
> unchanging verb forms combined with the reassertion of my
> dislike of
> pragmatic redundancy works against using gendered verb
> stems.
Okay. But when the language has precisely two speakers, each of which is
always aware of the gender of both the speaker and the hearer, why do you
need to have gender at all in the 1st and 2nd persons? Your 1st person
pronoun is always masc. and your 2nd person pronoun is always fem. Opposite
for hers. Or is it just because you wanted to express gender *somewhere*
in the language?
Not that I'm complaining, mind! Just curious. Since it seems that one of
the design criteria is secrecy, having different pronouns will keep others
guessing -- for a while anyway.
> It hasn't turned out to be of practical importance, yet, but
> I'm working
> under something of a reverse philosophy of trying to
> emphasize status
> equivalence and symmetry between me and her; e.g., the word
> for "to
> cuddle or snuggle with someone" comes in intransitive or
> reciprocal
> forms that require a plural subject, eliminating the
> grammatical
> distinction between snugglee and snuggler; that's one of my
> favorite
> words so far, actually:
>
> "yorrik": v.i. [j\oK\ik] Y-RR 2 A/P reciprocal
Interesting indeed!
Padraic
>
> I't just ridiculously fun to pronounce with those
> non-Englishy
> fricatives. And by an accident of orthographic choices, it
> causes me
> to associate snuggling with _Hamlet_.
>
> -l.
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: A Romance Language...
Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:19 am ((PST))
My conlang Angosey marks gender using gender-same (same gender as the
speaker) and gender-opposite (opposite gender of the speaker). Perhaps
that is a solution for this language as well? That way you don't have to
encode "masculine" and "feminine".
2011/12/29 Padraic Brown <[email protected]>
> --- On Thu, 12/29/11, Logan Kearsley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 29 December 2011 09:56, Jim Henry
> > <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > [...]
> > >> My next favorite part so far is the personal
> > pronoun system, which
> > >> looks like this:
> > >
> > > I like the gendered first and second-person pronouns;
> > they seem
> > > appropriate for this kind of language. One of my
> > sketchlangs had
> >
> > So I thought. Usually I like to eliminate redundancy, and
> > explicit
> > gender marking in a language only intended to be spoken or
> > written by
> > two people who are quite sure of their own gender is
> > somewhat
> > redundant. But it just seemed very aesthetically
> > appropriate here, enough so to overcome my other biases.
>
> Perhaps you could look at it not so much as the "masculine" first person
> pronoun, but rather as "Logan's" first person pronoun. In such a private
> language, that pronoun can only refer to you, just like her pronoun can
> only refer to her. Doesn't make much sense to identify it as a gendered
> pronoun. It's more of a individualized pronoun.
>
> > > gendered first- and second-person pronouns, and gender
> > marking on
> > > verbs, plus suppletive verb stems for actions that men
> > and women tend
> > > to do in very different ways; but I didn't get very
> > far with it. I
> > > feel like I'd need to know more about the culture that
> > speaks a
> > > language like that before I develop it further --
> > maybe the first
> > > instance of suppletion arose purely due to sound
> > changes, but once
> > > that's established, more suppletion with semantic
> > distinction might
> > > arise by analogy for cultural reasons. And that
> > means I need to know
> > > more about what this culture thinks about sex
> > differences and gender
> > > roles, to decide whether I need suppletive forms for
> > e.g. "to speak"
> > > or "to work" as well as "to dance" and "to pee".
> >
> > I think I would run with that if it were an artlang with a
> > conculture behind it.
>
> I like the basic concept as well. Reminds me of the men's and women's
> languages in (I think) Australia.
>
> > The choice to use gendered pronouns was largely a reaction
> > to the
> > decision to have no verb conjugation at all- thus, gender
> > had to be in
> > the pronouns if it was gonna be anywhere- and that desire
> > for
> > unchanging verb forms combined with the reassertion of my
> > dislike of
> > pragmatic redundancy works against using gendered verb
> > stems.
>
> Okay. But when the language has precisely two speakers, each of which is
> always aware of the gender of both the speaker and the hearer, why do you
> need to have gender at all in the 1st and 2nd persons? Your 1st person
> pronoun is always masc. and your 2nd person pronoun is always fem. Opposite
> for hers. Or is it just because you wanted to express gender *somewhere*
> in the language?
>
> Not that I'm complaining, mind! Just curious. Since it seems that one of
> the design criteria is secrecy, having different pronouns will keep others
> guessing -- for a while anyway.
>
> > It hasn't turned out to be of practical importance, yet, but
> > I'm working
> > under something of a reverse philosophy of trying to
> > emphasize status
> > equivalence and symmetry between me and her; e.g., the word
> > for "to
> > cuddle or snuggle with someone" comes in intransitive or
> > reciprocal
> > forms that require a plural subject, eliminating the
> > grammatical
> > distinction between snugglee and snuggler; that's one of my
> > favorite
> > words so far, actually:
> >
> > "yorrik": v.i. [j\oK\ik] Y-RR 2 A/P reciprocal
>
> Interesting indeed!
>
> Padraic
>
> >
> > I't just ridiculously fun to pronounce with those
> > non-Englishy
> > fricatives. And by an accident of orthographic choices, it
> > causes me
> > to associate snuggling with _Hamlet_.
> >
> > -l.
> >
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: A Romance Language...
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:29 am ((PST))
Ray Brown wrote:
I see, so 1.2 is inclusive plural and 1.3 is exclusive
plural. Good point - What do languages that make that
distinction do with "me + you + others?" Presumably use the
inclusive form?
-------------------------------------------
At least in Indonesian and most relatives, yes.
Some Melanesian and Polynesian langs. have sg - dual - trial - plural forms but
I'm not sure how that breaks down. Is trial only used for a group of 3? Don't
know.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: A Romance Language...
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:51 am ((PST))
On 29 December 2011 12:07, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Thu, 12/29/11, Logan Kearsley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 29 December 2011 09:56, Jim Henry
>> <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> My next favorite part so far is the personal
>> pronoun system, which
>> >> looks like this:
>> >
>> > I like the gendered first and second-person pronouns;
>> they seem
>> > appropriate for this kind of language. One of my
>> sketchlangs had
>>
>> So I thought. Usually I like to eliminate redundancy, and
>> explicit
>> gender marking in a language only intended to be spoken or
>> written by
>> two people who are quite sure of their own gender is
>> somewhat
>> redundant. But it just seemed very aesthetically
>> appropriate here, enough so to overcome my other biases.
>
> Perhaps you could look at it not so much as the "masculine" first person
> pronoun, but rather as "Logan's" first person pronoun. In such a private
> language, that pronoun can only refer to you, just like her pronoun can
> only refer to her. Doesn't make much sense to identify it as a gendered
> pronoun. It's more of a individualized pronoun.
Practically speaking, that may end up being the case. I kinda wanna
leave it officially open, though, on the off chance that I may get my
kids to learn the language someday. I did, after all, bother to
include a second person plural, for precisely the same reason. It may
end up being the single least-used morpheme in the language. ;)
>> The choice to use gendered pronouns was largely a reaction
>> to the
>> decision to have no verb conjugation at all- thus, gender
>> had to be in
>> the pronouns if it was gonna be anywhere- and that desire
>> for
>> unchanging verb forms combined with the reassertion of my
>> dislike of
>> pragmatic redundancy works against using gendered verb
>> stems.
>
> Okay. But when the language has precisely two speakers, each of which is
> always aware of the gender of both the speaker and the hearer, why do you
> need to have gender at all in the 1st and 2nd persons? Your 1st person
> pronoun is always masc. and your 2nd person pronoun is always fem. Opposite
> for hers. Or is it just because you wanted to express gender *somewhere*
> in the language?
That is precisely it. As a purely aesthetic matter, because it seemed
thematically appropriate, we wanted gender to be explicitly expressed.
I think it's a slightly Whorfian nod towards maintaining awareness of
the romantic relationship that forms the background culture of the
language, so every time I use the second person I think not "I'm
talking to you" but "I'm talking to my woman!"
> Not that I'm complaining, mind! Just curious. Since it seems that one of
> the design criteria is secrecy, having different pronouns will keep others
> guessing -- for a while anyway.
Ah yes, that too. I hadn't actually thought of the pronoun system in
that light before.
On 29 December 2011 12:19, Daniel Bowman <[email protected]> wrote:
> My conlang Angosey marks gender using gender-same (same gender as the
> speaker) and gender-opposite (opposite gender of the speaker). Perhaps
> that is a solution for this language as well? That way you don't have to
> encode "masculine" and "feminine".
That's a neat idea. I've got a few languishing sketches that I might
be able to use that in.
Thanks to Jim Henry, by the way, for talking about the -zwa suffix in
gja-zym-byn. Remembering that gave me the idea for how to derive a
word for "fiance(e)" from the root for "marriage". This ended up
resulting in a neat and totally unplanned interplay of language
features. I have no word for husband/wife or fiance(e), but there are
patient-nominalizations from the verbal root for marriage that result
in a generic "spouse", which is inalienably possessed- and all of the
possessive pronouns are conveniently gendered! So we get "Mir amriwa"*
for "fiancee"-with-two-e's because I am male, and "Tar amriwa" for
"fiance"-with-one-e because she is female. That just gave me a little
shiver of puzzle-fitting-together-by-accident serendipity-joy.
Clearly, this would not work so well for homosexual couples.
-logan.
*"mi.r aM-Ri.wa", "me-masc.GEN marry-PAT.prospective"
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: OT: Linguistics applied to computer security
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:26 am ((PST))
What bothers me about that short summary at the link is that I am a
retired software engineer with a MS degree in computer science and a
total of 47 years of programming experience and I don't understand
what the summary is trying to say. I understand perfectly each of the
individual words taken in isolation, but when strung together in the
manner they've chosen, I can't make out the meaning.
I guess if the first step in linguistically based security is to make
sure your message can't be unscrambled, then they have succeeded.
--gary
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Sai <[email protected]> wrote:
> Might be of interest to y'all: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~sergey/langsec/
>
> - Sai
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: OT: Linguistics applied to computer security
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:53 am ((PST))
On 29 December 2011 10:26, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> What bothers me about that short summary at the link is that I am a
> retired software engineer with a MS degree in computer science and a
> total of 47 years of programming experience and I don't understand
> what the summary is trying to say. I understand perfectly each of the
> individual words taken in isolation, but when strung together in the
> manner they've chosen, I can't make out the meaning.
>
> I guess if the first step in linguistically based security is to make
> sure your message can't be unscrambled, then they have succeeded.
There's a (long) video and some more description here:
http://boingboing.net/2011/12/28/linguistics-turing-completene.html
And their amusing meme page:
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~sergey/langsec/occupy/
It's not really about linguistics in the sense of human language
(hence the OT, I assume). It's about applying the theory of languages
in the mathematical sense (computable sets of strings) to producing
secure machine communication protocols. Indeed, it's a lot of reasons
why human language *shouldn't* be used at all in machine protocols,
because human languages are all more-than-Turing complete, thus
parsing is not always decidable and this leads to security flaws.
-l.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: OT: Linguistics applied to computer security
Posted by: "Koppa Dasao" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:32 pm ((PST))
I like how she coughs Mi¢ro$oft...
Koppa Dasao
___
Norway isn't the solution, but the appendix that's cut out!
2011/12/29 Logan Kearsley <[email protected]>:
> On 29 December 2011 10:26, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What bothers me about that short summary at the link is that I am a
>> retired software engineer with a MS degree in computer science and a
>> total of 47 years of programming experience and I don't understand
>> what the summary is trying to say. I understand perfectly each of the
>> individual words taken in isolation, but when strung together in the
>> manner they've chosen, I can't make out the meaning.
>>
>> I guess if the first step in linguistically based security is to make
>> sure your message can't be unscrambled, then they have succeeded.
>
> There's a (long) video and some more description here:
> http://boingboing.net/2011/12/28/linguistics-turing-completene.html
> And their amusing meme page:
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~sergey/langsec/occupy/
>
> It's not really about linguistics in the sense of human language
> (hence the OT, I assume). It's about applying the theory of languages
> in the mathematical sense (computable sets of strings) to producing
> secure machine communication protocols. Indeed, it's a lot of reasons
> why human language *shouldn't* be used at all in machine protocols,
> because human languages are all more-than-Turing complete, thus
> parsing is not always decidable and this leads to security flaws.
>
> -l.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: OT: Linguistics applied to computer security
Posted by: "Lee" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:08 pm ((PST))
Could be worse... Could be iSecurityThroughObscurity. ;)
(For the record, AFAIC if it's connected to a network, any network, it's not
100% secure.)
Lee
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. I crave a dictionary!
Posted by: "Even Eclectic Tolo Dybevik" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:41 pm ((PST))
Hi! I'm not familliar with this so I hope someone gets this.
So I have a problem, if someone want to share some tips with me that would be
excellent! Ok, so before when I made conlangs I always had simple ways of
creating verbs. Usually just an ending, like this.
Thea = To love
I love = Se theasI loved = Se thean I shall love = Se theal
You get it, and things like this worked perfect with my dictionary, I use the
Interlex software. Because then I just added words like Pre: -s. Past: -n. And
so on. But my problem now, I have a different verb system, each verb is
individual, and conjugates in 2 persons and 7 tenses. So my little dictionary
can't handle it. And for my question: How do you document your conlang, any
software tips? Do you have something highly customisable, where I could fill in
all the conjugations and still keep it organized? Thank you (:
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: I crave a dictionary!
Posted by: "Ben Scerri" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:16 pm ((PST))
Even though it might not be optimal, I use 2 documents: one is the grammar
for which I use Word (with all the rules, declensions and conjugations etc)
and the other is the dictionary, for which I use Excel. I break the grammar
up into regular grammar textbook categories (so you've got one that handles
phonology, one that handles morphonology of nouns, verbs, etc etc) and then
the dictionary I have 2 sets of 3 columns (word, pos, definition) and that
is organised into Fengwe>English, English>Fengwe.
On 30 December 2011 08:40, Even Eclectic Tolo Dybevik
<[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi! I'm not familliar with this so I hope someone gets this.
> So I have a problem, if someone want to share some tips with me that would
> be excellent! Ok, so before when I made conlangs I always had simple ways
> of creating verbs. Usually just an ending, like this.
> Thea = To love
> I love = Se theasI loved = Se thean I shall love = Se theal
> You get it, and things like this worked perfect with my dictionary, I use
> the Interlex software. Because then I just added words like Pre: -s. Past:
> -n. And so on. But my problem now, I have a different verb system, each
> verb is individual, and conjugates in 2 persons and 7 tenses. So my little
> dictionary can't handle it. And for my question: How do you document your
> conlang, any software tips? Do you have something highly customisable,
> where I could fill in all the conjugations and still keep it organized?
> Thank you (:
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: I crave a dictionary!
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:19 pm ((PST))
Well, if I'm doing something heavily inflectional, I just put the principle
parts in the dictionary from which I can derive all the conjugations or
declensions.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Even Eclectic Tolo Dybevik <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi! I'm not familliar with this so I hope someone gets this.
> So I have a problem, if someone want to share some tips with me that would
> be excellent! Ok, so before when I made conlangs I always had simple ways
> of creating verbs. Usually just an ending, like this.
> Thea = To love
> I love = Se theasI loved = Se thean I shall love = Se theal
> You get it, and things like this worked perfect with my dictionary, I use
> the Interlex software. Because then I just added words like Pre: -s. Past:
> -n. And so on. But my problem now, I have a different verb system, each
> verb is individual, and conjugates in 2 persons and 7 tenses. So my little
> dictionary can't handle it. And for my question: How do you document your
> conlang, any software tips? Do you have something highly customisable,
> where I could fill in all the conjugations and still keep it organized?
> Thank you (:
--
Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
order from Finishing Line
Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
and
Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: I crave a dictionary!
Posted by: "Koppa Dasao" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:27 pm ((PST))
I use WeSay and keep grammar outside of the dictionary. I used to use
Freelang Dictionary, but as it's usage is pretty limited, I went in
search for something better. I did find a lot of software, but none
that suited me. Finally I settled for WeSay. You better check out some
programs before settling with one you like.
I used Freelang Dictionary because it automatically generated a
two-way dictionary when adding a new word in either the conlang or
English. However in the end I found the limitation of using only
existing alphabets and no export of dictionary unacceptable.
WeSay also have internal two-way dictionaries. You can only add word
in your working language, though, but that's not much of a problem.
WeSay can generate a pdf-dictionary directly from the working
language, but you'll need an additional application, Lexique pro, to
generate an English-Language dictionary. It does so easily, however.
WeSay also accept custom unicode-scripts.
Koppa Dasao
___
Norway isn't the solution, but the appendix that's cut out!
2011/12/29 Even Eclectic Tolo Dybevik <[email protected]>:
> Hi! I'm not familliar with this so I hope someone gets this.
> So I have a problem, if someone want to share some tips with me that would be
> excellent! Ok, so before when I made conlangs I always had simple ways of
> creating verbs. Usually just an ending, like this.
> Thea = To love
> I love = Se theasI loved = Se thean I shall love = Se theal
> You get it, and things like this worked perfect with my dictionary, I use the
> Interlex software. Because then I just added words like Pre: -s. Past: -n.
> And so on. But my problem now, I have a different verb system, each verb is
> individual, and conjugates in 2 persons and 7 tenses. So my little dictionary
> can't handle it. And for my question: How do you document your conlang, any
> software tips? Do you have something highly customisable, where I could fill
> in all the conjugations and still keep it organized? Thank you (:
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: I crave a dictionary!
Posted by: "Sam Stutter" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:34 pm ((PST))
I find having two documents *is* the most optimal. I have the grammar (in
Pages, but actually printed out as it doesn't change too often) and then a
dictionary in Numbers. Because your language conjugates with suffixes
(regularly?) a grammar and a dictionary makes sense: the dictionary requires
fewer entries and so is easier to search.
Nỳspèke, for example, has a spreadsheet with four columns: Nỳspèke, Word class,
English, Notes. And then of course the whole thing is searchable and sortable.
Easy.
Then the grammar is divided into two parts; the core grammar which is 25 pages
of noun declensions, class definitions, adjectival agreements, etc, along with
all the important non-content words like conjunctions and numbers which are
used so regularly as to deserve duplicating. The second part is the verb
tables; the deal with Nỳspèke is the immense and lumbering verbal system which
is too unfeasible to include in the main grammar.
Because everyone's conlang is so vastly different, and in many cases the two
conlangs of one individual are hugely different, there isn't really much to say
on templates. For Nỳspèke and Caccigga, I tend to stick to something like:
1) Phonology and alphabet
2) How nouns work
3) How adjectives work
4) How verbs work
5) Prepositions
6) Conjunctions, negators and interrogators
By now the system sort of fades out as the details of the languages becomes so
dissimilar
7) Honourifics?
8) Key words?
etc
If you desperately want, I'm sure people can show you copies of their conlang
grammars. I'm always happy to show off mine :)
Sam Stutter
[email protected]
"No e na il cu barri"
On 29 Dec 2011, at 22:16, Ben Scerri wrote:
> Even though it might not be optimal, I use 2 documents: one is the grammar
> for which I use Word (with all the rules, declensions and conjugations etc)
> and the other is the dictionary, for which I use Excel. I break the grammar
> up into regular grammar textbook categories (so you've got one that handles
> phonology, one that handles morphonology of nouns, verbs, etc etc) and then
> the dictionary I have 2 sets of 3 columns (word, pos, definition) and that
> is organised into Fengwe>English, English>Fengwe.
>
> On 30 December 2011 08:40, Even Eclectic Tolo Dybevik
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Hi! I'm not familliar with this so I hope someone gets this.
>> So I have a problem, if someone want to share some tips with me that would
>> be excellent! Ok, so before when I made conlangs I always had simple ways
>> of creating verbs. Usually just an ending, like this.
>> Thea = To love
>> I love = Se theasI loved = Se thean I shall love = Se theal
>> You get it, and things like this worked perfect with my dictionary, I use
>> the Interlex software. Because then I just added words like Pre: -s. Past:
>> -n. And so on. But my problem now, I have a different verb system, each
>> verb is individual, and conjugates in 2 persons and 7 tenses. So my little
>> dictionary can't handle it. And for my question: How do you document your
>> conlang, any software tips? Do you have something highly customisable,
>> where I could fill in all the conjugations and still keep it organized?
>> Thank you (:
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
3f. Re: I crave a dictionary!
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:45 pm ((PST))
On 2011-12-29 23:33, Sam Stutter wrote:
> I find having two documents*is* the most optimal. I have the grammar (in
> Pages, but actually printed out as it doesn't change too often) and then a
> dictionary in Numbers. Because your language conjugates with suffixes
> (regularly?) a grammar and a dictionary makes sense: the dictionary requires
> fewer entries and so is easier to search.
I have something similar: a spreadsheet document for
the vocabulary (OpenOffice here, and always backed up
to a plain CSV file at the end of a session), and the
grammar in one or more textfiles (more if any part of
the grammar is at all complicated) which I at need
convert to HTML/ODT/LaTeX with pandoc -- although that
was a while ago now. I also keep writing in theory more
and more sophisticated Perl programs for converting the
CSV vocabulary into something presentable.
/bpj
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Natural World Taxonomies
Posted by: "Sam Stutter" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:58 pm ((PST))
Since relocating my conculture, I've been going about cataloguing the sorts of
wildlife my Nỳspèke speakers will come across. What I'm finding difficult is,
what level of species detail would a language go into?
Birds first: English has a big group of basic bird types: robin, finch, tit,
crow, raven, magpie, owl, jay, swallow, etc. Then there's a bundle of
onomatopoeic forms: chiff-chaff, cuckoo, etc. Many of these refer only to one
specific species and some to a group of species. What causes "crow", "rook" and
"raven" to be differentiated by species and all the finches and owls not to be?
It seems obvious that creatures under the taxonomy "large herbivores, dangerous
but delicious" will be species differentiated; "aurochs" vs. "boar" vs. "water
buffalo" and "large meat eating cats"; "lion" vs. "tiger". The same goes for
charismatic creatures "dugong" vs "Steller's sea cow", even beyond the level of
species; "panther" vs "leopard".
So, the larger and more dangerous a species is, the greater chance they fit
into different lexical terms. And I could probably add a second rule that the
more useful a species is, the greater chance they fit into different lexical
terms.
What I wanted to know was, when it comes to inedible plants, small rodents,
birds, fish, deer, etc, how does one go about deciding whether a species is
individual or part of a group? And if it is part of a group, how does one go
about deciding what the boundaries of this group is?
Does anyone on the list have any knowledge of how native American, aboriginal
Australian or similar tribal culture languages which emerged in a landscape
with a broad spectrum of living creatures, went about classifying their natural
landscape? Or has anybody attempted to do something similar or just has a good
idea?
Sam Stutter
[email protected]
"No e na il cu barri"
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Natural World Taxonomies
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:48 pm ((PST))
On 2011-12-29 23:58, Sam Stutter wrote:
> What causes "crow", "rook" and "raven" to be differentiated by species and
> all the finches and owls not to be?
Probably the degree of 'interaction' humans used to have with them.
/bpj
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Conlang > Conlang dictionary
Posted by: "Ben Scerri" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:03 pm ((PST))
Greetings all,
Spurred on by the thread "I crave a dictionary!" by Even Eclectic Tolo
Dybevik, I thought it would be interesting to see some of the more indepth
and 'complete' languages to be placed side-by-side and have their
dictionarys compared by translation. I.e. translate one dicitonary into
another conlang (with notes etc, so we can see the process and see any
nuances).
Anyone interested?
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: Conlang > Conlang dictionary
Posted by: "Koppa Dasao" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:15 pm ((PST))
If you have the time, go ahead... :D
Koppa Dasao
___
Norway isn't the solution, but the appendix that's cut out!
2011/12/30 Ben Scerri <[email protected]>:
> Greetings all,
>
> Spurred on by the thread "I crave a dictionary!" by Even Eclectic Tolo
> Dybevik, I thought it would be interesting to see some of the more indepth
> and 'complete' languages to be placed side-by-side and have their
> dictionarys compared by translation. I.e. translate one dicitonary into
> another conlang (with notes etc, so we can see the process and see any
> nuances).
>
> Anyone interested?
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. Re: Conlang > Conlang dictionary
Posted by: "Ben Scerri" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:16 pm ((PST))
Haha, I wouldn't dream of doing with Fengwe. Nowhere near finished enough.
My vocabulary basically surrounds bodily functions and warfare. Oh, and
ranting about the evils of outsiders (the Vendri are a simple people, after
all :P)
On 30 December 2011 10:14, Koppa Dasao <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you have the time, go ahead... :D
>
> Koppa Dasao
> ___
> Norway isn't the solution, but the appendix that's cut out!
>
>
>
> 2011/12/30 Ben Scerri <[email protected]>:
> > Greetings all,
> >
> > Spurred on by the thread "I crave a dictionary!" by Even Eclectic Tolo
> > Dybevik, I thought it would be interesting to see some of the more
> indepth
> > and 'complete' languages to be placed side-by-side and have their
> > dictionarys compared by translation. I.e. translate one dicitonary into
> > another conlang (with notes etc, so we can see the process and see any
> > nuances).
> >
> > Anyone interested?
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: Naisek Grammar Change Q
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:28 pm ((PST))
On 2011-12-28 23:27, neo gu wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 07:41:36 -0600, Wm Annis
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 10:37 PM, neo gu<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>> "Someone blew the paper with the wind."
>>> Ota halfata hi papir hipe humepe.
>>>
>>> There's no way this could not refer to a person, however unknown.
>>> In fact, it would emphasize the personal factor. I'd have to invent a
>>> new pronoun just for that purpose.
>>
>> Then use the passive for that. There's no reason you have to use
>> an identical strategy for all translations of English active sentences
>> with semantically inanimate agents. It makes sense that natural
>> forces and the weather seem of higher animacy than, say, a knife,
>> since they operate without human intervention. Slot them into a
>> different construction, and give a prayer of thanks to Saint Tolkien
>> and Saint Hildegard that you didn't decide on something like
>> Navajo's eight-level animacy hierarchy. :)
>>
>> --
>> William S. Annis
>> www.aoidoi.org � www.scholiastae.org
>
> Actually, I might end up with 3 animacy types if I make some nouns
> heterogeneous, although they wouldn't constitute a Navajo-type
> hierarchy.
>
Sohlob has an animate/inanimate distinction which
manifests so that it uses accusative alignment for
animates and ergative alignment for inanimates, with
the snag that the nominative, accusative and absolutive
are identical -- endingless -- and the same form
serving as both ergative and instrumental. Animate
agents and patients can still be told apart with the
help of the languages' deixis system: it has a
distinction between proximal, medial and distal
demonstratives which double as definite articles. At
the same time alignment is also hierarchical, which
intertwines deictic reference and animacy so that the
full hierarchy becomes.
* 1st person
* inclusive
* exclusive
* 2d person
* 3d person
* animate
* proximal
* medial
* distal
* inanimate
* proximal
* medial
* distal
Moreover P/M/D are used in discourse to distinguish
between earlier and later introduced referents, and D
forms are used for out-group vs. in-group P/M
referents.
Now word order is strictly verb-initial,
with the order of the arguments determined by their
place in the animacy/deixis hierarchy. There is no
person marking on the verb, but the verb takes an
inverse marker [^1] when a hierarchically lower
argument acts on a higher. Thus for animate arguments
the presence/absence of the inverse marker is the only
clue to which argument is agent and which is patient,
while an inanimate 'agent' is additionally marked by
the instrumental/ergative suffix. In fact sentences
with inanimate 'agents' as impersonal, which is shown
by the fact that any inverse or irrealis markers are
attached not to the main verb but to a dummy copula.
The main verb is in fact an infinite form which happens
to coincide with the zero-marked direct realis form of
the appropriate aspect. Moreover this distinction in
verbal morphology between inanimate and animate
'agents' exists only in positive statements: negative
statements are always constructed with a negative verb
which syntactically behaves just like the dummy copula
in impersonal statements. Note that there is no
'passive' involved here at all, this being a category
which does not exist in the language. The closest thing
is a statement with omitted agent -- all arguments can
be omitted if understood from context! -- or the
impersonal construction which however has other uses as
well.
[^1]: Which BTW goes between the aspect and irrealis
markers in Kijeb and between the stem and the
irrealis marker in the later languages, where the
aspect markers have been lost and aspect is
signalled by (originally umlaut) vowel changes in
the stem.
/bpj
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
6b. Re: Naisek Grammar Change Q
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:32 pm ((PST))
On 2011-12-30 00:28, BPJ wrote:
> * 1st person
> * inclusive
> * exclusive
That should be
* 1st person
* exclusive
* inclusive
of course!
/bpj
Messages in this topic (22)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
