There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Indexed Predicates Sketch
From: Alex Fink
1b. Re: Indexed Predicates Sketch
From: neo gu
1c. Re: Indexed Predicates Sketch
From: neo gu
2. Relay 19 is being planned
From: Alex Fink
3a. Re: New to the Message Board : Long-time Conlang Dicipherer
From: Alex Fink
4a. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
From: Patrick Dunn
4b. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
From: Michael Everson
4c. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
From: Sam Stutter
4d. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
From: Gary Shannon
4e. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
From: Nikolay Ivankov
4f. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
4g. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
From: Logan Kearsley
4h. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
From: Sai
4i. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
From: MorphemeAddict
4j. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
From: Alex Fink
4k. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
From: Sai
4l. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
From: Tony Harris
4m. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
From: Herman Miller
4n. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
From: MorphemeAddict
5a. Re: Anyone there?
From: BPJ
6.1. Re: Destroying the noun/verb distinction
From: Sai
7a. Re: Sutton SignWriting (Was: Written Form of American Sign Language
From: Sai
7b. Re: Sutton SignWriting (Was: Written Form of American Sign Language
From: Padraic Brown
8a. Re: Subordinate clauses in SOV syntax
From: Douglas Koller
8b. Re: Subordinate clauses in SOV syntax
From: George Marques
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Indexed Predicates Sketch
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:41 am ((PDT))
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 01:15:01 -0400, neo gu <[email protected]> wrote:
>This is the new tense system. It involves temporal intervals as well as
>temporal points of reference and supercedes what was previously posted about
>tense.
>
>Predicates inheriting points are imperfective while those inheriting intervals
>are perfective.
How do you get points? It looks like you've only introduced one point, o,
without the ability to synthesize more. (Maybe this means only present
predicates are imperfective; I guess it could be like that.)
>The interval of the action x is asserted as being a subrange of the inherited
>interval:
>
> x0 not less than c0 and x1 not greater than c1
But if a point is inherited, then the interval of the action is asserted as
containing that point?
And I guess you have no punctuals, grammatically.
>In the absence of an explicitly inherited index, restricted predicates and
>secondary predicates inherit both the hosts inherited index and its action
>interval.
I wonder about potential problems with multiple inheritance, if you have a
restrictive predicate with two indices.
> John-i UPj-o-eat-Di stale-j pancake-j.
> "John is eating stale pancakes."
>
>The explicitly inherited index is absolute present, which is included in the
>interval of "eat". The interval of "stale" is a superrange of that of "eat",
>which is inherited implicitly via index j.
Why a superrange? As I read what you've written it sounds like the subrange
rule (above) should apply here. Is the difference between assertives and
restrictives also relevant here?
>The interval of a depictive secondary predicate is a superrange of that of its
>host predicate's.
[...]
>The starting time of a resultative secondary predicate is the ending time of
>the host's action.
It looks like there's no morphosyntactic way to tell depictives from
resultatives, so I guess you mean this to fall to pragmatics.
Hm, I wonder if it'd be natural for this language to have more kinds of
secondary predication, corresponding to the other kinds of temporal operators.
If you can have
"She painted the barn (A-)red" = "she painted the barn such that it _ended up_
being red"
then why mightn't you have
"She painted the barn (B-)red" = "she painted the barn such that it _stopped_
being red"?
Alex
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Indexed Predicates Sketch
Posted by: "neo gu" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:47 am ((PDT))
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:41:02 -0400, Alex Fink <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks, it looks like you found some holes.
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 01:15:01 -0400, neo gu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This is the new tense system. It involves temporal intervals as well as
>> temporal points of reference and supercedes what was previously posted about
>> tense.
>>
>> Predicates inheriting points are imperfective while those inheriting
>> intervals are perfective.
>
> How do you get points? It looks like you've only introduced one point, o,
> without the ability to synthesize more. (Maybe this means only present
> predicates are imperfective; I guess it could be like that.)
I did have a T operator that synthesized points, but I wasn't sure how it
worked, and it looked like I could do without it.
>> The interval of the action x is asserted as being a subrange of the
>> inherited interval:
>>
>> x0 not less than c0 and x1 not greater than c1
>
> But if a point is inherited, then the interval of the action is asserted as
> containing that point?
Yes; that needs to be specified.
> And I guess you have no punctuals, grammatically.
No. Maybe I need to change that??
>> In the absence of an explicitly inherited index, restricted predicates and
>> secondary predicates inherit both the hosts inherited index and its action
>> interval.
>
> I wonder about potential problems with multiple inheritance, if you have a
> restrictive predicate with two indices.
It can't have 2 different restrictive arguments, if that's what you mean.
Unless of course you have an example.
>> John-i UPj-o-eat-Di stale-j pancake-j.
>> "John is eating stale pancakes."
>>
>> The explicitly inherited index is absolute present, which is included in the
>> interval of "eat". The interval of "stale" is a superrange of that of "eat",
>> which is inherited implicitly via index j.
>
> Why a superrange? As I read what you've written it sounds like the subrange
> rule (above) should apply here. Is the difference between assertives and
> restrictives also relevant here?
It _should_ be a superrange, because the pancakes are stale before John starts
eating them. Shouldn't it? I'm going to have to think more carefully about the
restricted predicate inheritance rule.
>> The interval of a depictive secondary predicate is a superrange of that of
>> its host predicate's.
>[...]
>> The starting time of a resultative secondary predicate is the ending time of
>> the host's action.
>
> It looks like there's no morphosyntactic way to tell depictives from
> resultatives, so I guess you mean this to fall to pragmatics.
Maybe I could add an inceptive or inchoative (I forget which is which) to the
resultative; otherwise, I'd need to use additional link types.
>Hm, I wonder if it'd be natural for this language to have more kinds of
>secondary predication, corresponding to the other kinds of temporal operators.
> If you can have
>"She painted the barn (A-)red" = "she painted the barn such that it _ended up_
>being red"
>then why mightn't you have
>"She painted the barn (B-)red" = "she painted the barn such that it _stopped_
>being red"?
>
>Alex
I think that might be interpreting the A and B operators too loosely. But the
2nd example might be done using red-NEG:
Dj-b-paint-Di Ethel-i barn-j red-NEG-Dj.
"Ethel painted the barn unred."
--
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Indexed Predicates Sketch
Posted by: "neo gu" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:39 pm ((PDT))
I completely forgot about conjunctions and compound sentences.
The conjunction particles are AND, IOR ("inclusive or"), and SEL (i.e. select
one; this is "exclusive or" when only 2 sentences are conjoined). They precede
each conjoined clause (the distinct parts, anyway; the rest can be moved),
including the first.
AND John-i b-leave-Di AND Mary-j dinner-k Uk-b-eat-Dj.
"John left and Mary ate dinner."
Fluffy-i IOR big-Di IOR orange-Di.
"Fluffy is big, orange, or both."
Tom-i SEL DjP-a-wash-i dish-j SEL UkP-a-wash-i garment-k.
"Tom will wash either the dishes or some clothes."
AND can often be omitted. Note that the copula can parenthesize a phrase; the
example
Fido-i Dj-COP-NEG-i big-j orange-j cat-j.
"Fido is not a big orange cat."
would otherwise have to be rendered:
Fido-i IOR big-NEG-j IOR orange-NEG-j IOR cat-NEG-j.
IOR _might_ be used for conditional sentences.
"If Fluffy isn't big, she's orange."
"If Fluffy isn't orange, she's big."
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. Relay 19 is being planned
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:50 am ((PDT))
For those not following the relay list, Amanda has just announced over
there that she's got a text in preparation, and signups have started.
On 27 April 2012 17:41, Amanda Babcock Furrow <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've been planning one, actually. An old-fashioned curated relay with
> a proven (mostly) relay-master, who will make sure the various rings
> actually continue until completion :)
>
> I just have to finalize the text!
If you want in and you're not on the relay list, send mail to Irina
([email protected]) and she'll subscribe you manually; there are
problems with the online subscription whatsit.
Here's the approximate list of current participants at Frath:
http://www.frathwiki.com/Conlang_Relay_19
Alex
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: New to the Message Board : Long-time Conlang Dicipherer
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:02 am ((PDT))
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:39:00 -0400, Gimli G. Willikers <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hey ! My first post here !
Welcome! Have some pickles and tea, as they once said at the ZBB. Hope you
enjoy the community here. Thanks for the pointers to your work.
>Can someone explain to me what this message board is all about - I mean, in
>relationship to Zompist Bboard and other conlanging message boards ? What are
>they all ? I've been conlanging for 5 years now but I don't get on the
>internet often and there's no where this stuff is explained.
Well, sitting and watching a new message board for a tad and learning how the
folks conduct themselves there is never a bad idea. But speaking for this list
alone, we have a FAQ:
http://wiki.frath.net/Conlang-L_FAQ
A couple points from there might be of particular interest:
- as a relict of higher-traffic days of yore, the list currently limits each
person to five postings in a day;
- in the name of steering discussion away from probable flashpoints we don't
like to mention politics or religion here. (NCNC, "no cross no crown", we'll
say in reference to this.)
Alex
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:28 am ((PDT))
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Gimli G. Willikers <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> which I guess is rare, thanks to atheist nihilist jerks like Chompsky. (I
> really think the mainstream school of linguistics is retarded; my school is
> closer to the old West Coast school.)
>
Chomsky
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
Posted by: "Michael Everson" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:42 am ((PDT))
On 29 Apr 2012, at 16:28, Patrick Dunn wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Gimli G. Willikers <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> which I guess is rare, thanks to atheist nihilist jerks like Chompsky. (I
>> really think the mainstream school of linguistics is retarded; my school is
>> closer to the old West Coast school.)
>
> Chomsky
I'm of the view that Chomsky's sins had nothing to do with atheism or nihilism.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
Posted by: "Sam Stutter" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:48 am ((PDT))
I cannot say anything save:
I concur. Definitely :)
Actually, come to think of it, I've never on the list heard anyone actually say
"that idea is rubbish", although I have heard a few "are you utterly insane?"
type comments. And the answer to that is "yes". Anyone up for some
extra-marital affairs? :D
::Avoids rest of discussion::
Sam Stutter
[email protected]
"No e na'l cu barri"
On 29 Apr 2012, at 16:41, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2012, at 16:28, Patrick Dunn wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Gimli G. Willikers <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> which I guess is rare, thanks to atheist nihilist jerks like Chompsky. (I
>>> really think the mainstream school of linguistics is retarded; my school is
>>> closer to the old West Coast school.)
>>
>> Chomsky
>
>
> I'm of the view that Chomsky's sins had nothing to do with atheism or
> nihilism.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:50 am ((PDT))
Newcomers should always be reminded of "No Cross, No Crown". --gary
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Sam Stutter <[email protected]> wrote:
> I cannot say anything save:
>
> I concur. Definitely :)
>
> Actually, come to think of it, I've never on the list heard anyone actually
> say "that idea is rubbish", although I have heard a few "are you utterly
> insane?" type comments. And the answer to that is "yes". Anyone up for some
> extra-marital affairs? :D
>
> ::Avoids rest of discussion::
>
> Sam Stutter
> [email protected]
> "No e na'l cu barri"
>
> On 29 Apr 2012, at 16:41, Michael Everson wrote:
>
>> On 29 Apr 2012, at 16:28, Patrick Dunn wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Gimli G. Willikers <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> which I guess is rare, thanks to atheist nihilist jerks like Chompsky. (I
>>>> really think the mainstream school of linguistics is retarded; my school
>>>> is closer to the old West Coast school.)
>>>
>>> Chomsky
>>
>>
>> I'm of the view that Chomsky's sins had nothing to do with atheism or
>> nihilism.
>>
>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4e. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
Posted by: "Nikolay Ivankov" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:58 am ((PDT))
Dear Mr. Willikers,
First of all, though it's not my prerogative to do this, I welcome You to
the list.
And, well, I'd like to say that I'm no real person to criticize. Who am I
to do that? Just a postdoc in one of the German universities, not even
careful enough to make his own website. I have a fancy separate office,
where sometimes I do conlanging instead of my primary occupation, and for
now I was only able to start TeXing a first sketch of my first more or less
developed conlang. Partly because of that, it is not an easy task for me to
be in the deadlines - set alone employing myself in humanitarian missions.
Nor am I somebody in the conlang mailing list - when I came here one and a
half years ago, I hardly knew the difference between tense and mood.
I wish I've had a hundredth of Your energy and motivation for the people
and for the conlangs. Moreover, I agree with You in many of Your positions.
But there are some moments, which, in my mind, do not quite fit this list.
One of the first things I'd like to mention is that in CONLANG we have a
"No Cross, no Crown" rule. I myself may find it quite restrictive
sometimes, but I appreciate its importance for keeping the list out of
floods and flames outside the linguistic discourse. You have mentioned a
handful of times that You are a Traditional Catholic. Well, I'm a Russian
Orthodox, so what? I don't see how the religion or other views of a
particular member of the list are relevant to the language creation, unless
the religion affects the language one speaks or creates.
Of course, this - to my point of view - irrelevantness of someone's
political or religious views is still not an NCNC stuff. But calling some
linguistic theory atheistic is, to my mind, at least nonscientific. And I
think everyone on the list will agree that conlanging has something to do
with the science, though in many cases the purpose is some fantazy
universe. But, as I see it, in near-scientific discussions, we may agree or
disagree with some theory on the basis of the established theory and the
data, but not the views of the creator of some school. Set aside mangling
their names. For, as far as I can see, a constructive critics is a much
better weapon that an abuse.
As the other fellows have already pointed out, conlanging in the list is
not about what we like or what we disgust. Yes, I personally feel that the
people are trying to fool me when they just write English with some fancy
characters (as in Star Wars) or words (like Skyrim Draconic), and I
personally like hieroglyphic and mixed systems. But isn't it just the
matter of taste. Isn't is the choice of the creator, whether her or his
conlang is to be over-complicated or over-simplified, regular or irregular.
Because to my knowledge there are natlangs of any kind - as relatively
simple as Spanish and regular as Turkish (for what I know), to such as
Russian or Ancient Greek. And as for Your comment on the orthography: why
not px for [p']? I mean it's ok not to like it. But then the orthography
for the the Creek language, with i for [e], e for [i:] and v for short [æ]
is as ugly. The Pinyin orthography should be as much awful, for many people
pronounce xiang just as [ksiang] and not as [s'an]. But, imho, I see no
problem in that. Accepting this is just the same as, say, accepting that
there is the same hieroglyph for the words "wheat" and "come" in Chinese,
and I personally have nothing against it. In the end, there is always the
IPA for writing how the word is actually pronounced. Maybe it's just an
amateur point of view - well, it's not for me to judge.
And, by the way, I use the letter q for [ø] and v for [ɨ] in my conlang.
Does it automatically make it a rubbish? Well, the answer is probably
"yes". Because in my eyes I'm not a conlanger, so I cannot be sure that my
orthography won't be too confusing. But that's my personal criteria applied
to myself only. When you say that someone is "not a conlanger at all",
which formal crititeria do you apply? It is possible to say that someone is
a linguist and someone is not by asking for their diploma in this field.
But for conlanging, I know none. For instance, I'm a captive fan of
artlangs, but it does not give me a right to talk of all the engelangs as
trash - I just don't happen to have interest in them, and that's all. When
coming to this list, people mostly have questions like: "How
logical/historical/insane can it be?", or "How can I make it logical/
historical/insane?", or "Where can I read about it?". And got the answers,
mostly in a very friendly manner. At least, that applies to me.
As for your last idea - I really do believe that the conlangs in movies
should firstly be natural, not simplistic. IMHO, that is just stands in the
same course of longing for naturalism that brought to the cinema first
plot, then sound, color, visual effects etc.. I thought it would be more
natural to hear that a language should first be natlangish from a man who
makes a hieroglyphic writing system for Martian and knows Hittite. Well,
sorry, it's not me to judge again.
I'm sorry for the longish, and, quite unwelcoming text, and looking forward
to see the references on Your publications.
Kolya
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Gimli G. Willikers <[email protected]>wrote:
> Here's what I know:
>
> (Background : I did most of the dicipherment work on 2001 Atlantean, did
> all thus far on Frommer's Martian 2012, and have a BA in Linguistics with a
> focus on absolutely everything - starting in about 2001, when I started
> studying not languages - too hard - but writing systems (languages came in
> 2006.)
>
> Frommer is no conlanger, but neither was Okrand. Their heart wasn't in it
> like the guys I've seen on Zompist. Okrand refused to do anything -
> anything - on Atlantean because "no one is interested in it", making me and
> handful of people "no body" in Okrand's checking book. But this, sigh, is
> the academic mentality, at least regarding anything with a popular appeal.
>
> So I deciphered it and developed it without his help.
>
> Frommer has a blog and keeps in contact with his dicipherers, but he still
> forces them to dicipher his rediculously amateur and over-complicated
> conlangs - I did nothing on Avatar, but saw its dicipherment and was
> appalled - did he know anything about conlanging before he made Na'vi ?
>
> Both of them made up horrible orthographies : px for [p'] instead of pp,
> and Okrand's I and G and whatever - capital letters. Atlantean fixed all
> of Klingon's problems, but very few people seem to have seem my work. And
> my specialty is writing systems - and Klingon alphabet and Martian alphabet
> are terrible - they aren't even a priori, Klingon is based on Phoenician
> and Martian was based on Atlantean and upper-case Roman.
>
> I actually developed a hieroglyphic writing system for Klingon which I
> have yet to put online. It wasn't hard, you just need to know how all
> hieroglyphic writing systems work and have some experience with them -
> which I guess is rare, thanks to atheist nihilist jerks like Chompsky. (I
> really think the mainstream school of linguistics is retarded; my school is
> closer to the old West Coast school.)
>
> These guys in Hollywood are goons. I don't think their movies are good
> enough to have conlangs, but even then they could get guys who care and
> aren't just in it for the money.
>
> So I'm sending a message by translating all of John Carter into Martian.
> For free. How's that for a standard ?
>
> When I read you guys talk about getting paid to conlang, I'm shocked. You
> realize that hardly anyone would pay to read a book I would write on
> Hittite Hieroglyphic ? But would some kid read it if I put it online for
> free ? Yes, he would. In 2001, I read the entire Ancient Scripts.Com and
> I looked up at the Ivory Tower and wondered why they didn't give a hoot
> about guys like me.
>
> Real science, real scientists, are dedicated to finding the truth and
> sharing it with others. Conlangs may not be real languages, but they are
> the #1 way to learn any language, English included, and to learn
> linguistics. And I want to help other people out so much, that I'm willing
> to produce tomes - search Scribd and wePapers for "Sumerian corpus" - on
> dead languages and linguistic topics so I can reach people who can't afford
> a $50 or $150 "ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese" -
>
> people like me when I was 14.
>
> people like all the people I've met teaching English in China and Cambodia
> and the Philippines.
>
> People who aren't lucky enough to be born in America or even have working
> internet most of the time, people who don't live in our world, but would
> learn if learning was more accessible.
>
> That's how I use my talents. Dudes like Okrand can sell their books,
> dudes like Frommer can make us do the work for him, but that's not how it
> should be done.
>
> Here's a thought I recently had - if conlangers want good conlangs in the
> movies, they need to put them out there - like on Scribd or a website - for
> free. Label them generically, like "Arabic-sounding villain language",
> "smooth and flowing alien language", "Chinese-sounding hero's language" or
> something, then attach to them instructions so simple that movie-makers
> could use them. I realize this would involve making really simple
> conlangs, but it would probably work, and it would get things going. Give
> them vocabularies of 5,000-10,000 words, so you could find some word if you
> wanted to. Conlangs like this could even give you credit if they were used
> after your death, like a Picasso or a Rembrandt. It could event be a
> cipher for English, but it would be better than nothing. Conlangs can be -
> and should be - much simpler than German or French - or Xhosa. But
> presentation counts for a lot.
>
> What is Chat OT Theory and Usage ? That's too complicated. What is OT ?
> Why can't it be like Zompist, transparent ?
>
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4f. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:05 am ((PDT))
On 29 April 2012 17:48, Sam Stutter <[email protected]> wrote:
> I cannot say anything save:
>
> I concur. Definitely :)
>
>
Idem ditto.
> Actually, come to think of it, I've never on the list heard anyone
> actually say "that idea is rubbish",
No, that's why the Auxlang/Conlang split occured.
> although I have heard a few "are you utterly insane?" type comments.
Well, that's because we are! :)
> And the answer to that is "yes". Anyone up for some extra-marital affairs?
> :D
>
>
No thanks, I, as a *man*, will be happy to stay faithful to my *husband* :P
, whom I am *legally married* with (thanks to living in that godless
enlightened country that is the Netherlands). Emphasis added to enhance
cringe-worthiness to traditional Christians :P .
> ::Avoids rest of discussion::
>
>
Will do the same now. I just felt Mr. Willikers would be glad to be given
back some of that offence he threw around.
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4g. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:27 pm ((PDT))
On 29 April 2012 05:04, Gimli G. Willikers <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> Frommer has a blog and keeps in contact with his dicipherers, but he still
> forces them to dicipher his rediculously amateur and over-complicated
> conlangs - I did nothing on Avatar, but saw its dicipherment and was appalled
> - did he know anything about conlanging before he made Na'vi ?
If I recall the LCS interview correctly, no. But he's a good linguist,
and he has a sense of aesthetics. Do you really need anything else?
> Klingon alphabet and Martian alphabet are terrible - they aren't even a priori
Most natural alphabets aren't, either. Who knew that a-priori-ness was
a requirement for linguistic goodness?
> Real science, real scientists, are dedicated to finding the truth and sharing
> it with others.
Indeed they are. And many of us here are scientists. Some are even
linguists. But conlanging is a whole different realm. It can be
informed by science, it can be studied in a scientific matter, but it
is itself largely art, not a strictly scientific pursuit.
> And I want to help other people out so much, that I'm willing to produce
>tomes - search Scribd and wePapers for "Sumerian corpus" - on dead languages
>and linguistic topics so I can reach people who can't afford a $50 or $150
>"ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese"
Well, thanks for that. Really. I live pretty close to a really great
collection of ancient texts and the people who study them, and it's
always great when they make more stuff available in digital form.
> Here's a thought I recently had - if conlangers want good conlangs in the
> movies, they need to put them out there - like on Scribd or a website - for
> free. Label them generically, like "Arabic-sounding villain language",
> "smooth and flowing alien language", "Chinese-sounding hero's language" or
> something, then attach to them instructions so simple that movie-makers could
> use them.
I must disagree. There are plenty of conlangs out there for free.
Movie makers don't use them, and *won't* use them, because if movie
makers are going to use an artificial language, they want to have
total exclusive control over it. If it's been published for free on
the web, they can't get that very easily. And as a language creator,
I'm fine with distributing my art for others' appreciation if they
care to look, but if someone is going to be making money with it, I
darn well wanna be compensated for that. Ergo, if you want a conlang
for a movie, you pay someone to make it.
There's a local startup here in Utah called Serpent's Tongue producing
a trading card role-playing game that includes a conlang. It's
actually got some pretty neat game mechanics that make the conlang an
actual necessity, rather than just decoration for the world. I don't
know who they ended up hiring, but when I was talking to them they
were really excited about the whole conlang thing. They take it pretty
seriously, and they were looking for someone else who took it
seriously and had a real passion for the craft. And they were excited
about the prospect of getting teenage kids playing fantasy card games
to actually be interested in learning their new language. I think
that's the kinda thing that's going to result in more conlangs in the
media, and more conlanging going mainstream. Not just giving stuff
away for free and hoping that that's enough to get people to use it.
We've tried that. It hasn't worked so far.
-l.
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4h. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
Posted by: "Sai" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:48 pm ((PDT))
So, hello.
First off: what the other folk said. One of the main differences
between CONLANG-L and ZBB is that we value politeness more highly. In
particular, a core ethic of this group is that while we may
occasionally offer *constructive* criticism of each others' work, and
quite commonly discuss conlanging methods in the abstract, we don't
criticize motives or bash someone merely for being a noob⦠like you
were being just now. Because hey, tastes vary, and noobs can become
valuable contributors to the community too, over time.
In that spirit, I'll try to spin your message to the positive.
You haven't studied professional conlang*ers*, as your subject line
claims, but it seems you have put some effort into reverse engineering
conlangs. That's potentially an interesting topic in itself.
Have you participated in any conlang relays? Have you tried to do any
field linguistics or other language recovery & documentation? i would
expect the skillset to overlap. If you haven't yet read _Describing
Morphosyntax_, do so ASAP.
What makes a language easier or more difficult to reverse engineer?
What do you think of e.g. Dothraki, which *was* made professionally by
one of our most respected and experienced conlangers, and subject to
the same kind of independent reverse engineering effort (due to
contractual limitations on David)?
How would you improve professional conlanging, considering that it has
to meet multiple constraints â actors' ability to pronounce,
audiences' phonaesthetics (sometimes internationally, sometimes not),
linguistic depth, fidelity to preexisting canon, etc? This is of
course an aspect of the craft that the LCS has an interest in
promoting, as we do take on professional work. (We're running a couple
professional conlanging jobs happening right now, in fact.)
Hopefully those questions give you some seed to start with. I suggest
you try starting over and finding what you can talk about that's
positive, interesting, or insightful â rather than just bashing. It's
just not how we do things around here. If your answer is "I don't know
how to improve things, I just know what I think sucks"⦠please shut up
for a bit and watch the conversation until you *do* have something to
contribute.
OT means 'off topic'. It's similar to the ZBB 'none of the above'
except, again, we're way more polite and because of the posting limit
(an intentional feature) it's considerably less often used. I'd
suggest you peruse the archives at least a couple weeks back to have a
sense of what our norms are.
Also just re your name: we use names here, not handles. There are a
couple exceptions (whom I won't mention out of respect for their
privacy), but even for them, the name they go by here is a name that
they would be comfortable being called IRL. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I
rather doubt that "Gimli G Willikers" has that status for you, so I
suggest you sign with the name you'd use to introduce yourself to a
friend of a friend in real life.
- Sai
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4i. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:36 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Sai <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, hello.
>
> ...
> Also just re your name: we use names here, not handles. There are a
> couple exceptions (whom I won't mention out of respect for their
> privacy), but even for them, the name they go by here is a name that
> they would be comfortable being called IRL. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I
> rather doubt that "Gimli G Willikers" has that status for you, so I
> suggest you sign with the name you'd use to introduce yourself to a
> friend of a friend in real life.
>
Really? I didn't know that.
stevo
>
> - Sai
>
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4j. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:53 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:36:11 -0400, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Sai <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Also just re your name: we use names here, not handles. There are a
>> couple exceptions (whom I won't mention out of respect for their
>> privacy), but even for them, the name they go by here is a name that
>> they would be comfortable being called IRL. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I
>> rather doubt that "Gimli G Willikers" has that status for you, so I
>> suggest you sign with the name you'd use to introduce yourself to a
>> friend of a friend in real life.
>
>Really? I didn't know that.
Well, this is a qualitative difference between "old-school" Internet discourse
and forum culture, but at best it's a demographic trend. Counterexamples on
this list, or at least examples which I don't know how to classify, are easy to
think of. It's certainly not something any of us have any business insisting
on.
Alex
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4k. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
Posted by: "Sai" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:55 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 16:36, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
> Really? I didn't know that.
It's an approximation. And in case I was unclear, I certainly don't
mean to invoke "real names" (I don't believe in any such thing). It's
more of a broad qualitative difference.
Take a look at the names used on ZBB vs the ones used here (both in
FROM: and sigs). There's a marked difference, even if it's not one I
can easily define.
- Sai
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4l. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
Posted by: "Tony Harris" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:03 pm ((PDT))
Part of that, I think, is that we're doing this from email accounts, and
in many cases I suspect these are our regularly used email accounts for
things other than lists. So we have the names by which the world
regularly knows us on them. On the ZBB and other BB systems, you choose
a handle/userid and that's what you're known by on the system as you post.
Nothing wrong with either system, it's just one more way that BBs and
listservs differ.
On 04/29/2012 04:55 PM, Sai wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 16:36, MorphemeAddict<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Really? I didn't know that.
> It's an approximation. And in case I was unclear, I certainly don't
> mean to invoke "real names" (I don't believe in any such thing). It's
> more of a broad qualitative difference.
>
> Take a look at the names used on ZBB vs the ones used here (both in
> FROM: and sigs). There's a marked difference, even if it's not one I
> can easily define.
>
> - Sai
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4m. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:51 pm ((PDT))
On 4/29/2012 1:58 PM, Nikolay Ivankov wrote:
...
> And, by the way, I use the letter q for [ø] and v for [ɨ] in my conlang.
> Does it automatically make it a rubbish? Well, the answer is probably
> "yes". Because in my eyes I'm not a conlanger, so I cannot be sure that my
> orthography won't be too confusing. But that's my personal criteria applied
> to myself only.
Actually, a common romanization for the Cherokee language uses "v" for a
nasalized central vowel, so "v" for [ɨ] isn't all that strange. A long
time ago "u" and "v" were different forms of the same letter. But q for
[ø] is certainly unusual.
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4n. Re: About Professional Conlangers I've Studied
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:10 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Herman Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/29/2012 1:58 PM, Nikolay Ivankov wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
> And, by the way, I use the letter q for [ø] and v for [ɨ] in my conlang.
>> Does it automatically make it a rubbish? Well, the answer is probably
>> "yes". Because in my eyes I'm not a conlanger, so I cannot be sure that my
>> orthography won't be too confusing. But that's my personal criteria
>> applied
>> to myself only.
>>
>
> Actually, a common romanization for the Cherokee language uses "v" for a
> nasalized central vowel, so "v" for [ɨ] isn't all that strange. A long time
> ago "u" and "v" were different forms of the same letter. But q for [ø] is
> certainly unusual.
>
I have used q for [ø] when the symbol I wanted was unavailable. "q" has
the advantage of being very close to "o" and its variants in the alphabet.
stevo
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Anyone there?
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:43 am ((PDT))
It seems I missed traffic on all mailing lists I'm on yesterday.
Probably "my" mail server was down for some reason. Mail which
went by way of gmail seems to have been forwarded from there but
never to have arrived from the server my own domain is on.
Hopefully I didn't miss anything really important (unlikely on
a Saturday). I'm going to celebrate having 'missed' a lot of
spam! ;-)
/bpj
On 2012-04-28 22:27, Sam Stutter wrote:
> Prior to the original message from BPJ at 19:45 BST I had got a message from
> Alex at 18:19 BST, and several through the day :-/
>
> Sam Stutter
> [email protected]
> "No e na'l cu barri"
>
> On 28 Apr 2012, at 20:49, Daniel Bowman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I've been getting mail off and on all day.
>>
>> 2012/4/28 MorphemeAddict<[email protected]>
>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 2:50 PM, ТоÅе ÐаÑÑÐеÆÑÑ
>>> ÐаÑÑÐанÑÑ<
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 28.04.2012 20:45, BPJ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is the list silent today, or is it me who ain't getting the mails?
>>>>>
>>>>> /bpj
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, that explains it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Explains what? The last post I received before BPJ's was marked 12:03 am,
>>> over 15 hours ago.
>>>
>>> stevo
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ТоÅе ÐаÑÑÐеÆÑÑ ÐаÑÑÐанÑÑ
>>>>
>>>> ÎебÑÐ°Ð½Ñ Ò©Ð½ÐÑÑе ЬлеÑ
>>>> http://illte.conlang.org/ http://delang.conlang.org/
>>>> ___
>>>> «ÐÐ°Ð½ÐµÐ¼Ñ ÆÅе δеÑÐ»ÐµÑ Ò©Ð½Î´ÐµÑомеÅÑ» - анÆомÑ
>>>>
>>>
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6.1. Re: Destroying the noun/verb distinction
Posted by: "Sai" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:14 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 21:21, Logan Kearsley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hm. Maybe we should come up with a new mathematical notation for
> predicate logic based on Smalltalk:
>
> [X give: Y to: Z]
*nod* I'd favor something like "give(X.agt Y.pat Z.recip) or the like,
with free order; role marking is really quite useful. And you can
retain the silly parens if you want 'em. ;-)
>> (At the risk of invoking NCNC, I find the same true of programming
>> language argument structures, whose orders are also often not clear at
>> all without explicitly referring to the documentation, and bad coders
>> [or PHP coders /oblig] often presume otherwise, to the detriment of
>> legibility. Object-oriented languages, eg Ruby, improve this somewhat
>> by letting functions have an implicit self, thus making at least
>> up-to-two-argument functions pretty clearly defined â and just as a
>> matter of culture, they tend to switch to using hashes with named
>> arguments when linear arguments become unwieldy, which is akin to
>> switching from a syntax-based to theta-role-marking system.)
>
> Er, do you mean perhaps case-marking system?
A particular type, yes. I mean marking of e.g. "agent" rather than
"subject". Cases could work either way.
> Syntax-based systems do
> after all use syntax for the purpose of indicating theta-roles. Or did
> you mean specifically the kind of system in which there is a distinct
> marking for every possible role, independent of the
> verb/preposition/whatever that it's associated with?
Well, I imagine that most roles would be frequently reused â "agent"
e.g. â but essentially yes, if I understand you correctly.
- Sai
Messages in this topic (35)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. Re: Sutton SignWriting (Was: Written Form of American Sign Language
Posted by: "Sai" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:51 pm ((PDT))
Since David was evidently too modest to mention his own work, I should
point out:
http://dedalvs.conlang.org/slipa.html
⦠which also has more analysis of other sign writing systems.
Just on the political side of things: yes, American Deaf culture is a
bit insular. But in fairness there are good reasons. ASL was for a
long time considered not even a language at all, and even to this day
is often suppressed in classrooms by oralists (who believe that
learning a sign language will only retard a deaf child's ability to
learn to speak and read lips, the only forms of language they think
are adequate to get by IRL). Gallaudet, the biggest Deaf university,
was run primarily by hearing people up until just a few years ago.
It's a culture that's had active attempts to suppress its language and
has a legitimate problem with being cast as second class citizens even
within their own domain.
So I think it deserves some slack; maybe in a hundred years, when
it'll be dead obvious to everyone that ASL is a language and learning
language early â any language â is good for kids, and for that matter
it's a damn useful language to know even for hearing people to use
with each other, and it's rather pretty and linguistically
interesting, and Deaf culture isn't under attack⦠maybe then they'll
be more open to us hearing folk meddling with their language. ;-)
That doesn't make the silly criticisms less so, but it gives some
context. Besides which, as David eloquently explained, SignWriting
*does* kinda suck vs what could be done. I take that just as an open
engelanging challenge, albeit not one that I choose to take up. (UNLWS
gets all my conlanging attention these days.)
I have made a couple signs on the fly when needed, though. :-P If you
respect the morphological and phonaesthetic conventions of the
language, it's fine to do so and IME deaf folk are OK with it. (There
again you have to remember the context of the linguistic atrocity that
is SEE/SEE2, which totally fails at this and is the standard most deaf
people have of "hearing people made signs". You have to show you're
not that dense if you want someone to accept a sign you made up â and
it has to be novel enough that there isn't already a standard one
that's probably better anyway.)
(In case you're wondering: one sign I made was for a meditation
technique I call 'invocation' in English; in ASL I modified one of the
signs for 'copy' onto the location used for various thinking related
terms. My Deaf conversant understood immediately, which was nice.)
- Sai
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
7b. Re: Sutton SignWriting (Was: Written Form of American Sign Language
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:33 pm ((PDT))
--- On Sun, 4/29/12, Sai <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just on the political side of things: yes, American Deaf
> culture is a bit insular.
Indeed. One of my coworkers has taken in a deaf fellow who has moved to the
area in order to take a new job. He has some kind of implant (baha), but
otherwise couldn't hear a sound. He reads lips well and is of the opinion
that deaf people in general are bores and would much rather hang out with
hearing folk.
> So I think it deserves some slack; maybe in a hundred years,
> when
> it'll be dead obvious to everyone that ASL is a language and
> learning
> language early â any language â is good for kids, and
Who knows? In a hundred years, the issue may well be moot. Grow a new ear
in a dish, implant and connect up the appropriate nerves. Or perhaps
perform some genetic surgery in utero, if the problem is caught early
enough...or there's always those dopplegangers every parent of means will
surely wish to purchase, once they know a baby's on the way. You know the
ones; they live in that high security, access denied sector of Baja
Arizona and are only brought Outside when a citizen is in need of a kidney
or what have you...or an ear.
Even now in the early 21st century, many kinds of deafness can be addressed
that in the WWI era would have caused your doctor to just shake his head
sadly. Can build a new tympanic membrane; can replace the bones of the
middle ear; can implant special hearing aids in the bone around the ear.
Neat stuff.
> (In case you're wondering: one sign I made was for a meditation
> technique I call 'invocation' in English; in ASL I modified one of the
> signs for 'copy' onto the location used for various thinking related
> terms. My Deaf conversant understood immediately, which was nice.)
Cool. But not at all unexpected. After all, it's no different than when
you hear a made-up word, for example in an ad on radio, and even though it
isn't actually an English word, you know what it means, like imagineering
or incentivise or dimensionalise. Corpspeak is full of it. If you know
what a plane is, you would immediately know how to deplane therefrom. Or
what is meant by enplane or even replane.
What this means is you have a highly intuitive reach into ASL -- as you do
with English. Good on yer!
> - Sai
Padraic
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8a. Re: Subordinate clauses in SOV syntax
Posted by: "Douglas Koller" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:13 pm ((PDT))
> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:15:02 -0400
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Subordinate clauses in SOV syntax
> To: [email protected]
Well, you've certainly hit on the crux of the issue, haven't you. Géarthnuns
uses "sho" as a verbal comma, so to speak, to break up the verb pile-up at the
end of such sentences. I've thought of it as akin to Japanese "to".
> All right, I did some lurking in the internet to find a good sentence and use
> it as example. As I said before, Mihousapeja still don't have a lexical to
> allow me to make translations, so I'll keep everything in English. Let's
> start with this, which have 3 subordinate clauses:
> Whenever he heard the question, the old man who lived in that house, answered
> that the earth is flat.
> To SOV:
> =>Whenever he, the old man who in that house lives, the question heard that
> the earth flat is answered.
> Particles must not be absent:
> =>Whenever he NOM, the old man who NOM that house LOC lives, the question ABS
> heard, that the earth NOM flat ABS is ABS answered.
Géarthnuns would say:
Whenever he-nom. aux.-past the question-acc. hear (sho), the man-nom. old-nom.
(past1), who-nom. pres. the house-loc. that-loc. live sho, (past2), that the
earth-nom. pres. flat-nom. be-discoursive sho, answer.
First sho is optional because that clause is not really "embedded" literally.
Probably deleted in written contexts; probably included in spoken contexts out
of sheer habit on the part of the speaker. Pick either past1 or past2, not
both, as the auxiliary to go with "answer" (I think I prefer past2 here.)
Notice, too, that "be" is in the discoursive mood. As someone earlier in the
discussion pointed out, verbs in differing moods also help up break up the
confusion. (And Géarthnuns doesn't even conjugate for person.)
> It seems clear to me, maybe because of the structure of the original sentence
> which made me put things in the right place. I don't think I'd write the
> original in that way, if I wanted say such a thing, but let's move on to a
> more complicated example.
> This one have 4 subordinate clauses:
> I knew a man, who believed that, if a man were permitted to make the ballads,
> he need not care who made the laws of the nation.
> =>I NOM a man, who NOM that ABS believed, if a man NOM to make the ballads
> ABS were permitted, he NOM who NOM the laws of the nation ABS made ABS not
> need ABS care ABS knew.
>
> Wow, that's pretty much what I was talking about: the verbs all cluster in
> the end. In this case, though, the verb "care" is in the infinitive, a noun
> form (I think), so it may change a little:
> =>I NOM a man, who NOM that ABS believed, if a man NOM to make the ballads
> ABS were permitted, he NOM care ABS not need who NOM the laws of the nation
> ABS made ABS knew.
>
> Still confusing because the main verb is too far from the subject, right? To
> fix that I would, if Im not mistaken, do this:
> =>I NOM a man ABS knew, who NOM that ABS believed, if a man NOM to make the
> ballads ABS were permitted, he NOM care ABS not need who NOM the laws of the
> nation ABS made.
>
> Clearer and still SOV. I think I now understand what Christophe said (or
> maybe not).
More on this later.
Kou
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
8b. Re: Subordinate clauses in SOV syntax
Posted by: "George Marques" [email protected]
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:58 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:13:31 -0400, Douglas Koller <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Well, you've certainly hit on the crux of the issue, haven't you. Géarthnuns
>uses "sho" as a verbal comma, so to speak, to break up the verb pile-up at the
>end of such sentences. I've thought of it as akin to Japanese "to".
>
>> All right, I did some lurking in the internet to find a good sentence and
>> use it as example. As I said before, Mihousapeja still don't have a lexical
>> to allow me to make translations, so I'll keep everything in English. Let's
>> start with this, which have 3 subordinate clauses:
>
>> Whenever he heard the question, the old man who lived in that house,
>> answered that the earth is flat.
>> To SOV:
>> =>Whenever he, the old man who in that house lives, the question heard that
>> the earth flat is answered.
>> Particles must not be absent:
>> =>Whenever he NOM, the old man who NOM that house LOC lives, the question
>> ABS heard, that the earth NOM flat ABS is ABS answered.
>
>Géarthnuns would say:
>
>Whenever he-nom. aux.-past the question-acc. hear (sho), the man-nom. old-nom.
>(past1), who-nom. pres. the house-loc. that-loc. live sho, (past2), that the
>earth-nom. pres. flat-nom. be-discoursive sho, answer.
>
>First sho is optional because that clause is not really "embedded" literally.
>Probably deleted in written contexts; probably included in spoken contexts out
>of sheer habit on the part of the speaker. Pick either past1 or past2, not
>both, as the auxiliary to go with "answer" (I think I prefer past2 here.)
>Notice, too, that "be" is in the discoursive mood. As someone earlier in the
>discussion pointed out, verbs in differing moods also help up break up the
>confusion. (And Géarthnuns doesn't even conjugate for person.)
I thought in adding a particle to do that too (actually I kind of did, but for
other cases of argument splitting). However, as happened in your example that
sometimes it's optional (even redundant) and the "functional" particles must be
used
in these cases causing them to act as a separator too. My personal preference
is to add a personal pronoun if the subject (perhaps even the object) is not
clear.
For instance:
Whenever he NOM the question ABS heard, he the man who NOM that house LOC
lives, that the earth NOM flat ABS is ABS (he NOM) answered.
And the last 'he' is optional because in Mihousapeja the verbs do conjugate for
person (but if 'he' shows up, it must bring a particle with it to make clear it
is the subject). I could even add another series of pronouns, yet I don't think
it's necessary.
Anyway, it is indeed a neat solution to add a splitter particle, but not in my
case (well, not for this function I mean).
>More on this later.
>
>Kou
I think I did already my way through this (and thanks everyone). However I'm
always open to hear new opinions. I'll probably get stuck when I do more
pragmatical writing/translation.
Messages in this topic (23)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
