There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Word Limit
From: Alex Fink
2a. Re: Gene flow from India to Australia about 4,000 years ago
From: Roger Mills
3.1. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
From: Roger Mills
3.2. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
From: Gary Shannon
3.3. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
From: Alex Fink
3.4. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
From: Daniel Burgener
3.5. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
From: Dan Henry
3.6. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
From: Daniel Burgener
3.7. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
From: Dan Henry
3.8. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
From: Mathieu Roy
3.9. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
From: George Corley
4a. Re: relative tense
From: Roger Mills
5a. Re: Dec29, an XVOS idea (longish)
From: neo gu
6. Romanization: digraphs vs. diacritics
From: Herman Miller
7a. Re: Loglan VS Natlang
From: Gleki Arxokuna
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Word Limit
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:05 pm ((PST))
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:49:46 -0500, Matthew Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>Is there a limit on how many words can be in a conlang?
>
>I'll approach this from the the angle of fandom
Whoa, now there's an angle I don't as a matter of course think about.
>Do you have in mind making the set of content words closed? (A fixed number
>nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc) This imho, makes for an interesting language
>because it puts the conlang creator and the fans on equal footing. Take
>Dothraki for an example, as far as I can tell, the content words form an open
>class-- so the creator can create a new word for "telephone" and it would be a
>nice tidy, short word. Fans can only use fan coined word, circumlocutions,
>possibly long derivations and maybe loan words from English, which fan
>communities generally don't like. When the set of words is closed, then the
>path is clear: derivational morphology or phrases and everyone has the
>materials ready to do that and the result would be on par with what the
>language inventor might come up with. It takes the endless waiting out of the
>game of being a conlang fan, it takes away semantic areas that are almost
>taboo like because of the lack of a transparent compound word or of a related
>root word.
I think we should be careful about distinguishing the model from the object
modelled, here. Having a closed class of content words is a downright
anomalous property for a _language_ to have. In particular, any CCoCW language
is unconditionally rejecting of borrowings and inventions, and I can't think of
a reason a natlang would get that way save violently extreme purism, of the
sort which certain Earthly languages of states in the throes of nationalism
have undergone for a time but isn't really stably typical of any natlang I'm
familiar with, not even Icelandic. Toki Pona is CCoCW, sure, but there it's
part and parcel of the language's philosophical raison d'être, and that's the
way to do it that seems appropriate to me: it's such an anomalous property that
you should only adopt it if you really _mean_ it, as it were.
For the _model_ to be so closed, on the other hand, is a much more reasonable
thing, being merely a solution to the epistemological problem that we know a
limited amount about the language being modelled, and we can't be sure what
would be correct usage outside the areas that have been laid down for us.
I can see how this might be an annoying position for a secondary author to be
in, but well, myself, I'm not conlanging for an audience so it doesn't
especially rise to be a concern (if I had e.g. just won the Dothraki job, thèn
I might say otherwise.)
I would on the same lines recommend to Nichole _not_ to postulate that your
language has a closed class of content words; its implausibility overwhelms
these strange points in favour of it that live only in the realm of concerns of
creators of hypothetical derivative works. Best, in fact, to just keep mum on
the point wrt your writing. -- Of course, that doesn't answer the (presumed?)
intended question of how many words you should yourself aim to create, but
we've had a few good answers to that already.
>Another point to keep in mind is that if you have a large number of possible
>derivations, the more likely that someone will be able to create a
>semantically transparent compound or derived word.
Well, I don't think it's as clear as all that. Lemme put it this way: there
are different dimensions in which a language might be closed or open. If the
derivational operations are fully productive and transparent, then all is as
you say: this is the situation I might call (possibly lexically closed but)
_derivationally_ open.
>From my model-vs-descriptum point of view, your reason to dislike lexical
>openness but appreciate derivational openness seems to be that with
>derivation, at least you have a half-decent chance of guessing a word which is
>actually correct in the descriptum, whereas with lexis you're stabbing among
>all possible stems in the dark. But to say that a language allows every
>single thing that it lìkely allows is to say that it's completely regular.
>The sort of derivational operations you end up with have to be Lego-brick
>predictable (okay, maybe in practical terms they can have a short, enumerated
>list of oddities); they won't be quirky and interesting in the way that
>improductive and nontransparent natlang operations often are.
As will've become clear, I'm a naturalist, and natlangs do not operate on
principles of "needfulness". They have things like synonyms, and synonyms
modulo register, and separate stems for pairs of senses which could've been
gotten by productive syntax or morphology, which are such that nobody knowing
only one of the pair would ever be driven to invent the other -- yet there it
is. A language whose development worked on the basis of need would just end up
thin: instead of reflecting the speakers' concerns by the breadth of its gamut
of lexical options at any given point in semantic space, and therefore looking
lived-in, it'd everywhere have just enough to get by.
Anyway, if one of my own conlangs somehow ever achieved a following, I think
what I'd want to do for it after I could no longer tend to it at its level of
demand is establish some sort of language academy for it. Pick some of the
users who'd achieved the subtlest familiarity with how things worked, and
broadly shared my philosophy-of-conlanging values. Then when a lacuna seems to
arise, either an outright one or a paucity of options where there should be
more, have them gather and generate and consider suggestions and decide on zero
or more of them, which would then become canon. Newly invented stems would be
encouraged among the options where this makes sense; of course they should be
concordant with established canonical stem shapes and sound symbolism and
different compositions of different lexical strata and so on. (Oh, and ixnay
on the references like ‹ghotI'› for 'fish'. Those are just stupid.)
Alex
Messages in this topic (46)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Gene flow from India to Australia about 4,000 years ago
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:18 pm ((PST))
Gene flow from early India > Australia is not impossible. There is an old
"racial" or ethhic strain called Veddoid that IIRC characterizes much of
S.India, and well as portions of Eastern Indonesia (e.g. Celebes/Sulawesi) and
Australia too (_IIRC_)
--- On Thu, 1/17/13, Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday 17 January 2013 17:01:45 Alex Fink wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 21:42:49 +0100, Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >Hallo conlangers!
> >
> >I have just found this:
> >
> >http://www.mpg.de/6818105/Holocene-gene-flow_India-Australia
> >
> >Apparently, people from India migrated to Australia about 4,000
> >years ago and left their mark in the DNA of Australian aborigines.
> >Perhaps this may explain the similarities between Dravidian and
> >Pama-Nyungan languages which have puzzled linguists for so long
> >and some crackpots have used as evidence for Lemuria?
>
> Whoa, just 4000 years! That's entìrely within the reach of the comparative
> method.
It is!
And 4000 years ago the Indus Valley civilization was blossoming,
and they may have explored the Indian Ocean and reached Australia.
And most specialists consider it likely that the language of that
civilization was Dravidian.
> Come to think of it, it's odd in view of these similarities that
> I haven't ever come across any sort of proposal for a
> Dravido--Pama-Nyungan family (well, aside maybe from overlumpers who'd add
> umpteen others as well).
The similarities in phonology are glaringly obvious; I don't
know how similar the languages are otherwise. The reason why
no serious linguist drew a connection probably is that it was
widely accepted that the Australian aborigines were isolated
from the rest of humanity at least since the last ice age.
Now the Leipzig geneticists have found out that that is not
the case, and a connection between Pama-Nyungan and Dravidian
no longer seems that outlandish!
(Also, I once met a Tamil - he looked like an Australian
aborigine.)
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:19 pm ((PST))
At risk of repeating what others may have said, it isn't that English sentences
can be "infinite" in length; it is that there is an _infinite number_ of
possible English sentences (or any other natlang).
Messages in this topic (46)
________________________________________________________________________
3.2. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:50 pm ((PST))
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> At risk of repeating what others may have said, it isn't that English
> sentences can be "infinite" in length; it is that there is an _infinite
> number_ of possible English sentences (or any other natlang).
Without either an infinite lexicon, or the possibility of an
infinitely long sentence, there cannot be an infinite number of
possible sentences.
Assume a dictionary of 100,000 words. Just to go to the ridiculous
extreme and say that any word may follow any other word, there are
100,000^2 possible two word sequences. If we allow sentence of N words
then there are 100,000^N possible sequences. A very large number, but
large is not infinite. And since only a small portion of all possible
arrangements are valid sentences, the real number is much smaller.
In general, with a lexicon of X words and a sentence length of N,
there can be no more than X^N possible sentences. Again, that can be a
very, very large number, but, again, very, very large is not infinite.
The reason the infinitely long sentence came up in the first place was
in connection with Cantor's countable vs uncountable infinities. But
since the number of possible finite-length sentences is finite, that
doesn't matter.
--gary
Messages in this topic (46)
________________________________________________________________________
3.3. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:06 pm ((PST))
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:50:37 -0800, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
>> At risk of repeating what others may have said, it isn't that English
>> sentences can be "infinite" in length; it is that there is an _infinite
>> number_ of possible English sentences (or any other natlang).
>
>Without either an infinite lexicon, or the possibility of an
>infinitely long sentence, there cannot be an infinite number of
>possible sentences.
Without either an infinite number of digits, or the possibility of an
infinitely long integer, there cannot be an infinite number of possible
integers. After all, assume a set of ten digits, like we use day-to-day.
Allowing integers of N digits, there are only 10^N possible integers: large,
but not infinite. :-p
Alex
Messages in this topic (46)
________________________________________________________________________
3.4. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
Posted by: "Daniel Burgener" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:13 pm ((PST))
On Jan 17, 2013 10:50 PM, "Gary Shannon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Without either an infinite lexicon, or the possibility of an
> infinitely long sentence, there cannot be an infinite number of
> possible sentences..
No, this is incorrect. You are confusing "of finite length" with "have an
upper limit". Take the whole numbers as an example. There are infinitely
many, however, none is of infinite length. It is simply that you cannot
pick a "maximum". The same is true of sentences (depending of course on
one's definition of sentence). If you say "a sentence may not be longer
than N words", then there cannot be infinitely many sentences, however if
you say "sentences must be of a finite length" then there can.
Someone has previously offered a proof of this, but I'm on my phone which
makes it difficult to look back, so I will restate it. Imagine you have a
finite list of all sentences. You can construct a new sentence by adding
an embedded clause to the longest sentence on your list. Therefore the
list did not contain all sentences.
@Alex, there are an infinite number of integers, and integers cannot be on
infinite length. The same argument above applies. The important
distinction is that "has an upper bound" and "are of finite length" are
different statements.
-Daniel
Messages in this topic (46)
________________________________________________________________________
3.5. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
Posted by: "Dan Henry" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:20 pm ((PST))
Every natural number is of finite length, but the natural numbers are
infinite. A set does not need an infinite member to have an infinity of
members. Like integers, English sentences may be arbitrarily large, but
each is individually of finite length. If sentences were individually able
to have infinite length, they would be like the real numbers and
uncountably infinite.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> > At risk of repeating what others may have said, it isn't that English
> > sentences can be "infinite" in length; it is that there is an _infinite
> > number_ of possible English sentences (or any other natlang).
>
> Without either an infinite lexicon, or the possibility of an
> infinitely long sentence, there cannot be an infinite number of
> possible sentences.
>
> Assume a dictionary of 100,000 words. Just to go to the ridiculous
> extreme and say that any word may follow any other word, there are
> 100,000^2 possible two word sequences. If we allow sentence of N words
> then there are 100,000^N possible sequences. A very large number, but
> large is not infinite. And since only a small portion of all possible
> arrangements are valid sentences, the real number is much smaller.
>
> In general, with a lexicon of X words and a sentence length of N,
> there can be no more than X^N possible sentences. Again, that can be a
> very, very large number, but, again, very, very large is not infinite.
>
> The reason the infinitely long sentence came up in the first place was
> in connection with Cantor's countable vs uncountable infinities. But
> since the number of possible finite-length sentences is finite, that
> doesn't matter.
>
> --gary
>
Messages in this topic (46)
________________________________________________________________________
3.6. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
Posted by: "Daniel Burgener" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:26 pm ((PST))
@Alex ah, my mistake. Sarcasm is difficult to pick up on in email.
@Dan technically a slightly higher standard than "can be of infinite
length" is required. The *rationals* can be of infinite length but all of
them terminate or repeat in a periodic fashion and therefore are still
countable. If they are infinite without repetition (as in the irrational
or as you mentioned, the reals) then they are uncountable.
Messages in this topic (46)
________________________________________________________________________
3.7. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
Posted by: "Dan Henry" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:33 pm ((PST))
But English clearly allows for such variation (as examples already given
have shown). Therefore, if one admitted infinitely-long sentences, the
result would be an uncountable infinity. (I do not admit infinitely-long
sentences.)
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Daniel Burgener
<[email protected]>wrote:
> @Alex ah, my mistake. Sarcasm is difficult to pick up on in email.
>
> @Dan technically a slightly higher standard than "can be of infinite
> length" is required. The *rationals* can be of infinite length but all of
> them terminate or repeat in a periodic fashion and therefore are still
> countable. If they are infinite without repetition (as in the irrational
> or as you mentioned, the reals) then they are uncountable.
>
Messages in this topic (46)
________________________________________________________________________
3.8. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
Posted by: "Mathieu Roy" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:21 am ((PST))
There are an infinity of finite natural number (and a sentence with
1,2,3,etc. words are all possible to make; so there are also an infinity of
finite sentence). I know this can be hard to understand. But even in theory,
it's impossible to come up with the number of finite possible sentences in
English (except if you chose a number as the limit of words for a sentence;
but not if you just say it has to be finite), because than I can come up
with another sentence a couple of words longer than the longest in the list:
it will still be finite, but I will have add one to the number. In that
sense, there is no limit to the number of sentences. For any arbitrary huge
number you tell me, I can find more finite sentences than this number (try
if you want). This is what is call "infinity", the fact that for any
arbitrary big (finite) number you give me, I can find more finite sentences
than that number.
That makes me think of a more difficult question but also interesting (IMO)
which would be to calculate the chance that a random string of X words form
a sentence (for X equal to, let's say, 15).
-Mat
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] De la
part de Gary Shannon
Envoyé : vendredi 18 janvier 2013 04:51
À : [email protected]
Objet : Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> At risk of repeating what others may have said, it isn't that English
> sentences can be "infinite" in length; it is that there is an
> _infinite number_ of possible English sentences (or any other natlang).
Without either an infinite lexicon, or the possibility of an infinitely long
sentence, there cannot be an infinite number of possible sentences.
Assume a dictionary of 100,000 words. Just to go to the ridiculous extreme
and say that any word may follow any other word, there are
100,000^2 possible two word sequences. If we allow sentence of N words then
there are 100,000^N possible sequences. A very large number, but large is
not infinite. And since only a small portion of all possible arrangements
are valid sentences, the real number is much smaller.
In general, with a lexicon of X words and a sentence length of N, there can
be no more than X^N possible sentences. Again, that can be a very, very
large number, but, again, very, very large is not infinite.
The reason the infinitely long sentence came up in the first place was in
connection with Cantor's countable vs uncountable infinities. But since the
number of possible finite-length sentences is finite, that doesn't matter.
--gary
Messages in this topic (46)
________________________________________________________________________
3.9. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:59 am ((PST))
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Mathieu Roy <[email protected]>wrote:
> There are an infinity of finite natural number (and a sentence with
> 1,2,3,etc. words are all possible to make; so there are also an infinity of
> finite sentence). I know this can be hard to understand. But even in
> theory,
> it's impossible to come up with the number of finite possible sentences in
> English (except if you chose a number as the limit of words for a sentence;
> but not if you just say it has to be finite), because than I can come up
> with another sentence a couple of words longer than the longest in the
> list:
> it will still be finite, but I will have add one to the number. In that
> sense, there is no limit to the number of sentences. For any arbitrary huge
> number you tell me, I can find more finite sentences than this number (try
> if you want). This is what is call "infinity", the fact that for any
> arbitrary big (finite) number you give me, I can find more finite sentences
> than that number.
>
This reminds me of something I heard about for mathematics -- that we know
for similar reasons that there are an infinite number of prime numbers (you
can always find a higher one), but no one has ever formally proven it.
But yeah, I think one of the key features of human language is that it is
possible to construct an infinite number of sentences, and (more
importantly) express and infinite number of thoughts. The only limits here
are physical ones (lifetime of speakers, complexity of the brain, etc) not
limits to the abstract grammatical system.
> That makes me think of a more difficult question but also interesting (IMO)
> which would be to calculate the chance that a random string of X words form
> a sentence (for X equal to, let's say, 15).
That's hard to say. First, you would have to determine the lexicon you are
generating from (and lexica of languages, I imagine, are arbitrarily large
-- no doubt each individual's lexicon is finite, but it is unrealistic to
expect to be able to catalog all words known by all speakers). My guess
that generating a random string from any reasonably useful dictionary will
have a very low chance of providing a valid sentence, even allowing
grammatical sentences that are semantically/pragmatically nonsense like
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."
Messages in this topic (46)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: relative tense
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:28 pm ((PST))
And I think in INdonesian you can say: kalau (~waktu) kamu datang besok, saya
sudah pergi" lit. "if (~When) you come tomorrow, I already go". It's possible
to do a "future perfect" in Indo. but it's likely to occur only in very formal
writing. Ditto in Kash.
--- On Thu, 1/17/13, Melroch <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Melroch <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: relative tense
To: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 6:47 PM
In Swedish can say e.g. "Jag har gått när du kommer imorgon" lit. 'I have
gone when you come tomorrow'. It's an effect of the fact that you can use
the present tense with future meaning without any extra marking, a
remainder of the Old Germanic past vs. non-past tense system. If you use
one of the explicit future marking constructions like _kommer att_ +
infinitive you must use it on both verbs however. You can't say things
like **"Jag gick när du kommer" with one verb in the preterite and one in
the present tense.
AFMOC Sohlob has aspect (habitual, perfect and progressive) but no tense.
It also has an irrealis mode which must normally be used when talking about
the future but also in other situations. I still have to stay and think
when expressing myself in that system.
/bpj
Den torsdagen den 17:e januari 2013 skrev Njenfalgar:
> 2013/1/16 Nikolay Ivankov <[email protected] <javascript:;>>
>
> > As already said, Hopi. Hopi is polysynthetic, with up to AFAIR 5 prefixes
> > and up to 5 suffixes that you can attach to the root. Agian AFAIR the
> first
> > suffix in a clause shows relative time/aspect/something like that with
> > respect to the previous clause, such as immediate following, preceding,
> > cause, result and others, including, again AFAIR, gnomic. The grammar
> > was available online on Rosetta Project about a decade ago, and I've been
> > trying to TeXify then, but now I'm unable to find the files. But I'm
> really
> > thinking some you will definitely find it after some googling today.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Kolya
> >
>
> That sounds like what I was thinking of indeed. The Google-ing I did today
> lead mostly to the Hopi time controversy, which is about the question of
> whether Hopi has nouns describing absolute time. My language does have
> those. :-)
>
> --
> Dos ony tãsnonnop, koták ony tãsnonnop.
>
> http://njenfalgar.conlang.org/
>
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Dec29, an XVOS idea (longish)
Posted by: "neo gu" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:38 pm ((PST))
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:19:22 -0500, neo gu <[email protected]> wrote:
>So, I'm stuck at some point on each of 3 projects. This is one of them.
>
>On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 15:28:45 -0500, neo gu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> PHONOLOGY
>>
>> I have a phonology sufficient for the content words and basic numbers to all
>> be monosyllabic. What I haven't decided is whether the auxiliaries should be
>> formed orthogonally or not, i.e. consonant for clause type followed by vowel
>> for valence plus coda for direction, such as m-e-k.
>
>The trouble is, I don't like the resulting sentences. For example:
>
>mu zar bleq sa jont cak-let kat
>[mu zar blEX sa dZ)Ont tS)ak.lEt kat]
>M2 much harmful-to-agent S3 drink chocolate cat
>"Drinking chocolate is very bad for a cat."
>
>I think I need a whole new phonology!
I've made some progress with Jan12, an offshoot of Dec29, where the the initial
auxiliary verb is converted to a set of affixes on the predicate. The valence
is marked only when different from the expected value. The updated example is:
mozgarbelgu tujorbe caklet kirke.
m-os-gar-belgu t-u-jorbe caklet kirke
M-Gno-very-harmful_to_agt Sub-Aor-drink chocolate cat
"Drinking chocolate is very bad for a cat."
I've also (mostly) translated the Relay 20 Ring 1 torch into Jan12.
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6. Romanization: digraphs vs. diacritics
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:44 pm ((PST))
In my normal Romanization of Tirelat (and other recent languages), I
tend to use diacritics so that each phoneme of the language is
represented by a single letter. E.g.
Su tiski marvi žihl jĕŕastajan vë łivi žeġ jĕlak.
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
Rĕkezanuj my zjaniki tanigira da, rĕlinajžataj vë rĕsarga.
If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look around you.
But recently I've been working on a map of the world, with lots of
tentative names for places where I don't even know what languages are
spoken. I decided to use a consistent spelling for all place names,
rather than trying to figure out the phonology for all the languages
ahead of time. E.g., there's a name "Lanyamets", but I don't have a clue
whether "ny" represents two phonemes /nj/ or a single phoneme /ɲ/ in
whatever language is spoken there, or whether "ts" is considered as one
or two phonemes.
http://www.prismnet.com/~hmiller/jpg/sarangia.jpg
I do have accents on some vowels (e.g. "Sujinán"), and dieresis/umlaut
marks over vowels for additional vowel sounds, but I'm thinking that it
would be a lot easier if I just started using "ts" for the /ts/ sound in
Tirelat instead of "ċ", and "dz" for /dz/ instead of "ż". Using "gh" for
the voiced velar fricative /ɣ/ instead of "ġ" would be more convenient
for typing. And why not use "hr" for a voiceless r? That would be
ambiguous if I continue using -h for long vowels (is "lahra" pronounced
/la:ra/ or /lar̥a/?), but I can write long vowels as double (so /la:ra/
would be spelled "laara").
For the world map, I've also used a more English-like convention where
"j" represents /dʒ/ and "y" is /j/. With these conventions, Tirelat
spelling might look something like this:
Su tiski marvi zhiil yëhrastayan vë hlivi zhegh yëlak.
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
Rëkezanuy mï zyaniki tanigira da, rëlinayzhatay vë rësarga.
If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look around you.
(The difference between "ĕ" and "ë" in Tirelat romanization is only a
spelling convention, following the way Tirelat is spelled in the
Kjaginiċ alphabet.)
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. Re: Loglan VS Natlang
Posted by: "Gleki Arxokuna" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:49 pm ((PST))
A loglan or a loglang? Anyway, there are people who speak fluent lojban
which is a loglang.
join #lojban on freenode irc to meet them.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Mathieu Roy <[email protected]>wrote:
> Do you think it would be good that everyone be able to speak a loglan? I
> have been arguing all night on this. Personally I think it would be good.
>
> If you want me to define what I mean by good, let me know, but for now I
> let
> you define it has you want.
>
> -Mat
>
Messages in this topic (5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
