There are 10 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Meta: Signatures...
From: J. Snow
1b. Re: Meta: Signatures...
From: Sai
1c. Re: Meta: Signatures...
From: yuri
1d. Re: Meta: Signatures...
From: Sai
1e. Re: Meta: Signatures...
From: Brian
1f. Re: Meta: Signatures...
From: And Rosta
2a. natlang conditional morphosyntax
From: neo gu
2b. Re: natlang conditional morphosyntax
From: Matthew Boutilier
2c. Re: natlang conditional morphosyntax
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
3a. Re: Lonely Planet Guides
From: J. K. Hoffman
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Meta: Signatures...
Posted by: "J. Snow" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:05 pm ((PST))
In my opinion, I think CONLANG-L should make the No Cross No Crown rule very
strict, allowing no topics on it, nor politically/spiritually themed
signatures. I used to
love politics, but now I completely despise the topic. I come to this list
because I
enjoy asking questions, and discussing conlang related topics, but when it
comes to
political crap, it doesn't make my experience any more pleasant.
However, as for humorous, fake-religious references in signatures, I don't see
any
problem with it, as long as it's clearly defined as a joke.
-Signed, Sonar Snow, loyal Gropaga to Lord Inglip, the almighty Captcha of
Captchas. <<<(joke religion)
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:44:22 -0500, Daniel Bowman
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Henrik,
>
>I certainly understand your decision. However, I just want to make clear
>that, while Koppa's signature is certainly violating NCNC, his lengthy post
>on SOPA was what raised a red flag for me. It is one thing to have a
>political signature that goes out with all emails; it is another to
>directly post to the list with a political statement.
>
>Does this make sense to the community? Or do we find that political (or
>religious) signatures edge too close to NCNC? Where should we draw the
>line?
>
>Regards,
>
>Danny
>
>2012/1/18 Henrik Theiling <[email protected]>
>
>> Hello Conlang-L!
>>
>> Koppa Dasao wrote:
>> >This may be my last post as some people wants to kill me off for my
>> >changing signatures. If that happens, I just want to say in public
>> >that it only proves my current signature.
>>
>> 'Some people' -- that must be me. I asked Koppa to change his signature
>> because it violates 'no cross no crown', but got quite definite replies
>> that
>> changing would be out of the question.
>>
>> I put Koppa to NOPOST because he posted to the list with the unchanged
>> signature.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Henrik
>> (Your Benevolent Dictator)
>>
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Meta: Signatures...
Posted by: "Sai" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:00 pm ((PST))
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:05, J. Snow <[email protected]> wrote:
> However, as for humorous, fake-religious references in signatures, I don't
> see any
> problem with it, as long as it's clearly defined as a joke.
FWIW, this isn't clearly defined. Cf. Discordianism, the religion
disguised as a joke disguised as a religion (not a typo!). :-P
But of course this will be fuzzy to some extent, which is why we have
a Benevolent Dictator on hand.
- Sai
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Meta: Signatures...
Posted by: "yuri" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:03 pm ((PST))
On 19 January 2012 19:05, J. Snow wrote:
> However, as for humorous, fake-religious references in signatures,
> I don't see any problem with it, as long as it's clearly defined as a joke.
Double standard. Mocking religion is a religious statement in itself.
Either allow religious signatures or ban them. No exceptions made for
those whose religious persuasion is the mocking thereof.
Personally, I see signatures as incidental to the post itself, and
have no objection to any signature. NCNC for the main post should be
enforced.
That's my vote.
BTW what about discussing operating systems or editors in relation to
conlanging. Is promoting a particular platform as a conlanging tool
considered proselyting? I know fans of certain platforms have near
religious zeal.
Yuri.
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Meta: Signatures...
Posted by: "Sai" [email protected]
Date: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:19 pm ((PST))
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 02:03, yuri <[email protected]> wrote:
> BTW what about discussing operating systems or editors in relation to
> conlanging. Is promoting a particular platform as a conlanging tool
> considered proselyting? I know fans of certain platforms have near
> religious zeal.
I think the problem there is in proselytizing, not in discussing
particular systems.
The same goes for e.g. auxlangs. The longstanding policy of CONLANG-L,
post AUXLANG-L split, is that auxlangs are a perfectly valid topic of
discussion here… we just don't like arguments about what other people
"should" do, proselytization, etc. If people want to discuss their
auxlang design, translations, etc., that's welcome the same as any
other conlang.
Of course that assumes it's on topic. I think discussing operating
systems per se would be off topic unless there's some pretty clear
tie-in (say, discussing font editors that are available on different
platforms). :-P
- Sai
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Meta: Signatures...
Posted by: "Brian" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:54 am ((PST))
DISCLAIMER: This is a joke!
I promote the religion of Conlangs. We could redefine "speaking in tongues! :)
-----Original Message-----
From: "J. Snow" <[email protected]>
Sender: Constructed Languages List <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:05:18
To: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Meta: Signatures...
In my opinion, I think CONLANG-L should make the No Cross No Crown rule very
strict, allowing no topics on it, nor politically/spiritually themed
signatures. I used to
love politics, but now I completely despise the topic. I come to this list
because I
enjoy asking questions, and discussing conlang related topics, but when it
comes to
political crap, it doesn't make my experience any more pleasant.
However, as for humorous, fake-religious references in signatures, I don't see
any
problem with it, as long as it's clearly defined as a joke.
-Signed, Sonar Snow, loyal Gropaga to Lord Inglip, the almighty Captcha of
Captchas. <<<(joke religion)
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:44:22 -0500, Daniel Bowman
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Henrik,
>
>I certainly understand your decision. However, I just want to make clear
>that, while Koppa's signature is certainly violating NCNC, his lengthy post
>on SOPA was what raised a red flag for me. It is one thing to have a
>political signature that goes out with all emails; it is another to
>directly post to the list with a political statement.
>
>Does this make sense to the community? Or do we find that political (or
>religious) signatures edge too close to NCNC? Where should we draw the
>line?
>
>Regards,
>
>Danny
>
>2012/1/18 Henrik Theiling <[email protected]>
>
>> Hello Conlang-L!
>>
>> Koppa Dasao wrote:
>> >This may be my last post as some people wants to kill me off for my
>> >changing signatures. If that happens, I just want to say in public
>> >that it only proves my current signature.
>>
>> 'Some people' -- that must be me. I asked Koppa to change his signature
>> because it violates 'no cross no crown', but got quite definite replies
>> that
>> changing would be out of the question.
>>
>> I put Koppa to NOPOST because he posted to the list with the unchanged
>> signature.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Henrik
>> (Your Benevolent Dictator)
>>
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Meta: Signatures...
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:49 am ((PST))
NCNC began simply as a maxim of tact, a tactic for avoiding upsetting other
list-members. It then over time became widely understood to be a rule of
etiquette, any transgression of which automatically places the transgressor
in the wrong. And now it appears to have become a rule whose transgression
will result in the transgressor being prevented from posting. I have
complete confidence in Henrik's benevolence, but I regret the way NCNC has
evolved, from a situation in which an individual's behaviour was regulated
by the individual themself, via a situation in which it was regulated by
the forces of community censure, to a situation in which the individual's
behaviour is regulated by the list administrator.
I sense, though, that this evolution is in accordance with the wishes of
most listmembers.
--And.
On Jan 18, 2012 9:48 PM, "Henrik Theiling" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Conlang-L!
>
> Koppa Dasao wrote:
> >This may be my last post as some people wants to kill me off for my
> >changing signatures. If that happens, I just want to say in public
> >that it only proves my current signature.
>
> 'Some people' -- that must be me. I asked Koppa to change his signature
> because it violates 'no cross no crown', but got quite definite replies
> that
> changing would be out of the question.
>
> I put Koppa to NOPOST because he posted to the list with the unchanged
> signature.
>
> Best regards,
> Henrik
> (Your Benevolent Dictator)
>
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. natlang conditional morphosyntax
Posted by: "neo gu" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:21 am ((PST))
Hi,
I've been trying to research the morphosyntax used in conditional
sentences in natlangs, especially non-european ones, without much
success (English and Latin are readily available). I'm interested in
seeing what kind of TAM affixes are used in conditions and/or
conclusions (or what periphrastic TAM constructions are used for those
less synthetic natlangs), for both realis and irrealis conditionals. If this
isn't clear, let me know.
--
neogu
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: natlang conditional morphosyntax
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:22 am ((PST))
this isn't about affixes, but nonetheless cool: akkadian (as elsewhere in
semitic, but this is freshest in my mind) uses two different adverbs for
negation, one (lā) for conditional and one (ul(a)) for indicative
statements:
šarrum kaspam ul iddin
king-NOM silver-ACC not gave
"the king didn't give the silver."
šumma šarrum kaspam lā iddin
if king-NOM silver-ACC not gave
"if the king didn't give the silver..."
there's also a general progression of tenses used in the condition
(protasis) and following consequence (apodosis), which is rigidly observed
in more formulaic writings (e.g. the old babylonian of codex hammurapi
(CH)) and less rigidly in personal letters, etc. its most rigid
formulation looks like this:
protasis: if preterite, and preterite, and preterite ... and perfect,
apodosis: durative (and durative, and durative ...)
the non-final verbs in the protasis/condition are in the preterite, and
basically set up the background for the perfect-tense verb, which generally
conveys the most recent or relevant event (or, in the case of CH, the
action distinguishing this law from the ones inscribed before and after it,
that deal with similar circumstances). the durative is a tense that is
basically non-preterite, and can be translated in english as a future,
present, or even past prospective or progressive (used to do, wanted to do)
- or, more rarely, modally (ought to do, can do, etc.). to my knowledge
there is no special treatment distinguishing realis from irrealis.
a decent sample sentence would be the following, CH law #1:
šumma awīlum awīlam *ubbir*-ma nērtam elīšu *iddī*-ma lā *uktīššu *mubbiršu
*iddâk*
if man-NOM man-ACC accused(PRET)-and murder-ACC against-him
brought(PRET)-and not convicted(PERF)-him accuser-his will.be.killed(DUR)
if a man *accused *(preterite) a[nother] man, and *brought *(preterite) [a
charge of] murder against him, and *he has not convicted him *(perfect),
his accuser will be killed (durative).
cheers
matt
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:20 AM, neo gu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I've been trying to research the morphosyntax used in conditional
> sentences in natlangs, especially non-european ones, without much
> success (English and Latin are readily available). I'm interested in
> seeing what kind of TAM affixes are used in conditions and/or
> conclusions (or what periphrastic TAM constructions are used for those
> less synthetic natlangs), for both realis and irrealis conditionals. If
> this
> isn't clear, let me know.
>
> --
> neogu
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: natlang conditional morphosyntax
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:40 am ((PST))
On 19 January 2012 09:20, neo gu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I've been trying to research the morphosyntax used in conditional
> sentences in natlangs, especially non-european ones, without much
> success (English and Latin are readily available). I'm interested in
> seeing what kind of TAM affixes are used in conditions and/or
> conclusions (or what periphrastic TAM constructions are used for those
> less synthetic natlangs), for both realis and irrealis conditionals. If
> this
> isn't clear, let me know.
>
>
The following page is a great explanation of Japanese conditional
sentences: http://www.guidetojapanese.org/conditional.html
Basically, Japanese has four ways to form conditional sentences: _(da) to_,
_nara(ba)_, _ba_ (added to a special form of the verb) and _tara(ba)_
(basically the past tense followed with _ra(ba)_). The interesting thing is
that they are not classified in terms of "realis" and "irrealis", but
rather in terms of the relationship between the protasis and the apodosis
(_to_, for instance, is for "natural consequences", while _tara_ is more
about temporal conditions, i.e. "when" rather than "if").
Whether the statement is realis or irrealis (and whether the condition is
possible or counterfactual) is usually left to context. If you want to
insist on it, you can always add _kamoshirenai/kamoshiremasen_ at the end
of the apodosis (it means "maybe"), or _no ni_ for counterfactuals (it
means "although"). _Moshi_ is also often added at the beginning of the
sentence to indicate irrealis.
But all those methods are only used if context doesn't make it clear
already whether the apodosis and/or the protasis are true or not.
As a result, translating Japanese conditions into English (or other
Indo-European languages) can be a challenge, as the conditional systems are
very different in both languages.
Although Basque is strongly non-Indo-European, its conditional system is
slightly easier to understand than the Japanese one. Conditions are formed
using the hypothetical form of the finite auxiliary verb (indicated by the
prefix ba-). Basque verbs are conjugated periphrastically, and that finite
auxiliary can be accompanied with the imperfect stem or the future stem of
the actual verb. The apodosis itself can have various forms. In the present
or future tense, with a protasis using an imperfect stem, it forms realis
conditions. In the conditional (future stem + auxiliairy in the
hypothetical potential form, marked with suffix -ke), with a protasis using
a future stem, it forms irrealis but possible conditions. And in the
future-of-the-past (future stem + auxiliary in the past tense, distinct
from the conditional), with a protasis using an imperfect stem, it forms
counterfactual conditions. This means that only the form of the verb in the
apodosis distinguishes between realis and counterfactual conditions, but
irrealis conditions have a different form in both the protasis and the
apodosis. Here's an example:
inon aurkitzen baduzu, harrituko naiz.
anywhere find-IMPF if-have-you, surprise-FUT I-am.
If you find it anywhere, I'll be surprised.
inon aurkitzen baduzu, harrituko nintzen.
anywhere find-IMPF if-have-you, surprise-FUT I-was.
if you had found it anywhere, I would have been surprised.
inon aurkituko baduzu, harrituko nintzateke.
anywhere find-FUT if-have-you, surprise-FUT I-would.be.
if you found it anywhere, I would be surprised.
So the categories of conditions in Basque are similar to those in European
languages, but the way to form them is quite different :) .
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Lonely Planet Guides
Posted by: "J. K. Hoffman" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:24 am ((PST))
On 1/18/2012 11:00 PM, CONLANG automatic digest system wrote:
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:26:37 +0000
> From: Sam Stutter<[email protected]>
> Subject: Lonely Planet Guides
>
> Just been skimming through Lonely Planet guides on Amazon. 2 things spring to
> mind:
>
> 1) does anyone know what gets covered in the "Language" section? I've only
> managed to scrape a couple of pages from the Cuba edition. Which makes for a
> good basic level Conlang test: can it state "I have altitude sickness" and
> "how long can I park here?". I'm thinking of using this as a basis for a
> short and friendly phrase book.
>
> 2) more importantly, the books have a good test of conculture: the 25
> definitive experiences they list at the start of each edition. I've been
> using this as a springboard to flesh out my concultures. I can't remember if
> this is OT or not, but I'll ask anyway and wait for the Stasi. Or
> alternatively, I'll ask and let it disappear:)
>
> For those of you with developed concultures, would you be able to compile a
> list of the top 25 things a tourist should experience while visiting?
>
> Try and tie it back to conlanging if you do answer:)
>
> Sam Stutter
> [email protected]
> "No e na il cu barri"
>
> ------------------------------
Sam,
I've had much the same idea, when I was actively conlanging. I haven't
done that in quite some time, or posted here, either, but this caught my
attention.
In fact, I took the idea to the point of making a kind of blank template
for a phrase book like Lonely Planet sometimes produces. Not quite a
full guidebook, but a decent start. They're freely available here:
http://www.fantasist.net/conlang.shtml
I also was influenced by the "Wicked <<variable language>> for the
Traveler" series by Howard Tomb. Lots of idioms, some funnier than
others, and that kind of thing.
Personally, I think it's a great idea to write a little guidebook, with
included language section, for your conculture. After all, concultures
are often where conlangs live!
Hope the templates are useful as a starting point and please do share
what you create!
Thanks!
Jim
----------
Quote of the day:
"I believe that if ever I had to practice cannibalism, I might manage if
there were enough tarragon around."
-Food writer and food lover James Beard
-----
Messages in this topic (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
