There are 7 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Terminology for Non-native Natives
From: Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ
1b. Re: Terminology for Non-native Natives
From: Logan Kearsley
2a. Re: language vs. economics
From: George Corley
2b. Re: language vs. economics
From: BPJ
3a. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
From: Patrick Dunn
3b. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
From: Daniel Bowman
4. Translating Franz Kafka, "An Imperial Message" into Ayeri
From: Carsten Becker
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Terminology for Non-native Natives
Posted by: "Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ" [email protected]
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 11:39 am ((PDT))
Aren't you and your fiancee the glossarchs of Mev Pailom?
On 06.04.2012 20:21, Logan Kearsley wrote:
> On 5 April 2012 02:28, BPJ<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2012-04-05 02:59, Daniel Bowman wrote:
>>> How about "urspeaker". Also brings a nice Babel-textish sound to it.
>> What, then, about "original speaker" rather than a macaronic
>> coinage?
> I had to look that up! (macaronic) Congratulations, that doesn't
> happen very often& I like learning new words.
>
>> Two things to note:
>>
>> 1. You (Logan) might reverse the meaning of
>> "native speaker": you and your fiancée weren't
>> native with the language, but the language is
>> native with you two in the sense that you are
>> the language's parents!
> Eh... that's a stretch. My aim with the documentation is to produce
> something in an academic, _Describing Morphosyntax_ style, so I'd like
> to avoid using standard terminology in non-standard ways. Hence asking
> about terminology in the first place.
>
>> 2. You *can* be a native speaker of more than one language.
> True, but were my fiancee a native multilingual, our total list of
> native languages would still not include one that only began to come
> into existence 5 months ago!
>
> On 5 April 2012 03:55, Jim Henry<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 4/4/12, Logan Kearsley<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> to refer to a person whose speech is considered canonical for the
>>> language. I've started using "canonical speaker" as a placeholder
>>> term, but I wonder if there is some other existing terminology for
>>> this sort of thing.
>> For some conlangs with a speaker community, I refer to "fluent speaker
>> intiution" rather than "native speaker intuition", even if the speaker
>> community in question does have some native speakers, like that of
>> Esperanto -- their judgement isn't necessarily weightier than that of
>> other fluent speakers. I'm guessing Mev Pailom is too new for you and
>> your fiancée to be fluent in it yet, though.
> Yup. I sadly cannot learn a new language in only 5 months of sporadic
> usage, especially when it's still under construction during the
> learning process.
>
>> "canonical speaker" and
>> "original speaker" both sound good to me.
> "Original speaker" captures a different sense for me. I'm looking for
> something that is a superset of "native speaker", including "fluent
> speakers" in the Esperanto-community sense- a word for the set of all
> people whose performance is exemplary of definitional of correctness.
>
> Here's a collection of things suggested so far, and what they seem to mean:
>
> Native speaker - we all know that one
> Canonical speaker - my coinage for someone whose usage defines correctness
> Primorator == Original speaker == Founding speaker - one of the first
> people to learn / use a language (possibly not the same as the
> creator)
> Language pioneer - same, as far as I can tell from the discussion. One
> of the first to use a new language
> Glossarch - a single person or entity who is authoritative for a
> language. Probably the creator, but not necessarily, if the language
> if the language is inherited or something.
>
> With that breakdown, we could say the canonical speakers of English
> are the native speakers, the canonical speakers of Esperanto are the
> fluent speakers, and the canonical speakers of Mev Pailom are also the
> founding speakers. Meanwhile, the glossarch of gjâ-zym-byn is Jim
> Henry, who is also a founding speaker and a canonical speaker, the
> glossarch of French is the French Academy, made up of native speakers,
> Mev Pailom has no glossarch.
>
> -l.
--
Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ МаьіПаніљ
Δебјані ҩнІљте Ьлеј
http://illte.conlang.org/ http://delang.conlang.org/
___
«Панемі ƒłе δеьлеј ҩнδеьомеłс» - анƕомі
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Terminology for Non-native Natives
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 11:54 am ((PDT))
On 6 April 2012 12:39, Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ МаьіПаніљ <[email protected]> wrote:
> Aren't you and your fiancee the glossarchs of Mev Pailom?
Given the philosophy behind its creation, the label doesn't quite seem
to fit. Yes, we do exercise control over it, but ideally new bits of
the language are created naturalistically via conversational
negotiation, on-the-spot neologism, etc. Actually calling myself
"glossarch" in this situation would put too much emphasis on the fact
that we can in fact sit down and go through the dictionary & grammar
and say let's keep this, let's deprecate that, I think we 're missing
this grammar structure, etc., at the expense of emphasizing the fact
that we prefer not to have to do that as much as possible, and rather
simply record what happens in field-study style after the fact. To
paraphrase Thomas Paine's interview for the LCC podcast, Mev Pailom is
what happens when Logan & Erin interact, not an artifact that is
created and taught. Or at least, that's the hope under experiment.
-l.
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: language vs. economics
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 11:53 am ((PDT))
>
> >Now wait a minute. I'm also skeptical of this study, and I'd like to see
> >more work done, but if we rejected every hypothesis that required us to
> >control for other variables (the whole "all else being equal" bit), then a
> >whole lot of sociological and economic research simply could not be done.
>
> Mhm, maybe they shouldn't have been done then...
>
Really? You think we shouldn't do science unless we can be 100% certain
the data is without errors? Science doesn't work that way. You make
observations as accurately as you can using the tools and methods
available, then someone else looks at it again to make sure. And then
another person. And then another.
This is only the first study to show this effect, and plenty of
professional linguists are going to be looking hard at it and pointing out
any holes. Hopefully, someone will come at it from a different angle and
see if there is some effect that hasn't been controlled for, or if the
coding has issues. But I think that with proper controls (say, for things
like region, level of development, etc) the hypothesis that future-marking
affects savings rates is falsifiable.
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: language vs. economics
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 3:31 pm ((PDT))
I thought linguistic determinism was debunked decades ago.
It's much more likely that cultural biasses are reflected
in language than the other way around, IMHO. After all
language is a cultural artifact, as people on this list
should be well aware of.
/bpj
On 2012-04-05 20:33, Billy JB wrote:
> S.V.B.E.E.V.
>
> Hi, mailing list folk!
>
> I have to concur in saying that this was very interesting and fascinating.
> I was already aware of certain theories concerning the influence of passive
> constructions on blaming in languages, but to see actual (even if early)
> data on how specific demands and features of a language may concretely
> influence our way of thinking, and ergo living is highly exciting.
>
> Thanks for passing onward the video!
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:55 PM, MorphemeAddict<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I found the following video very interesting.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=m9x8l9vXU9w
>>
>> It may be that speakers of languages with a strong future time reference
>> (e.g., English, Italian, Russian) have better lives economically than
>> speakers of languages with weak future time reference (e.g., Chinese,
>> German).
>>
>> A language designed without a mandatory tense marker (in particular, for
>> the future tense), e.g., Lojban, might be better for its speakers than
>> having an obligatory future tense marker, e.g., Esperanto.
>>
>> stevo
>>
>
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 12:38 pm ((PDT))
The advantage in this terminology is that it accommodates the reality that
most of us conlangers are not actually speakers of our language.
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Daniel Bowman <[email protected]>wrote:
> I propose the following nomenclature:
>
> 1. Conlanger: Someone who creates languages.
>
> 2. Glossarch: Someone who oversees the creation of a certain language and
> retaining control of its canon (i.e. Glossarch of Angosey).
>
> 3. Primorator: First speaker (first person to attempt to use a given
> language?)
>
--
Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
order from Finishing Line
Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
and
Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" [email protected]
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 12:48 pm ((PDT))
Is someone who uses the conlang in her/his diary a primorator? For
example, I write in my diary in Angosey. Does this make me the primorator
as well as the glossarch? How much use turns someone from "glossarch only"
to "glossarch and primorator"?
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Translating Franz Kafka, "An Imperial Message" into Ayeri
Posted by: "Carsten Becker" [email protected]
Date: Sat Apr 7, 2012 5:07 am ((PDT))
Hi,
I just wanted to show off this: <http://benung.nfshost.com/archives/1893>.
That is, I'm done with the series I've been posting since mid-February now.
There's also a Youtube video included with a (slightly more elaborate)
recording I made of the text.
Cheers
Carsten
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
