There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Meta: Signatures...
From: R A Brown
1b. Re: Meta: Signatures...
From: Paul Schleitwiler, FCM
2a. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
From: Carsten Becker
2b. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
2c. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
From: Gary Shannon
2d. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
From: Lee
2e. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
From: Adam Walker
2f. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
2g. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
From: George Corley
2h. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
From: Brian
2i. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
From: Mike Ellis
2j. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
From: George Corley
2k. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
From: Sai
2l. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
From: Mike Ellis
2m. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
From: Sam Stutter
2n. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
From: Mike Ellis
2o. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
From: George Corley
2p. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
From: George Corley
2q. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
From: Tony Harris
3a. Re: Meta: Signatures... (sort of meta-meta)
From: Daniel Myers
3b. Re: Meta: Signatures... (sort of meta-meta)
From: Alex Fink
3c. Re: Meta: Signatures... (sort of meta-meta)
From: R A Brown
3d. Re: Meta: Signatures... (sort of meta-meta)
From: Daniel Myers
3e. Re: Meta: Signatures... (sort of meta-meta)
From: Alex Fink
4a. Re: Verbs for Aspects
From: Roman Rausch
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Meta: Signatures...
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:18 am ((PST))
On 19/01/2012 12:49, And Rosta wrote:
> 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,
Surely you still recall the days, long years ago, when the
list was not the most pleasant of places and mud was flung
around? There is no question in my mind that it is an
immeasurably better and more productive place now.
Yes, it has become a widely understood 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.
This is surely unfair. I do not think that Henrik has ever
set anyone to NOPOST without prior request to act
differently or without warning.
It was IIRC two or three weeks back that Charlie drew
Koppa's attention to the fact that his sig might appear to
contravene the NCNC etiquette - but Koppa didn't even the
decency to respond. Personally I thought from his sig that
either he didn't live on the same planet as I do, or he was
trying to fan a few flames, which he didn't.
But it is quite clear, isn't it, that Henrik did ask Koppa
to change the sig (probably, tho I do not know, because of
private complaints being made to Henrik).
If Henrik pointed out to me that a particular sig was giving
some people offense and asked me to change it, I would
indeed change the sig _and_ apologize on list to any
members who had taken offense. It is clear, surely, from
Henrik's email that he got "quite definite replies" (i.e. he
must have been asked more than once) that in effect Koppa
could not care a fig for our NCNC etiquette, as shown by his
recent "Stop SOPA" email.
One of the heartening things is that, tho individuals
clearly have strong views on the matter, we are not going to
open a whole can of off-topic worms on this list.
> I have complete confidence in Henrik's benevolence,
So have I.
> 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.
Personally I think this is overstating the case. Surely _it
still is_ something we expect to be (and usually is)
regulated by an individual her-/him-self; if it is not, then
for sure one or two people will politely point it out and,
more often than not, the individual puts it right. It is
surely only when a situation has persisted that the
administrator steps in and tries to get the problem sorted out.
To the best of my knowledge Henrik has only twice set
someone to NOPOST and, I'm darn sure, it was only as a last
resort after efforts were made off-line to do things
differently.
> I sense, though, that this evolution is in accordance
> with the wishes of most listmembers.
No, I would not wish the Benevolent Dictator to be the
person who regulated an individual's behavior.
Self-regulation is the best; when that doesn't work, there
is peer regulation and IMO the Benevolent Dictator should
be, and is, the last resort. I firmly believe Henrik does
not set anybody to NOPOST lightly and only does so after all
other efforts have failed.
Let's move on (hoping no one is offended by my sig :)
--
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 (16)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Meta: Signatures...
Posted by: "Paul Schleitwiler, FCM" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:37 am ((PST))
If the content of one's signature is now to be censored like SOPA/PIPA,
then this is probably my last post to this group as well as I will continue
to sign them
God bless you all always, all ways,
Paul
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
Posted by: "Carsten Becker" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:25 am ((PST))
Hi David!
Well, I'm not Mark's secretary, I've just posted the message here for the
reason mentioned in it, i.e. pointing people to the thread discussing the
ZBB outage on the CBB on request. You'll have to contact Mark yourself if
you want to make an offer to him. However, given the objections against the
LCS by various ZBB members, I personally don't think it would be a solution
welcomed by everyone, even though you made that offer with good intentions,
I'm sure, seeing as the LCS has the capacities available.
Carsten
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:56:29 -0800, David Peterson <[email protected]> wrote:
>As a significant community portal, the LCS can (and has been able to at any
time) offer Mark zbb.conlang.org for the ZBB forum.
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:38 am ((PST))
On 19 January 2012 15:25, Carsten Becker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi David!
>
> Well, I'm not Mark's secretary, I've just posted the message here for the
> reason mentioned in it, i.e. pointing people to the thread discussing the
> ZBB outage on the CBB on request. You'll have to contact Mark yourself if
> you want to make an offer to him. However, given the objections against the
> LCS by various ZBB members, I personally don't think it would be a solution
> welcomed by everyone, even though you made that offer with good intentions,
> I'm sure, seeing as the LCS has the capacities available.
>
>
OK, I don't want to open another can of worms, but since I've never
participated in the ZBB I have no idea what this is about: "objections
against the LCS"? Feel free to explain to me off-list, as this is way
off-topic. I just don't understand and would like to know what it's about.
Thanks in advance.
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:12 am ((PST))
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
<[email protected]> wrote:
> OK, I don't want to open another can of worms, but since I've never
> participated in the ZBB I have no idea what this is about: "objections
> against the LCS"? Feel free to explain to me off-list, as this is way
> off-topic. I just don't understand and would like to know what it's about.
I don't know about worms, but my short stay at ZBB left a bad taste in
my mouth. I found it to be a hostile and unwelcoming environment.
Let's just say that there seem to be a few ZBB members who have
declared themselves to be the "gatekeepers of the sanctum sanctorum"
regarding what is and is not good and proper conlanging, and if your
style of conlanging doesn't fit their mold those few will be quick to
trumpet their own moral and intellectual superiority, and to point out
just how pathetic you are in their eyes. It seems to be one of those
"bad apples" spoiling the barrel situations.
--gary
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
Posted by: "Lee" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:13 am ((PST))
What Christophe said.
Thanks,
Lee
________________________________
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
Sent: 1/19/2012 8:38 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
On 19 January 2012 15:25, Carsten Becker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi David!
>
> Well, I'm not Mark's secretary, I've just posted the message here for the
> reason mentioned in it, i.e. pointing people to the thread discussing the
> ZBB outage on the CBB on request. You'll have to contact Mark yourself if
> you want to make an offer to him. However, given the objections against the
> LCS by various ZBB members, I personally don't think it would be a solution
> welcomed by everyone, even though you made that offer with good intentions,
> I'm sure, seeing as the LCS has the capacities available.
>
>
OK, I don't want to open another can of worms, but since I've never
participated in the ZBB I have no idea what this is about: "objections
against the LCS"? Feel free to explain to me off-list, as this is way
off-topic. I just don't understand and would like to know what it's about.
Thanks in advance.
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:36 am ((PST))
Yeah. Me too. Adam
On 1/19/12, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
> What Christophe said.
>
> Thanks,
> Lee
> ________________________________
> From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
> Sent: 1/19/2012 8:38 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
>
> On 19 January 2012 15:25, Carsten Becker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi David!
>>
>> Well, I'm not Mark's secretary, I've just posted the message here for the
>> reason mentioned in it, i.e. pointing people to the thread discussing the
>> ZBB outage on the CBB on request. You'll have to contact Mark yourself if
>> you want to make an offer to him. However, given the objections against
>> the
>> LCS by various ZBB members, I personally don't think it would be a
>> solution
>> welcomed by everyone, even though you made that offer with good
>> intentions,
>> I'm sure, seeing as the LCS has the capacities available.
>>
>>
> OK, I don't want to open another can of worms, but since I've never
> participated in the ZBB I have no idea what this is about: "objections
> against the LCS"? Feel free to explain to me off-list, as this is way
> off-topic. I just don't understand and would like to know what it's about.
>
> Thanks in advance.
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:47 am ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:12:14 -0800 Gary Shannon wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > OK, I don't want to open another can of worms, but since I've never
> > participated in the ZBB I have no idea what this is about: "objections
> > against the LCS"? Feel free to explain to me off-list, as this is way
> > off-topic. I just don't understand and would like to know what it's about.
>
> I don't know about worms, but my short stay at ZBB left a bad taste in
> my mouth. I found it to be a hostile and unwelcoming environment.
> Let's just say that there seem to be a few ZBB members who have
> declared themselves to be the "gatekeepers of the sanctum sanctorum"
> regarding what is and is not good and proper conlanging, and if your
> style of conlanging doesn't fit their mold those few will be quick to
> trumpet their own moral and intellectual superiority, and to point out
> just how pathetic you are in their eyes. It seems to be one of those
> "bad apples" spoiling the barrel situations.
I have been a member of the ZBB for several years, but I can to
some degree confirm what you say. There were many misbehaving
people around there, though it was not all rubbish (otherwise, I
would have left far earlier). But I could clearly make out a
decline in discussion quality over the years. Several of the
better and nicer members withdrew, another one who had some
pretty decent conlangs suddenly took down his web site, changed
his nickname and turned into a silly twat; many people baited
a particular member who frequently posted about his psychological
problems and how these interfered with his conworlding, which was
not funny at all; there was no such thing as a NCNC rule, and many
people discussed politics (mostly of a sordid kind); and many more
such problems. Also, most people's projects were not particularly
interesting; they were like what I did twenty or thirty years ago.
However, some members *did* appreciate my own work (but others
considered it overblown). I felt like a progressive rock musician
among garage punk aficionados.
All this created a gradually growing desire to leave that forum,
but I hung on until the malware alerts started, which caused me
to stop visiting the ZBB and also to remove the link from my web
page. (As a Linux user, I probably wasn't in serious danger,
but you cannot be sure, and at least something could wreak havoc
with the configuration of the browser; I also did not wish to
be held responsible for damage contracted from a site my page
linked to.)
So now the ZBB is gone. So it is over. I don't really miss it.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Êm, a Êm atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Êmel." - SiM 1:1
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2g. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:38 am ((PST))
The malware alert seems to be residue from an earlier attack, rather than
an actually something harmful still on the site. The forum will probably
be reincarnated.
In any case, when I returned to the conlanging community and started
Conlangery, I immediately went back to the ZBB. Much of my activity on
that forum consisted of updating and responding to the Conlangery thread.
I will say that there are a few people on the board who are openly hostile
to Sai and the LCS, though I feel it's mostly out of some hipsterish notion
that conlanging should remain obscure, and any attempt to legitimize it is
a bad thing. Obviously, this bothers me, since my work with the podcast
could easily be seen as a legitimizing force -- bringing conlanging-related
content to a medium where it had a very weak presence.
In any case, there are some valuable things to be had at the ZBB. Mostly I
think its reputation could be linked to the fact that it has many members
who were banned from the CBB, leading to a bit of a concentration of trolls.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hallo conlangers!
>
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:12:14 -0800 Gary Shannon wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > OK, I don't want to open another can of worms, but since I've never
> > > participated in the ZBB I have no idea what this is about: "objections
> > > against the LCS"? Feel free to explain to me off-list, as this is way
> > > off-topic. I just don't understand and would like to know what it's
> about.
> >
> > I don't know about worms, but my short stay at ZBB left a bad taste in
> > my mouth. I found it to be a hostile and unwelcoming environment.
> > Let's just say that there seem to be a few ZBB members who have
> > declared themselves to be the "gatekeepers of the sanctum sanctorum"
> > regarding what is and is not good and proper conlanging, and if your
> > style of conlanging doesn't fit their mold those few will be quick to
> > trumpet their own moral and intellectual superiority, and to point out
> > just how pathetic you are in their eyes. It seems to be one of those
> > "bad apples" spoiling the barrel situations.
>
> I have been a member of the ZBB for several years, but I can to
> some degree confirm what you say. There were many misbehaving
> people around there, though it was not all rubbish (otherwise, I
> would have left far earlier). But I could clearly make out a
> decline in discussion quality over the years. Several of the
> better and nicer members withdrew, another one who had some
> pretty decent conlangs suddenly took down his web site, changed
> his nickname and turned into a silly twat; many people baited
> a particular member who frequently posted about his psychological
> problems and how these interfered with his conworlding, which was
> not funny at all; there was no such thing as a NCNC rule, and many
> people discussed politics (mostly of a sordid kind); and many more
> such problems. Also, most people's projects were not particularly
> interesting; they were like what I did twenty or thirty years ago.
> However, some members *did* appreciate my own work (but others
> considered it overblown). I felt like a progressive rock musician
> among garage punk aficionados.
>
> All this created a gradually growing desire to leave that forum,
> but I hung on until the malware alerts started, which caused me
> to stop visiting the ZBB and also to remove the link from my web
> page. (As a Linux user, I probably wasn't in serious danger,
> but you cannot be sure, and at least something could wreak havoc
> with the configuration of the browser; I also did not wish to
> be held responsible for damage contracted from a site my page
> linked to.)
>
> So now the ZBB is gone. So it is over. I don't really miss it.
>
> --
> ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
> http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
> "BÄsel asa Äm, a Äm atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Ämel." - SiM 1:1
>
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2h. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
Posted by: "Brian" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:16 am ((PST))
I was a member of the ZBB some years ago but I didn't stick around too long. It
seemed like all they talked about were different con-phonologies and anytime I
posted a question it always went unanswered. I not once got a response from
that forum so I left. That's why I like it here. I may not be able to
contribute too much to conversations (not having as much linguistic knowledge
as some [most] others on here) but at least a lot of my posts (what little
there are) are respoded to.
On Conlangs: Does anyone have a conculture that uses computer-type technology
with an internet of sorts? If so, does it differentiate from this world's
internet in its manner of operation?
-----Original Message-----
From: George Corley <[email protected]>
Sender: Constructed Languages List <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:38:31
To: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
The malware alert seems to be residue from an earlier attack, rather than
an actually something harmful still on the site. The forum will probably
be reincarnated.
In any case, when I returned to the conlanging community and started
Conlangery, I immediately went back to the ZBB. Much of my activity on
that forum consisted of updating and responding to the Conlangery thread.
I will say that there are a few people on the board who are openly hostile
to Sai and the LCS, though I feel it's mostly out of some hipsterish notion
that conlanging should remain obscure, and any attempt to legitimize it is
a bad thing. Obviously, this bothers me, since my work with the podcast
could easily be seen as a legitimizing force -- bringing conlanging-related
content to a medium where it had a very weak presence.
In any case, there are some valuable things to be had at the ZBB. Mostly I
think its reputation could be linked to the fact that it has many members
who were banned from the CBB, leading to a bit of a concentration of trolls.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hallo conlangers!
>
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:12:14 -0800 Gary Shannon wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > OK, I don't want to open another can of worms, but since I've never
> > > participated in the ZBB I have no idea what this is about: "objections
> > > against the LCS"? Feel free to explain to me off-list, as this is way
> > > off-topic. I just don't understand and would like to know what it's
> about.
> >
> > I don't know about worms, but my short stay at ZBB left a bad taste in
> > my mouth. I found it to be a hostile and unwelcoming environment.
> > Let's just say that there seem to be a few ZBB members who have
> > declared themselves to be the "gatekeepers of the sanctum sanctorum"
> > regarding what is and is not good and proper conlanging, and if your
> > style of conlanging doesn't fit their mold those few will be quick to
> > trumpet their own moral and intellectual superiority, and to point out
> > just how pathetic you are in their eyes. It seems to be one of those
> > "bad apples" spoiling the barrel situations.
>
> I have been a member of the ZBB for several years, but I can to
> some degree confirm what you say. There were many misbehaving
> people around there, though it was not all rubbish (otherwise, I
> would have left far earlier). But I could clearly make out a
> decline in discussion quality over the years. Several of the
> better and nicer members withdrew, another one who had some
> pretty decent conlangs suddenly took down his web site, changed
> his nickname and turned into a silly twat; many people baited
> a particular member who frequently posted about his psychological
> problems and how these interfered with his conworlding, which was
> not funny at all; there was no such thing as a NCNC rule, and many
> people discussed politics (mostly of a sordid kind); and many more
> such problems. Also, most people's projects were not particularly
> interesting; they were like what I did twenty or thirty years ago.
> However, some members *did* appreciate my own work (but others
> considered it overblown). I felt like a progressive rock musician
> among garage punk aficionados.
>
> All this created a gradually growing desire to leave that forum,
> but I hung on until the malware alerts started, which caused me
> to stop visiting the ZBB and also to remove the link from my web
> page. (As a Linux user, I probably wasn't in serious danger,
> but you cannot be sure, and at least something could wreak havoc
> with the configuration of the browser; I also did not wish to
> be held responsible for damage contracted from a site my page
> linked to.)
>
> So now the ZBB is gone. So it is over. I don't really miss it.
>
> --
> ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
> http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
> "BÄsel asa Äm, a Äm atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Ämel." - SiM 1:1
>
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2i. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
Posted by: "Mike Ellis" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:58 am ((PST))
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:38:31 -0500, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> I will say that there are a few people on the board who are openly hostile
>to Sai and the LCS, though I feel it's mostly out of some hipsterish notion
>that conlanging should remain obscure, and any attempt to legitimize it is
>a bad thing. Obviously, this bothers me, since my work with the podcast
>could easily be seen as a legitimizing force -- bringing conlanging-related
>content to a medium where it had a very weak presence.
If you are going to discuss this particular issue, do not misrepresent it.
The issue has NEVER been "We want conlanging to remain obscure."
The real issue was a personal conflict between Sai himself and some people
on the board whom he was hostile to. I don't want to recount the whole
episode here, but I will give you a summary in private email if you like.
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2j. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:04 pm ((PST))
I dimly remember some flame wars on some of Sai's posts. I'm not sure if I
ever really understood it, though. Perhaps a quick reminder privately
would be good.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Mike Ellis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:38:31 -0500, George Corley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> > I will say that there are a few people on the board who are openly
> hostile
> >to Sai and the LCS, though I feel it's mostly out of some hipsterish
> notion
> >that conlanging should remain obscure, and any attempt to legitimize it is
> >a bad thing. Obviously, this bothers me, since my work with the podcast
> >could easily be seen as a legitimizing force -- bringing
> conlanging-related
> >content to a medium where it had a very weak presence.
>
> If you are going to discuss this particular issue, do not misrepresent it.
> The issue has NEVER been "We want conlanging to remain obscure."
> The real issue was a personal conflict between Sai himself and some people
> on the board whom he was hostile to. I don't want to recount the whole
> episode here, but I will give you a summary in private email if you like.
>
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2k. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
Posted by: "Sai" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:41 pm ((PST))
For the record, I prefer things be discussed openly. I have a very
strong dislike for gossip. So please, don't talk about me behind my
back; it's rude.
The summary is simple: a handful of people on ZBB thought that my
actions in creating and promoting the LCS and LCC were
a) intended to legitimize something that ought to be just a private
hobby that nobody knows about or takes seriously
b) intended to take personal control of the community or its members'
conlanging habits or make personal profit from it
It's true that my intent was and is, in part, to legitimize the craft.
I make no apology for this, as I feel it's the right thing to do. I
have however always maintained that this is to *widen* the spectrum â
of course, most people will still be doing it privately, not with
particular public criticism, not professionally, etc. I see no problem
with that and I expect it to continue to be true indefinitely.
My aim was to provide more platforms â conference, journal, podcast,
etc â so that people can have more formal or long-form discussions
*also* â and to make knowledge of the community more widely known (cf
my 26C3 talk), so that if people are interested in learning more they
can connect, and so that when professional work *is* done, it's done
by good conlangers. I think I've been at least somewhat successful in
this aim, and that the LCS will continue to promote it.
I completely reject (b). It's just plain nonsense, and doesn't reflect
how I ran the LCS or what the LCS did or does. I always sought input
from the community, encouraged the board to speak up, etc. I would
note that even the whole advisory committee idea (which wasn't mine,
though I agreed with it) was responded to with hostility by the same
ZBB sub-cohort. I made not a single cent from the LCS despite having
put a very large amount of my time and effort into it, and I made sure
that we avoided conflicts of interest, legal problems, etc. This is
true even for commercial contract we had with HBO â it made money for
David and a little for the LCS, but nothing for me, though I'm the one
who organized it.
So yes, I feel aggrieved to have my altruistic efforts to provide a
service to the community thrown in my face. You would too.
The LCS is currently being run principally by David and Sylvia; I am
Board chairman, but I'm no longer part of the executive committee that
does all the day-to-day work. The transition was made with my open
encouragement and support; David was a great partner when I was LCS
president, and is a great person to lead it now. I'm happy with a
purely advisory role that comes up a couple times a year, same as most
of the other directors.
A handful of ZBB users consistently harassed me both on ZBB and IRC.
Feijuada for instance went out of his way to attack me personally just
a couple weeks ago, presumably just because he enjoys trollish lulz;
and his cohort will no doubt quote this on #isharia / #erelae /
whatever they use now and flame me for it again. In any case, because
of their behavior, I have not touched the ZBB in a couple years now; I
don't attend parties where the guests are allowed to be that
consistently rude to anyone.
However, I (try to) bear no ill will to the ZBB *globally* â this
being clearly the actions of a few people who have a personal hate on
for me. I have supported it behind the scenes and will continue to do
so. I can recognize it as a valuable community asset that should
continue to exist, even if I myself don't want to touch it.
- Sai
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2l. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
Posted by: "Mike Ellis" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:52 pm ((PST))
You can reject b) all you like, but the fact is that if you ASK anyone who
has an issue with the LCS -- rather than conjecture in their absence about
what character faults might lead them to dislike the organisation -- you
will rarely get an answer that does not mention "Sai" specifically.
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2m. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
Posted by: "Sam Stutter" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:56 pm ((PST))
Hang on guys, isn't this all going a bit self-destructive? Shouldn't we be
leaving fools to their folly?
Sam Stutter
[email protected]
"No e na il cu barri"
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2n. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
Posted by: "Mike Ellis" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:57 pm ((PST))
First one to post a reply in agreement that sounds like I'm exempting myself
from "fools" woooooo
I could post the text of what I sent to George. Depends. Would that be seen
as fanning the flames, or dousing them?
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2o. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:00 pm ((PST))
Sai, I am not fond of gossip either, but there are some cases when
information is better shared discreetly. Since you insist on knowing, the
information I have is that some of those ZBB members who were turned
against the LCS were turned against it because of your personality --
particularly an apparent egotism. In fact, certain aspects of this
personality are reflected in the post you have just made. I can see
through that personality (which, I will admit, sometimes rubs me the wrong
way) and see that your intentions are not bad, though I am glad to see DJP
as president. I'm not really against you, Sai, but your personality does
not lend itself to being the public face of an organization. DJP's does.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Sai <[email protected]> wrote:
> For the record, I prefer things be discussed openly. I have a very
> strong dislike for gossip. So please, don't talk about me behind my
> back; it's rude.
>
> The summary is simple: a handful of people on ZBB thought that my
> actions in creating and promoting the LCS and LCC were
> a) intended to legitimize something that ought to be just a private
> hobby that nobody knows about or takes seriously
> b) intended to take personal control of the community or its members'
> conlanging habits or make personal profit from it
>
> It's true that my intent was and is, in part, to legitimize the craft.
> I make no apology for this, as I feel it's the right thing to do. I
> have however always maintained that this is to *widen* the spectrum
> of course, most people will still be doing it privately, not with
> particular public criticism, not professionally, etc. I see no problem
> with that and I expect it to continue to be true indefinitely.
>
> My aim was to provide more platforms conference, journal, podcast,
> etc so that people can have more formal or long-form discussions
> *also* and to make knowledge of the community more widely known (cf
> my 26C3 talk), so that if people are interested in learning more they
> can connect, and so that when professional work *is* done, it's done
> by good conlangers. I think I've been at least somewhat successful in
> this aim, and that the LCS will continue to promote it.
>
> I completely reject (b). It's just plain nonsense, and doesn't reflect
> how I ran the LCS or what the LCS did or does. I always sought input
> from the community, encouraged the board to speak up, etc. I would
> note that even the whole advisory committee idea (which wasn't mine,
> though I agreed with it) was responded to with hostility by the same
> ZBB sub-cohort. I made not a single cent from the LCS despite having
> put a very large amount of my time and effort into it, and I made sure
> that we avoided conflicts of interest, legal problems, etc. This is
> true even for commercial contract we had with HBO it made money for
> David and a little for the LCS, but nothing for me, though I'm the one
> who organized it.
>
> So yes, I feel aggrieved to have my altruistic efforts to provide a
> service to the community thrown in my face. You would too.
>
> The LCS is currently being run principally by David and Sylvia; I am
> Board chairman, but I'm no longer part of the executive committee that
> does all the day-to-day work. The transition was made with my open
> encouragement and support; David was a great partner when I was LCS
> president, and is a great person to lead it now. I'm happy with a
> purely advisory role that comes up a couple times a year, same as most
> of the other directors.
>
> A handful of ZBB users consistently harassed me both on ZBB and IRC.
> Feijuada for instance went out of his way to attack me personally just
> a couple weeks ago, presumably just because he enjoys trollish lulz;
> and his cohort will no doubt quote this on #isharia / #erelae /
> whatever they use now and flame me for it again. In any case, because
> of their behavior, I have not touched the ZBB in a couple years now; I
> don't attend parties where the guests are allowed to be that
> consistently rude to anyone.
>
> However, I (try to) bear no ill will to the ZBB *globally* this
> being clearly the actions of a few people who have a personal hate on
> for me. I have supported it behind the scenes and will continue to do
> so. I can recognize it as a valuable community asset that should
> continue to exist, even if I myself don't want to touch it.
>
> - Sai
>
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2p. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:01 pm ((PST))
@Mike: I feel my summary is sufficient. Let's not go overboard.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:00 PM, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sai, I am not fond of gossip either, but there are some cases when
> information is better shared discreetly. Since you insist on knowing, the
> information I have is that some of those ZBB members who were turned
> against the LCS were turned against it because of your personality --
> particularly an apparent egotism. In fact, certain aspects of this
> personality are reflected in the post you have just made. I can see
> through that personality (which, I will admit, sometimes rubs me the wrong
> way) and see that your intentions are not bad, though I am glad to see DJP
> as president. I'm not really against you, Sai, but your personality does
> not lend itself to being the public face of an organization. DJP's does.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Sai <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> For the record, I prefer things be discussed openly. I have a very
>> strong dislike for gossip. So please, don't talk about me behind my
>> back; it's rude.
>>
>> The summary is simple: a handful of people on ZBB thought that my
>> actions in creating and promoting the LCS and LCC were
>> a) intended to legitimize something that ought to be just a private
>> hobby that nobody knows about or takes seriously
>> b) intended to take personal control of the community or its members'
>> conlanging habits or make personal profit from it
>>
>> It's true that my intent was and is, in part, to legitimize the craft.
>> I make no apology for this, as I feel it's the right thing to do. I
>> have however always maintained that this is to *widen* the spectrum
>> of course, most people will still be doing it privately, not with
>> particular public criticism, not professionally, etc. I see no problem
>> with that and I expect it to continue to be true indefinitely.
>>
>> My aim was to provide more platforms conference, journal, podcast,
>> etc so that people can have more formal or long-form discussions
>> *also* and to make knowledge of the community more widely known (cf
>> my 26C3 talk), so that if people are interested in learning more they
>> can connect, and so that when professional work *is* done, it's done
>> by good conlangers. I think I've been at least somewhat successful in
>> this aim, and that the LCS will continue to promote it.
>>
>> I completely reject (b). It's just plain nonsense, and doesn't reflect
>> how I ran the LCS or what the LCS did or does. I always sought input
>> from the community, encouraged the board to speak up, etc. I would
>> note that even the whole advisory committee idea (which wasn't mine,
>> though I agreed with it) was responded to with hostility by the same
>> ZBB sub-cohort. I made not a single cent from the LCS despite having
>> put a very large amount of my time and effort into it, and I made sure
>> that we avoided conflicts of interest, legal problems, etc. This is
>> true even for commercial contract we had with HBO it made money for
>> David and a little for the LCS, but nothing for me, though I'm the one
>> who organized it.
>>
>> So yes, I feel aggrieved to have my altruistic efforts to provide a
>> service to the community thrown in my face. You would too.
>>
>> The LCS is currently being run principally by David and Sylvia; I am
>> Board chairman, but I'm no longer part of the executive committee that
>> does all the day-to-day work. The transition was made with my open
>> encouragement and support; David was a great partner when I was LCS
>> president, and is a great person to lead it now. I'm happy with a
>> purely advisory role that comes up a couple times a year, same as most
>> of the other directors.
>>
>> A handful of ZBB users consistently harassed me both on ZBB and IRC.
>> Feijuada for instance went out of his way to attack me personally just
>> a couple weeks ago, presumably just because he enjoys trollish lulz;
>> and his cohort will no doubt quote this on #isharia / #erelae /
>> whatever they use now and flame me for it again. In any case, because
>> of their behavior, I have not touched the ZBB in a couple years now; I
>> don't attend parties where the guests are allowed to be that
>> consistently rude to anyone.
>>
>> However, I (try to) bear no ill will to the ZBB *globally* this
>> being clearly the actions of a few people who have a personal hate on
>> for me. I have supported it behind the scenes and will continue to do
>> so. I can recognize it as a valuable community asset that should
>> continue to exist, even if I myself don't want to touch it.
>>
>> - Sai
>>
>
>
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2q. Re: OT: ZBB offline for now
Posted by: "Tony Harris" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:09 pm ((PST))
Personally I'm not sure this conversation needs much more in the way of
fuel.
I think the ZBB has been an excellent resource to the conlanging
community. But at the same time, it has always been a hobby site at
best for Zompist, and a favor done by both Zompist and Spinn. And,
there are now a number of other communities out there, including at
least two Facebook groups that seem very active, plus the CBB, plus of
course this list as the original conlanger online gathering spot (at
least I believe it was the first). So it's not like there's nowhere
else for conlangers to keep in touch, if they don't bring the ZBB up
soon, or ever.
If Mark wishes to have the ZBB hosted at the LCS, I'm sure he's quite
capable of indicating that, and I'm sure David and Sylvia are quite able
to provide a friendly and welcoming hand to another important conlanger
and conlanging community. Or perhaps Mark is also feeling a bit
aggreved right now given that some in the community there, rather than
trying to be supportive of their host, are attacking him because he's
not supplying their free site fast enough.
But either way, I think the community on this list would do well to
avoid becoming embroiled in someone else's conflict.
On 01/19/2012 03:57 PM, Mike Ellis wrote:
> First one to post a reply in agreement that sounds like I'm exempting myself
> from "fools" woooooo
>
> I could post the text of what I sent to George. Depends. Would that be seen
> as fanning the flames, or dousing them?
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Meta: Signatures... (sort of meta-meta)
Posted by: "Daniel Myers" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:21 am ((PST))
Howdy,
Can someone point me to a source of for the phrase "no cross no crown"
as it is used on this list? Did it originate here?
I did some quick searching and all the other uses I've found have very
different meanings, most of which appear to stem from a theological
concept.
[Note: I'm not trying to be a sphincter on this. I'm just curious from
a linguistic/sociological viewpoint.]
- Doc
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: Henrik Theiling <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, January 18, 2012 4:48 pm
>
> Hello Conlang-L!
[... snip ...]
> because it violates 'no cross no crown',
[... snip ...]
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Meta: Signatures... (sort of meta-meta)
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:35 am ((PST))
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:20:26 -0700, Daniel Myers
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Howdy,
>
>Can someone point me to a source of for the phrase "no cross no crown"
>as it is used on this list? Did it originate here?
Quite possibly!
The fact of its different use here also is mentioned in the list FAQ on Frath
http://www.frathwiki.com/Conlang-L_FAQ#Acronyms
but not informatively, as etymology goes.
>I did some quick searching and all the other uses I've found have very
>different meanings, most of which appear to stem from a theological
>concept.
John Cowan had come to the same conclusion.
http://recycledknowledge.blogspot.com/2006/05/no-cross-no-crown.html
Anyway, after a little research in the list archives at Brown, I would guess
it's Sally Caves we owe our sense of the phrase to. If you wanted to track
it down further she'd be the one to ask. The first use my search returned
is from her with the uncommon sense, but not in the meta context of list
conduct:
On Sun, 23 May 1999 22:20:23 -0700, Sally Caves <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
>I realize that all
>our seemingly abstract words derive originally from concretions, but
>why not try to reinvoke some of the economy of the old-fashioned phrase
>"No cross, no crown," a sign hung in taverns requesting patrons to
>refrain from getting into arguments about religion or politics.
The second (though it comes up third!) is also her, four years later, by
which time it's "our old adage":
On Thu, 22 May 2003 15:01:10 -0400, Sally Caves <[email protected]> wrote:
>Okay, then let's stop this thread, Adam. What was our old adage? "No cross
>no crown"?
>
>My father's beliefs are his, whether he's Christian or not. I'm sure there
>are non-Christians who hold these beliefs for one reason or another. But
>they are taught in his church group. I tend to disagree with some of them.
>Let's ditch the subject, though.
(The acronym NCNC doesn't appear here till 2007.)
Alex
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Meta: Signatures... (sort of meta-meta)
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:25 am ((PST))
On 19/01/2012 16:34, Alex Fink wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:20:26 -0700, Daniel Myers
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> Can someone point me to a source of for the phrase "no
>> cross no crown" as it is used on this list? Did it
>> originate here?
>
> Quite possibly!
No.
> The fact of its different use here also is mentioned in
> the list FAQ on Frath
> http://www.frathwiki.com/Conlang-L_FAQ#Acronyms but not
> informatively, as etymology goes.
[snip]
It was certainly used by the Quaker William Penn to mean 'If
you want to win the crown of glory, you must be prepared to
take up the cross first", i.e. no gain without pain. It has
been used this way by other preachers, and its use may in
fact pre-date Penn.
> Anyway, after a little research in the list archives at
> Brown, I would guess it's Sally Caves we owe our sense of
> the phrase to. If you wanted to track it down further
> she'd be the one to ask.
Yep, IIRC it was Sally who first used "No cross, no crown"
on this list to mean "no religion & no politics", having
seen it thus used on a notice in a pub (where arguments can
really get out of hand :)
--
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 (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: Meta: Signatures... (sort of meta-meta)
Posted by: "Daniel Myers" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:25 am ((PST))
Awesome, thanks!
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: Alex Fink <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, January 19, 2012 11:34 am
>
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:20:26 -0700, Daniel Myers
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Howdy,
> >
> >Can someone point me to a source of for the phrase "no cross no crown"
> >as it is used on this list? Did it originate here?
>
> Quite possibly!
>
> The fact of its different use here also is mentioned in the list FAQ on Frath
> http://www.frathwiki.com/Conlang-L_FAQ#Acronyms
> but not informatively, as etymology goes.
>
> >I did some quick searching and all the other uses I've found have very
> >different meanings, most of which appear to stem from a theological
> >concept.
>
> John Cowan had come to the same conclusion.
> http://recycledknowledge.blogspot.com/2006/05/no-cross-no-crown.html
>
> Anyway, after a little research in the list archives at Brown, I would guess
> it's Sally Caves we owe our sense of the phrase to. If you wanted to track
> it down further she'd be the one to ask. The first use my search returned
> is from her with the uncommon sense, but not in the meta context of list
> conduct:
>
> On Sun, 23 May 1999 22:20:23 -0700, Sally Caves <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> [...]
> >I realize that all
> >our seemingly abstract words derive originally from concretions, but
> >why not try to reinvoke some of the economy of the old-fashioned phrase
> >"No cross, no crown," a sign hung in taverns requesting patrons to
> >refrain from getting into arguments about religion or politics.
>
> The second (though it comes up third!) is also her, four years later, by
> which time it's "our old adage":
>
> On Thu, 22 May 2003 15:01:10 -0400, Sally Caves <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Okay, then let's stop this thread, Adam. What was our old adage? "No cross
> >no crown"?
> >
> >My father's beliefs are his, whether he's Christian or not. I'm sure there
> >are non-Christians who hold these beliefs for one reason or another. But
> >they are taught in his church group. I tend to disagree with some of them.
> >Let's ditch the subject, though.
>
> (The acronym NCNC doesn't appear here till 2007.)
>
> Alex
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: Meta: Signatures... (sort of meta-meta)
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:01 am ((PST))
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:24:40 +0000, R A Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 19/01/2012 16:34, Alex Fink wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:20:26 -0700, Daniel Myers
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Howdy,
>>>
>>> Can someone point me to a source of for the phrase "no
>>> cross no crown" as it is used on this list? Did it
>>> originate here?
>>
>> Quite possibly!
>
>No.
Sorry, that "no" was meant to take account of "as it is used on this list".
Certainly the string of four words isn't original to us.
Alex
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Verbs for Aspects
Posted by: "Roman Rausch" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:02 pm ((PST))
>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:
Spatial metaphors are always a safe bet. In Kymna, I use 'to be up' for
imperfective, 'to be headed' for perfective not yet reaching the goal, and
'to be down' for perfective having achieved the goal:
http://sindanoorie.net/glp/Kymna013.html#toc11
As described in the text, it is based on a image schema of carrying
something, shooting an arrow, throwing a spear, getting your butt up do some
work, etc.
>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.
But Russian still has patterns in deriving aspectual pairs, which also
allows for loaned verbs to gain aspect (even if it's not entirely
predictable). A purely lexical distinction like 'saw' and 'was looking'
couldn't be carried over to loans.
>Russian is the only language in my ken that reliably always has both aspects
There are actually some verbs which are aspectless (or is it
'biaspectual'?). For example, _zhenit's'ya_ 'marry' (from the perspective of
a man) is both pf. & ipf. Oddly enough, _vykhodit' zamuzh_ 'marry' (from the
perspective of a woman) does have an ipf. pair, since it literally seems to
mean 'go behind a husband'.
>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.
You often hear that the Russian/Slavic verbs come in pairs, but this is not
quite true. The common template is actually tripartite:
1. ipf. eat - action 'as such'
2. pf. eat up - action with an endpoint/telos/achievement
3. secondary ipf. be eating up - action that hasn't reached this endpoint yet
The 'additional meaning' comes from the fact that the telic action can be
organized differently, e.g. from 'read' you get 'read through', 'finish
reading', 'read for a while' and so on. It's only 2. and 3. which form the
ideal aspectual pairs.
>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).
Is it really transitivity or rather (the somewhat hidden property of) the
instantaneousness of an action, in other words - change of state? Such verbs
tend to be intransitive, but with _shiru_ 'get to know' there may be an
example of a transitive one: _shitte iru_ is not **'I'm getting to know',
but 'I got to know, I know'.
Change of state verbs also behave differently in Russian in that they rarely
have the form 3 above. For example, you either 'got sad' or 'were sad', but
you cannot say that you 'were getting sad' without some auxiliary construction.
What exactly qualifies as a change of state often seems to be purely
conventional, I guess. Japanese _kuru_ 'to come' is a change of state, which
I take as being seen from the perspective of the person who's receiving a
guest - if you see the guest, then he's come, there is no 'he's coming'. If
you're the guest yourself, you are 'going' rather than 'coming'.
Messages in this topic (18)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
