There are 14 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Use of Interlanguages?
From: MorphemeAddict
1b. Re: Use of Interlanguages?
From: Gary Shannon
2a. Re: Verbs for Aspects
From: MorphemeAddict
2b. Re: Verbs for Aspects
From: David McCann
2c. Re: Verbs for Aspects
From: Wm Annis
2d. Re: Verbs for Aspects
From: Garth Wallace
2e. Re: Verbs for Aspects
From: neo gu
3.1. Re: Articles
From: MorphemeAddict
3.2. Re: Articles
From: Herman Miller
3.3. Re: Articles
From: Peter Cyrus
3.4. Re: Articles
From: Garth Wallace
3.5. Re: Articles
From: Jim Henry
4. MIT Mystery Hunt 2012: Itinerant People of America
From: Sai
5. MIT Mystery Hunt 2012: Sounds Good to Me
From: Sai
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Use of Interlanguages?
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:40 am ((PST))
An interlanguage is a transparent 3rd language for translation between two
other languages.
stevo
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Logan Kearsley <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 14 January 2012 16:12, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Pre-editing is one way to do this. Someone disambiguates the text without
> > knowing the target language, but aware that such and such is ambiguous in
> > the source language.
>
> One can do that using just about any language as the intermediary,
> though; you just train your translators not to actually render the
> text directly, but to describe and annotate it for the benefit of
> someone else writing the actual target language translations. The
> question, then, is how might one design a language specifically to
> make that disambiguation process 'transparent'; e.g., such that you
> never have to write side notes like "By the way, this refers to an
> older brother in this context, but that information is not present in
> the literal source text, so don't bother stating it in other languages
> that don't distinguish older/younger relation terms", and that sort of
> thing is simply grammaticalized or otherwise implicit in the
> interlanguage text.
>
> On 14 January 2012 16:38, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > My take on a machine translation interlanguage is that a document is
> > written, by a human author, in this interlanguage so that a machine
> > can read the interlanguage and produce a translation into any human
> > language.
>
> In that case, I find the terminology rather misleading. A machine
> translation *source* language makes sense. It's just a special case of
> a language designed to be spoken by people to machines (which itself
> presents and interesting design problem for a certain set of
> engelangs). But while a human may employ it as an interlanguage if
> translating some document originally composed in a different language,
> I would hardly call it a *machine* interlanguage, as long as the
> machine is not generating it. Your take with Chomp seems to me rather
> different (and now that I'm aware of it, maybe this is what Rick had
> in mind with Latejami as well; I don't know). In that case, the
> human-usable language is needed only to allow inspection and
> correction of the computer's automatically generated intermediate
> representation. But even there, the standard of human-usability is
> rather different than it would be for a regular human language. It
> does not actually need to be speakable; it just needs to be
> *readable*, and possibly writable, which allows for a lot more leeway
> in design.
>
> -l.
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Use of Interlanguages?
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:14 am ((PST))
Which includes the possibility that the first step, L1 -> interlingua
is performed by a human and the second step, interlingua -> L2 is
performed by a computer.
As Rick Morneau says at http://www.eskimo.com/~ram/lexical_semantics.html
"Such a language must be designed to meet two primary goals: first, it
must be easier to accurately translate from the source natural
language into the interlingua than into another natural language; and,
second, it must be almost trivially easy (i.e., requiring simple
computer programming) to accurately translate from the interlingua
into the target language. In other words, mapping between natural
languages and the interlingua must be both accurate and made as easy
as possible."
Here, he specifically states that the the second stage is the result
of "simple computer programming", but makes no such claim for the
first stage. It should also be noted that he has written software for
the interlingua -> L2 stage but apparently has no intention of writing
software for the L1 -> interlingua stage. Such stage 1 translation
software is beyond the reach of current state of the art, leaving no
viable alternative but to require that a human author perform stage 1.
--gary
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:39 AM, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
> An interlanguage is a transparent 3rd language for translation between two
> other languages.
>
> stevo
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Verbs for Aspects
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 6:45 am ((PST))
Klingon does this. {taH} or {lI'} added to a verb makes it continuous or
progressive. {pu'} or {ta'} makes the verb perfective.
stevo
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Peter Cyrus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On the same topic, can anyone suggest an example of a language that
> marks aspect grammatically?
>
> I don't consider Russian to be such a case, since corresponding
> perfective and imperfective verbs are lexically different.
>
> Nor do I consider Chinese -le and -guo to be such a case, (and -guo is
> perfect, anyway).
>
> In English, non-stative verbs are lexically imperfective (Vendler's
> activities), perfective (achievements) or both (accomplishments), with
> no perceived need to mark the two aspects differently in the third
> case; we don't say I read the book for an hour/ I readed the book in
> an hour.
>
> Russian is the only language in my ken that reliably always has both
> aspects, but often the perfective adds an additional meaning (or
> several) that, in another language, would be a different verb. So
> maybe the Russian system is not marking aspect as much as it is
> telling us, for each achievement verb, what the appropriate activity
> verb is. It's as if the English word "see" pointed to the verb "look"
> in its morphology, like Chinese kanjian points to kanikan.
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Charlie Brickner
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 04:21:26 -0500, neo gu <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>In J15, I plan to derive the aspect suffixes (where the aspect isn't
> >>implied by the action type) from grammaticalized verbs. The problem is,
> >>I don't know what verbs to use in some cases, specifically:
> >>
> >>progressive
> >>habitual
> >>perfect (distinct from perfective)
> >>semelfactive
> >>
> >>So, I'm looking for suggestions.
> >
> > The Senjecan verb is inflected only for one of the three moods.
> Aspects are
> > indicated lexically.
> >
> > The progressive is indicated with the verb 'mémha', proceed, used with
> the
> > present participle (called the agent participle in Senjecas).
> > The habitual is indicated with the verb 'gúa', be accustomed to, used
> with the
> > supine.
> > The semelfactive aspect is inherent in the meaning of the verb itself.
> >
> > I am a bit confused about perfect/perfective. I hope someone can
> clarify the
> > difference for me. I am accustomed to using "perfect" for the tense:
> present
> > perfect, etc.
> >
> > Charlie
>
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Verbs for Aspects
Posted by: "David McCann" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:47 am ((PST))
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 04:21:26 -0500
neo gu <[email protected]> wrote:
> In J15, I plan to derive the aspect suffixes (where the aspect isn't
> implied by the action type) from grammaticalized verbs. The problem
> is, I don't know what verbs to use
Progressive: any verb that implies continuation: be, stay, stand, live
Habitual: to be accustomed
Perfect: any ver that implies possession: have, hold
Semelfactive: do/make, give, touch, throw
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Verbs for Aspects
Posted by: "Wm Annis" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:55 am ((PST))
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:47 AM, David McCann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Progressive: any verb that implies continuation: be, stay, stand, live
Any verb of location is a candidate for imperfective. This can get
interesting if your language encodes other things in its verbs of
location (posture, shape, consistency).
--
William S. Annis
www.aoidoi.org � www.scholiastae.org
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Verbs for Aspects
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:31 pm ((PST))
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Peter Cyrus <[email protected]> wrote:
> You could make a good argument that perfect is an aspect, but it's
> usually called a tense.
>
> Perfective and Imperfective are the two basic aspects, and we have
> them in English, too. The perfective aspect regards an action as an
> indivisible unit, a point in time. The imperfective aspect regards an
> action as a process, with duration. So "I read the book a week ago"
> is perfective, and "I read the book in bed" is imperfective. The
> first describes the result, the second the process.
Traditional English grammar frequently calls perfect a "tense". I
think that's probably because English uses the same construction for
anterior tense as it does for perfect aspect, and English speakers
tend to treat the present anterior as a "fancy past", so the
distinctions are pretty thoroughly blurred.
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Sam Stutter <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm wondering if there's some international disparity when it comes to the
> distinction. In my experience of foreign language study, degree in
> linguistics, independent research projects, etc the perfect has *always* been
> considered an aspect. Perhaps this is where the confusion about perfect vs.
> perfective has arisen. Do some schools of thought consider them differently?
> Or do some schools of thought use the terms differently?
AIUI the confusion is because Latin used the same inflections for both
perfect and perfective meanings, and we inherited the terms from
Latin.
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Peter Cyrus <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would call it an aspect, too, but it's stative, not active, and so
> it doesn't have the perfective/imperfective distinction.
>
> The Perfect should mean "present relevance of a past action", as in "I
> have read the book" (so I know what it says/so I can give it to you/so
> I don't want to see the movie). Not so different from "I like the
> book" - it's a state. But the perfect is a kind of permanent state :
> we can't say "Right now, I'm having read the book", as if, in two
> minutes, I won't have read it any more.
>
> The perfective/imperfective thing is for actions, not states. You
> could say that states are always imperfective, or maybe better, say
> that the imperfective is a way of expressing an action AS a state.
Interestingly, Japanese does this pretty explicitly. There is a
construction where the -te form of the lexical verb is used with the
existential verb "iru"* to express an action as a state, but what sort
of state depends on the verb's transitivity: if intransitive, it
expresses a state resulting from the action (perfect); if transitive,
it expresses the state of the action being in progress (progressive).
*I was taught that, when speaking, "-te + iru" contracts to "-teru"
with short "e", but it is written "ている", which would normally be
pronounced with a long "ē". So the periphrastic construction seems to
have turned into an inflection in the spoken language but the written
language has not caught up. The same sort of thing is happening to
several of the -te + auxiliary constructions.
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: Verbs for Aspects
Posted by: "neo gu" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:49 pm ((PST))
From: Charlie Brickner
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 07:10:03 -0500
>
>On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 04:21:26 -0500, neo gu
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In J15, I plan to derive the aspect suffixes (where the aspect isn't
>>implied by the action type) from grammaticalized verbs. The
>>problem is, I don't know what verbs to use in some cases,
>>specifically:
>>
>>progressive
>>habitual
>>perfect (distinct from perfective)
>>semelfactive
>>
>>So, I'm looking for suggestions.
>
>The progressive is indicated with the verb 'm�mha', proceed, used
>with the present participle (called the agent participle in Senjecas).
>The habitual is indicated with the verb 'g�a', be accustomed to, used
>with the supine.
>The semelfactive aspect is inherent in the meaning of the verb itself.
I'd prefer to use an inherently semelfactive verb.
From: Padraic Brown
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 05:55:45 -0800
>>
>> progressive
>
>run: She run walk now; They always run complain.
>
>> habitual
>
>make: She make walk every day.
>
>> perfect (distinct from perfective)
>
>done: She done walk now.
>
>> semelfactive
>
>fast (<fasten): I fast close the door. (...aint no one go open it now.)
>try: I try read that book, but I make run sleep in every page (...but
>she done read it twice).
From: David McCann
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:47:12 +0000
>
>Progressive: any verb that implies continuation: be, stay, stand, live
To me the 1st 3 are underlyingly stative rather than progressive, but I
suppose they might still work, along with proceed, run, live. I'll have to
think about it.
>Habitual: to be accustomed
I think I'll go with this; 2 people have suggested it.
>Perfect: any ver that implies possession: have, hold
"Have" is semantically appropriate. The only problem is that "have" for
perfect is a known Europeanism.
>Semelfactive: do/make, give, touch, throw
I'll have to think about these too.
Thanks for all the suggestions....
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Re: Articles
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:30 am ((PST))
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Roman Rausch <[email protected]> wrote:
> >To then insist that this statement is unfair unless I then
> >detail all the means these four different languages may use
> >to make the meaning clear in given contexts would IMHO not
> >merely be tedious but also, in the end, confusing.
>
> You certainly don't have to mention *all* the other means, but I believe it
> is necessary to mention that they exist, otherwise it misleads into
> thinking
> that there is no other way to express (in)definiteness, as evidenced in
> this
> thread.
>
> > Despite a BA in Russian, this was never mentioned in any of my course
> > work. I still find it a little unsettling. Can anyone recommend a text
> that
> > covers this?
>
> I don't know about textbooks since I'm a native speaker, but the reference
> grammar by Alan Timberlake, for example, has a final chapter called 'The
> presentation of information'.
>
I'll look into it. Thanks.
stevo
>
> >And, by the way, Japanese, despite a rather fixed word order, lacks
> >articles as well. [...]
>
> In Japanese, of course, there is explicit topic marking:
> empitsu ga ochita 'pencil NOM fall-PAST' = 'A pencil fell down'
> empitsu wa ochita 'pencil TOP fall-PAST' = 'THE pencil fell down'
> I find it much more elegant than dragging a ballast of small words
> everywhere you go.
>
Messages in this topic (186)
________________________________________________________________________
3.2. Re: Articles
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:11 am ((PST))
On 1/14/2012 1:04 PM, Gary Shannon wrote:
> I've always kind of liked the idea of using the article as the carrier of
> case:
>
> The.NOM cat climbed the.ACC tree.
>
> That way the only case inflections that need to be learned are the
> inflections of the definite and indefinite articles. The articles
> could also inflect for number so that plural forms of nouns would not
> be needed.
Tirelat goes one step further, having general "case markers" in place of
definite or indefinite articles.
su myr jĕ- lyka -mi -n my žim
NOM.SG cat 3s.NOM-climb-PAST-PF ACC.SG tree
Without context this could mean "the cat climbed a tree", "the cat
climbed the tree", or "a cat climbed a tree". Definiteness can be marked
explicitly when needed by using demonstratives (this or that), while the
adjective "kva" meaning "some" (i.e. "none in particular", not "more
than one") can be used to denote indefiniteness.
These case markers differ from ordinary prepositions in a number of
ways, most notably that they have distinct plural forms, and a couple of
them have remnants of a gender system (animate vs. inanimate) in the
singular. But they do seem more like articles, and I might as well just
call them "articles".
Messages in this topic (186)
________________________________________________________________________
3.3. Re: Articles
Posted by: "Peter Cyrus" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:33 am ((PST))
Why don't you call them "particles", a 3- or 4-way pun?
If they carry all the info about case, number, gender, and
definiteness, then you don't need to distinguish adjectives from
nouns. If you prefix a particle to the verb that carries TAM (and
person/number if you do that), then you don't need to inflect verbs,
or even distinguish them from nouns or adverbs. And if you then use
word order for discourse, you probably don't need another mechanism
for that.
Put all the grammar into the particles, and let everything else be
uninflectedly lexical, without even parts of speech.
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Herman Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/14/2012 1:04 PM, Gary Shannon wrote:
>>
>> I've always kind of liked the idea of using the article as the carrier of
>> case:
>>
>> The.NOM cat climbed the.ACC tree.
>>
>> That way the only case inflections that need to be learned are the
>> inflections of the definite and indefinite articles. The articles
>> could also inflect for number so that plural forms of nouns would not
>> be needed.
>
>
> Tirelat goes one step further, having general "case markers" in place of
> definite or indefinite articles.
>
> su myr jĕ- lyka -mi -n my žim
> NOM.SG cat 3s.NOM-climb-PAST-PF ACC.SG tree
>
> Without context this could mean "the cat climbed a tree", "the cat climbed
> the tree", or "a cat climbed a tree". Definiteness can be marked explicitly
> when needed by using demonstratives (this or that), while the adjective
> "kva" meaning "some" (i.e. "none in particular", not "more than one") can be
> used to denote indefiniteness.
>
> These case markers differ from ordinary prepositions in a number of ways,
> most notably that they have distinct plural forms, and a couple of them have
> remnants of a gender system (animate vs. inanimate) in the singular. But
> they do seem more like articles, and I might as well just call them
> "articles".
Messages in this topic (186)
________________________________________________________________________
3.4. Re: Articles
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:34 pm ((PST))
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Peter Cyrus <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why don't you call them "particles", a 3- or 4-way pun?
>
> If they carry all the info about case, number, gender, and
> definiteness, then you don't need to distinguish adjectives from
> nouns. If you prefix a particle to the verb that carries TAM (and
> person/number if you do that), then you don't need to inflect verbs,
> or even distinguish them from nouns or adverbs. And if you then use
> word order for discourse, you probably don't need another mechanism
> for that.
>
> Put all the grammar into the particles, and let everything else be
> uninflectedly lexical, without even parts of speech.
If they inflect, then technically they aren't really particles, are they?
Messages in this topic (186)
________________________________________________________________________
3.5. Re: Articles
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:10 pm ((PST))
On 1/15/12, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Sun, 1/15/12, taliesin the storyteller <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> > That would provide a good reason to have personal
>> > articles- otherwise, people's names couldn't be
>> case-marked.
>>
>> Uhm, why can't you treat a name as just any other noun?
>
> I think that was rather the point: he's NOT treating names just like other
> nouns. If you can't treat a name like any other noun, then you'd need some
> other ways for names to work in a sentence and make any sense at all.
That sort of strategy makes sense in an auxlang or engelang where
you're frequently talking about people, places, etc. whose names did
not originate within that language and can't necessarily be expected
to conform to its morphophonology. There's a certain awkwardness in
Esperanto whether one adapts proper names to Esperanto morphophonology
or not; if you do, you may confuse people who don't recognize the
adapted form, or annoy people who don't like the way you've modified
their name. If you don't, you can't mark the name as a direct object
in the usual way, and your interlocutor might have trouble hearing or
repeating the name accurately if it contains phonemes or clusters that
don't occur in Esperanto or in other languages they speak. Some
people mark unassimilated proper names as direct objects with the
preposition "je", which is technically correct, but feels a little odd
to me (kind of like using the rare intimate pronoun "ci", though not
as weird). Volapük's personal article, which takes the case (and
sometimes number) marking that might not fit easily onto an
unassimilated proper name, solves that problem neatly.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (186)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. MIT Mystery Hunt 2012: Itinerant People of America
Posted by: "Sai" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:35 pm ((PST))
http://www.mit.edu/~puzzle/12/mayan_fair_lady/itinerant_people_of_america/
Enjoy,
Sai
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5. MIT Mystery Hunt 2012: Sounds Good to Me
Posted by: "Sai" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:40 pm ((PST))
The answer is an English word or phrase. The following is the entire
puzzle; you do not need to visit the site.
Please don't post spoilers or the answer to the list unless under a
clearly separate SPOILER subject line, but feel free to discuss it in
non-spoiling ways.
AFTER you finish solving this, the writeup can be found at
http://www.mit.edu/~puzzle/12/into_the_woodstock/sounds_good_to_me/solution/
— but seriously, *don't click that link* until you've solved it! NO
CLICKY. RESIST. SOLVE IT FIRST. :-)
Enjoy,
Sai
Title: Sounds Good to Me
νοτα βενε: νον σεκυιτυρ λινγυα Ιαπονικα!
とき！ ぽな あ。 てんぽ に ら しな そな え に：
に り とき によん あら り とき ぽな。
しな けん あら けん るきん え にみ ぴ とき ぽな けぺけん してれん によん に？ お るきん！
み してれん え にみ ぴ くれ あれ ぴ とき ぽな： ろいぇ、 いぇろ、 らそ、 わろ、 ぴめや。
み してれん え にみ ぴ なんぱ あれ ぴ とき ぽな: わん、 つ。
ぽな あ！ てんぽ に ら しな そな るきん え とき ぽな…… お むし！
とも もく り けん よ え もく むて あんて。 もく り けん かま たん ま むて。 もく あれ り ろん ぽき すり。 やん り
けん るきん え もく あれ。 やん り うぃれ え もく ら おな り とき え にみ ぴ もく。 やん ぱり り ぱな え もく たわ
やん。 とも もく に り ____。 に り 「もく ぴ ぽな むて」 ろん とき とし。
めり りり り あうぇん ろん とも り ぱり さま まま。 たそ おな り まま あら り かま たん ま あんて。 おな り ____
____。 に り 「ろん さま」 ろん とき かんせ。
やん あれ り よ え にみ。 たそ やん り してれん え してれん ら おな り けん うぃれ あら え に： やん あんて り そな
え にみ おな。 やん り けん けぺけん あら え にみ おな り けん けぺけん え ____ ____ ____。 に り 「にみ ぴ
いろ してれん」 ろん とき かんせ。
やん ぴ なしん せうぃ ゆた り けん もく え もく わん ら やん り とき え に： 「もく に り ____。」 やん ぴ なしん
せうぃ ゆた り けん あら もく え もく あんて ら やん り とき え に： 「もく に り ____ あら。」 （そうぇり り つ
え ぴに のか り もく しん え もく おな ら おな り ____。） に り 「ぽな」 あぬ 「ろん なしん」 ろん とき いうぃし。
けん ら に り ろん： てんぽ あれ ら やん り なさ むて あぬ おな り いけ むて。 やん に り いけ たわ やん あんて り
____ ____。 に り 「やん りり いけ むて」 ろん とき かんせ。
けん ら いよ いけ り かま たわ やん り ぱから え おな。 やん あんて り るきん え に り むし たん ぱから。 ぴりん に
り ____。 に り 「ぴりん ぽな ぴ ぱから」 ろん とき とし。
ま ぴ なんぱ つ つ つ つ つ つ つ つ つ つ つ つ つ つ つ つ つ つ つ ぴ ま めうぃか り よ え ねな むて ぴ
ぽな るきん。 にみ ぴ ま に り ____。 に り 「よ え くれ」 ろん とき えぱんや。
てんぽ わん たそ ら やん り けぺけん え にみ 「ἐκβουτῠπόομαι」 ろん とき えれな （にみ に り 「かま そうぇり」
ろん とき えれな ぴ てんぽ ぴに）。 やん り けぺけん え にみ ろん てんぽ わん たそ り けぺけん あら え おな ろん てんぽ
あんて ら やん そな り とき え に： にみ り ____ ____。 に り 「てんぽ わん たそ ら やん り とき え おな」
ろん とき えれな ぴ てんぽ ぴに。
に り てろ せり かし そんこ。 にみ おな り ____。 に り 「あけし すり ぴめや」 ろん とき そんこ。
けん ら てろ えん こん り かま せり ろん てろ すり ぱしぴこ。 に かま ら こん り けん かま いけ むて ろん ま あんて
むて。 にみ ぴ てろ せり に り ____ ____。 に り 「みいぇ りり」 ろん とき えぱんや。
やん り ぴりん え に： やん あんて り いけ たん に： おな り かま よ え まに むて ら おな り けぺけん いけ え まに。
やん り とき え に： やん あんて り ____ ____。 に り 「てんぽ ぴに ら よ あら え まに むて、 てんぽ に ら よ
え まに むて」 ろん とき かんせ。
やん いぬ り ぱり え とも けぺけん てろ れて きうぇん。 たそ やん り ろん とも に ら やん り せり むて。 とも に り
ぽな むて たん に： こん り れて ら やん り けん あうぇん ろん とも に り けん らぺ り ぴりん せり。 とも に り
____。 に り 「とも」 ろん とき いぬ。
やん ぴ くるぷ らわ り とき え に： 「お くて！ てんぽ ぴに ら やん に り ぱり え いよ いけ。 おな り いけ！」 やん
あんて ぴ くるぷ らわ り くて り とき え に： 「やん お、 しな ぱり あら ぱり え いよ いけ に？ しな いけ あら
いけ？」 やん り けん とき え に： 「やん あんて ぴ くるぷ らわ お、 み とき あら え に： 『み ぱり あら。』 み とき
あら え に： 『み ぱり。』 み とき え に たそ： 『けん ら み ぱり。 お ぱり え うぃれ しな たわ み。』」 にみ ぴ とき
に り ____ ____。 に り 「み うぃれ あら うたら」 ろん とき らしな。
やん り むし たん に： おな り ろん。 やん に り ぴりん ぽな り よ え ____ ____ ____。 に り 「むし たん
ろん」 あぬ 「むし たん あれ」 ろん とき かんせ。
けん ら やん り ぴりん え に： 「ぴりん えん とき ぴ やん あんて り いけ。」 たそ やん り とき あら え に： 「とき ぴ
やん あんて り いけ。」 やん り とき え に： 「やん あんて り いけ り やき あ！」 やん り とき え に ら おな り
けぺけん え とき ____ ____。 に り 「たわ やん」 ろん とき らしな。
けん ら やん り うぃれ ぱな え してれん たわ やん あんて。 たそ やん あんて り あうぇん ろん ま あんて。 に ら やん り
ぱな え おな けぺけん いろ たわ こん。 やん り してれん え にみ ____ ____ ろん せろ ぴ してれん ら してれん り
たわ ろん いろ たわ こん。 に り 「けぺけん いろ たわ こん」 ろん とき かんせ。
てんぽ ぴめや ら やん ろん ま いしらん あぬ ま かなた あぬ ま おせりや あぬ ま あんて り けん るきん え すの くれ ろん
ぴめや。 に り けん よ え くれ むて あんて。 てんぽ むて ら おな り いぇろ らそ。 たそ やん ろん ま りぴや あぬ ま
えかと り けん あら るきん え おな。 にみ ぴ すの くれ に り ____。 に り 「てんぽ ぴ すの かま」 ろん とき
らしな。
やん ぱらた り せり え ぱん りぷ ____。 （やん り けん もく けぺけん ぱん に。） に り 「ぱん」 ろん とき ぱし。
やん り もく ろん とも もく。 ろん ま めうぃか ら もく すり り ____。 てんぽ むて ら もく に り そうぇり。（たそ
ろん ま いんり あぬ ま おせりや ら やん り けぺけん あんて え にみ に。 ろん ま いんり ら ____ り もく りり り
もく ぴ なんぱ わん ろん てんぽ もく。） に り 「かま」 ろん とき かんせ。
やん り るきん え もく むて り とき あ に： 「ぽな あ！ もく あれ り ろん！ に り ____！」 に り 「すぱ もく ぴ
もく ろん ぱん りぷ つ」 ろん とき うぇんさ。
くるぷ うたら り けん ぴりん ぽな あぬ いけ。 ぴりん おな り ____ ____ ____。 に り 「こん くるぷ」 あぬ
「こん しいぇろ」 ろん とき かんせ。
Messages in this topic (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
