There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Is there a word for this?
From: Garth Wallace
2a. Re: Vulcan Language (was: Loglan VS Natlang)
From: George Corley
2b. Re: Vulcan Language (was: Loglan VS Natlang)
From: Tony Harris
3a. Re: Romanization: digraphs vs. diacritics
From: Herman Miller
3b. Re: Romanization: digraphs vs. diacritics
From: Melroch
4a. Re: Fiat Lingua Article on Esperanto Speakers
From: David Peterson
5a. French spelling (was: logical language VS not-so-logical language)
From: R A Brown
6a. Re: An ambiguous sentence
From: R A Brown
7a. Re: logical language VS not-so-logical language (was RE: Loglan[g] V
From: R A Brown
7b. Re: logical language VS not-so-logical language (was RE: Loglan[g] V
From: Mathieu Roy
7c. Re: logical language VS not-so-logical language (was RE: Loglan[g] V
From: Mathieu Roy
7d. OT: Re: logical language VS not-so-logical language (was RE: Loglan[
From: taliesin the storyteller
7e. Re: logical language VS not-so-logical language (was RE: Loglan[g] V
From: Njenfalgar
7f. Re: logical language VS not-so-logical language (was RE: Loglan[g] V
From: R A Brown
8. A Practice Conlang - For Your Enjoyment & Critiques
From: J. M. DeSantis
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Is there a word for this?
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:29 pm ((PST))
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Garth Wallace <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> And apparently I'm not doing too good a job of getting my idea across.
>>> Things like "part of speech" are similar, but the criteria for placing
>>> a word in one part of speech or another is different. If I said that a
>>> possessive pronoun and a definite article were the same part of speech
>>> people would think I was incredibly stupid.
>>
>> But you can say that they're both specifiers and be entirely correct.
>
> Yes, but other things that are also "classifiers" would not fit into
> either of my proposed classes. And the class "classifiers" is not
> useful for tagging and parsing _using the algorithm I am experimenting
> with_.
>
>>
>> If you treat classes as a flat, mutually exclusive categorization
>> scheme, of course it doesn't work.
>
> No, not mutually exclusive, but overlapping sets.
> ---snip---
>
> Keep in mind that my motive has nothing to do with the study of
> linguistics and everything to do with the engineering of a
> computerized conlang translation program. The reason for the method is
> code efficiency in C++, not "understanding" parts of speech. It's a
> wrench, not a microscope.
>
> For programming purposes the method is extremely useful, but for the
> purpose of describing the algorithm I can't use existing terms like
> "parts of speech" without misleading the reader. Thus the need for a
> new term.
>
> So the question is not "does the method work?" For programming
> purposes, it does. The questions is, what shall I call it?
Ahh, okay. Then I did misunderstand what you were getting at.
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Vulcan Language (was: Loglan VS Natlang)
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:33 pm ((PST))
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > That would be very interesting to explore. I've
> > noticed that as Star Trek
> > went on Vulcan Logic became less a rationalist ideology and
> > more of a religion of sorts.
>
> Yes. In some respects, they might have been better off leaving it at a
> rationalist ideology or philosophy.
>
> > Vulcans always did have incorrect or unusual ideas as to what
> > was "logical" (look up the "Straw Vulcan" trope),
>
> Interesting indeed. I guess the real take away message there is "no culture
> is ever 100% perfect"!
I think part of it may be "not all writers know what rationality truly is"
mixed with "Vulcans are really just emotionless foils for humans" all
retconned and rationalized into the Vulcan religion of Logic.
> > and as their culture got fleshed out through the decades with rituals and
> > mythology it seems more and more that Vulcan Logic is very dogmatic and
> > is revered in a way that seems quite religious.
>
> Yep. Reactionary too, it seems. What with all the devastating wars and so
> forth and the near destruction of the planet and culture.
>
Granted, my understanding is that they nearly destroyed themselves *before*
they found Logic.
> Though it does strike me that when something like logic or reason is
> revered as if it were some kind of divine force, and its proponents (Surak
> and the like) venerated as saints or gods, it becomes less a flexible tool
> for sorting out the universe and more a set of predetermined and inflexible
> rules. Quite like how religion has evolved *here*!
Somewhat. It is a little annoying
> > As such, it's hard to predict what they would do. Would they decide that
> > the "logical" course of action would be to keep their own language, just
> > out of pure pragmatism? Would they iron out some irregularities and be
> > done with it?
>
> Dunno. Given the irrationality of Vulcan logic, almost anything could be
> seen as "logical" and defended as such.
This is true. Realistically, though, I don't know how far Vulcan mental
training would get them as far as actually being able to ùse a loglang.
From what I understand, they tend to be fiendishly hard to handle and
still communicate efficiently, leading to situations where most discussions
devolve into arguing over how to say what the speaker *really* means.
> > Or would the priesthood develop a loglang for themselves? Lots of
> > interesting questions that we, unfortunately, can't answer, since
> > none of us get paid by Paramount to write about Vulcans.
>
> This is true. Now thát would be a job and a half! An interesting one, to
> be sure, but gargantuan as well. Take whatever is known of Vulcan (and
> indeed Romulan) language, culture, history and turn it into a unified and
> sensible whole...
>
It would be interesting. I kind of hope that the reboot does some
development here. Ironically, having most of the population wiped out
opens up lots of opportunities for stories focusing on Vulcans.
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Vulcan Language (was: Loglan VS Natlang)
Posted by: "Tony Harris" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:08 am ((PST))
Actually there's a fairly developed Golic Vulcan, including script.
Based the same way Mark Okrand did Klingon, take the passages of spoken
language with subtitles out of the first film where it's used, then
parse that back into the language, and build from there. Paramount never
officially approved it, although I think I heard that they did actually
use some bits, without attribution.
See here: http://www.stogeek.com/wiki/Category:Vulcan_Language_Institute
On 01/18/2013 10:17 AM, George Corley wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> I discussed this elsewhere and those who know more about Star Trek than
>>>> me seem to be saying that there is too much already written about
>>>> Vulcans and their space elvish language,
>>> But the Vulcans of Star Trek do NOT exist.
>> True, and he didn't say they actually exist, but even if they did, there
>> would be no reason to suppose they must speak a logical language (such as
>> Lojban). We know just enough about Star Trek Vulcan culture, physiology
>> and psychology to know that they are not so different from us: they are
>> not logical by nature, but rather by long and arduous training. It may
>> very well be that those Vulcans who are deepest in the art of logic use
>> some kind of loglang as a second language; but I'd doubt that such a beast
>> would be their cradle language.
>>
> We really don't have any info on the Vulcan language. As far as I know,
> there are only a few lines in the language, developed by Mark Okrand to
> match the mouth movements of the scene as performed in English. I'm sure
> people have analyzed that small bit of data quite thoroughly, but I doubt
> we'll see more of Vulcan language later on.
>
>
>> Within the ST universe, we also know that Romulans and Vulcans are very
>> close (if not identical) physiologically and they have a shared history.
>> It would stand to reason that the basic nature of the Vulcan language(s)
>> is more like that of the Romulans, barring some sort of radical purge.
>
> It is well-established and often stated that the Romulan and Vulcan
> languages are similar, so no purge. Probably both races speak some
> descendant of a language that existed before the split, which would in turn
> be at least a descendant of a language that existed before the Vulcans
> learned to suppress their emotions. Certainly such a language would be
> naturally evolved.
>
>
>>>> but I think real world Vulcans would either convert their natural
>>>> language to a loglan or write one from scratch.
>> They might very well do the latter.
>
> That would be very interesting to explore. I've noticed that as Star Trek
> went on Vulcan Logic became less a rationalist ideology and more of a
> religion of sorts. Vulcans always did have incorrect or unusual ideas as
> to what was "logical" (look up the "Straw Vulcan" trope), and as their
> culture got fleshed out through the decades with rituals and mythology it
> seems more and more that Vulcan Logic is very dogmatic and is revered in a
> way that seems quite religious.
>
> As such, it's hard to predict what they would do. Would they decide that
> the "logical" course of action would be to keep their own language, just
> out of pure pragmatism? Would they iron out some irregularities and be
> done with it? Or would the priesthood develop a loglang for themselves?
> Lots of interesting questions that we, unfortunately, can't answer, since
> none of us get paid by Paramount to write about Vulcans.
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Romanization: digraphs vs. diacritics
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:45 pm ((PST))
On 1/18/2013 10:43 AM, Alex Fink wrote:
> Ah, this was going to be my question exactly, too! There seems to be
> a lot of linguistic uniformity among the names on your map. I was
> wondering if it was because they'd all been Tirelatized, but Tirelat
> doesn't seem to have e.g. any â¹Ã¶âº or â¹Ã¼âº. But e.g. there are (by
> Earthly standards) quite a lot of voiced fricatives; there's scarcely
> any indication of tone (have you just dropped it?); ...
>
> Alex
Voiced fricatives are I think fairly common among Sangari and Zireen
languages in general. But there's not much sign on the map of names
featuring sounds not found in Tirelat. Besides the ö and ü, there's the
"th" and "dh" (which represent /θ/ and /ð/), the "ch" and "j" (as in
English), "hy" (which represents /ç/), and the glottal stop ' in the
names Me'a and Za'api.
It's also possible that some of these names are Tirelatized versions.
There are even dialects of Tirelat that retain the "ch" and "j" sounds,
so there's a way to write those sounds in the Tirelat alphabet. But I
think mainly it's that sounds beyond the ones in the names on the map
are sounds not found in either Tirelat or English. There certainly must
be some languages in the world with tones, nasalized vowels, ejectives,
and other sounds not obvious from the map. E.g. perhaps "Böyan" is
actually [Éø˩ÊaÌË¥], or "Chasko" is [ËtÉÊ°askʼɤ].
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Romanization: digraphs vs. diacritics
Posted by: "Melroch" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:44 am ((PST))
Given that both romanizations are transliterstions of a (supposed) native
script I really see no problem. You won't e.g. generally se the same
transliteration/transcription of Cyrillic, Devanagari, Japanese or other
scripts on a general map or in a newspaper as in a philological article.
The uniform use of Pinyin to transcribe Mandarin is both recent and
exceptional. In particular you may take an analogy from the way different
transcriptions of Japanese strive to represent either Japanese phonology,
kana spelling or the pronunciation in the terms of the conventions of
(usually) English, or some compromise between these according to the whim
of the scheme designer. In practice the choice of scheme or convention is
mostly guided by the intended or expected audience of the publication -- in
particular how much their bias is linguistic or not, or how desirable or
critical lossless retranscription/retransliteration is. We all know that a
cartographer will generally fall at or near the 'in terms of English/target
audience's language conventions' end of the spectrum.
In fact there does seem to exist a fairly widespread comvention which can
be summarized as "consonants according to or based on English conventions
and vowels based on Italian/Spanish/German conventions" -- an effect of
awareness that English vowel spelling conventions are very out of the
mainstream for the Latin alphabet as well as internally ambiguous. It is
interesting to see that this 'AngloRomance' convention is widely adhered to
even by Swedish writers targetting a Swedish audience. And even where you
will see Swedish-based conventions for consonants like <tj sj zj> (mainly
Cyrillic) you won't see Swedish-like <å o> but Italian-like <o u>. And the
sibilants will be <zj tj sj sjtj> not <zj tsj sj tj> which would better
reflect the fact that Swedish <tj> is [É] for most speakers, not to speak
of the fact that Swedish lacks [z Ê] and <sj> is [x] or [Ï] for most
speakers. The same goes for Ancient Greek: you may see <Atena> rather than
<Athena> but you won't see <Athäna> and you may see <Akilles> but never
<Såkratäs>!
My own shifts in conventions for transcribing Sohlob. I started out over 15
years ago with an ASCII-based system using <tj sj dj zj> for alveopalatals.
This was actually sub-phonemic since I decided very early that [Ê] was an
allophone of /dÊ/, and <j> was used only in those digraphs. At the same
time I used <ny hl hr> for single phonemes and <ng> ambiguously for /Å/ and
/Åg/, justified by the conventions in the 'native' script which was and is
under-specifying to a high degree. There were also the slightly odd <e> for
/ɨ/ <ae> for /æ/ which was unambiguous because of vowel harmony. I later
switched to a Latin-1 based convention with <æ c ç j j> instead of <ae tj
sj dj zj> and this in spite of the fact that /tÉ dÊ/ were digraphs in the
native script! When Unicode entered the scene I did introduce <Å> instead
of <ñ> in the transcription of the (then) protolanguage Kijeb, and I did
consider introducing <ñ Å Å> instead of <ny ng hl> in Classical Sohlob but
decided against it because it wasn't clear what I would replace <hr hm hn
hny hng> with in the sister language Cidilib. More recently when writing
*in Swedish* about the Sohldar universe for a non-conlanger audience I've
considered following AngloRomance conventions and use <ch sh j zh kh gh>
rather than <c ç j j x q> -- being mostly concerned about the Cidilib
placename Jdrig/Zhdrig The problem is that most Swedes would even pronounce
<j> as [j] when speaking English! OTOH the 'SuedoCyrillic' <tj sj dj zj ch
gh> might look silly to the audience (AngloRomance rather than Swedish
expectations in a Swedish audience!) and moreover <sj ch> might be
misleading. I got so despondent that I considered going for a straight
transliteration of the native spellings using <ty sy zy zy x q> in Cidilib
and <tx sx dz zz x q> in CS! Should I even go so far as to use <Ä> or <ȧ>
for /Ê/ and CS <bb dd gg> for /p t k/ and Cidilib <hb hd dy hg> for /p t tÉ
k/? Then why not <hh> for /s/ as is actually the case in the native script?
I think that would introduce bogus alienness were none actually exists and
make the two conlangs seem more different than they are or would be to
illiterate native speakers.
/bpj
Den fredagen den 18:e januari 2013 skrev Herman Miller:
> 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 jÄÅastajan vë Åivi žeÄ¡ jÄlak.
> The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
>
> RÄkezanuj my zjaniki tanigira da, rÄlinajžataj vë rÄsarga.
> 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<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 "Ä", and "dz" for /dz/ instead of "ż". Using "gh" for
> the voiced velar fricative /É£/ instead of "Ä¡" 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 /dÊ/ 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 "Ä" and "ë" in Tirelat romanization is only a
> spelling convention, following the way Tirelat is spelled in the KjaginiÄ
> alphabet.)
>
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Fiat Lingua Article on Esperanto Speakers
Posted by: "David Peterson" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:56 pm ((PST))
This is a bit of an old thread, but there's been an update, so I wanted to let
everyone know. Thanks very much to Roger Mills and Jim Henry for their comments
on Adelina Solis's Fiat Lingua article on the Esperanto speaking community.
After reviewing the errata, she gave us a corrected version which you can read
here:
http://fiatlingua.org/2013/01/
She did, however, leave one "typo" in: the misspelling of the word
"international" in the title Internacional Hospitality Service. She did this
because that's how it's actually spelled on the page here:
http://www.tejo.org/en/ps_lingv_en
It's likely still a typo on the part of the site author(s), but since it
remains, she felt it was best to leave it as is.
Thanks again for the feedback!
David Peterson
LCS President
[email protected]
www.conlang.org
On Jan 4, 2013, at 7:29 PM, Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> (Errata dept.)
> David-- It could take a while, as I'm leaving on Sunday for 3 weeks in
> Florida (by no means a vacation, strictly a duty.....). Maybe someone else
> will have spotted them in the meantime.
> R.
>
> --- On Fri, 1/4/13, David Peterson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, that would be very helpful. Thanks!
> =======================================
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. French spelling (was: logical language VS not-so-logical language)
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:22 am ((PST))
On 18/01/2013 19:28, BPJ wrote:
> On 2013-01-18 19:57, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>> I don't know if the following is true, but my French
>> teacher told me that monks in the past were paid by
>> letters and therefore were adding letters to some
>> words.
A bit of a myth, methinks. Monks weren't paid.
>> That would explain why a lot of words have for example
>> the letters "eau" pronounces as "o" (bateau, eau, beau,
>> chateau, etc.) or simply "au" pronounces as "o" (faux,
>> taux, etc.) or silent letter at the end (faux, taux,
>> etc.) or double letters that are indistinguishable from
>> one letter (balle, sale, association, etc.)
No, it does not explain any one of those things.
> It *is* true that they added letters here and there,
Yes, especially by early printers to justify lines (monks
could justify them more easily by slightly modifying width
of letters and spaces).
> but for the most part 'illogical' spellings in French
> reflect how the words were actually pronounced in the
> thirteent century.
Exactly! Yes, for the most part modern French spelling
reflects how the language was pronounced in the 13th
century. The reason for _eau_ and _au_ now pronounced as
/o/, is that the spellings represent the pronunciation of
the 13th century, the modern pronunciation is the result of
sound changes that have taken place since.
The reason silent letters occur at the end of words is that
they were not silent in the 13th century, but have become so
since. The only oddity here is the final -x of some plurals
where _x_ was mistaken for a common handwritten abbreviation
of -us.
> Some were meant to approximate the spelling to their
> Latin counterpart, sometimes mistakenly.
That accounts for geminate consonants.
Others were stuck in by learned or semi-learned people after
the renaissance; the same thing happened in English. Some,
as BPJ says, were mistaken, e.g. _sçavoir_ (<-- sapere) with
the mistaken idea it had something to with Latin _scire_,
and _dipner_ (<-- VL. *disjunáre) with mistaken idea that
somehow it was related to Greek _deipnein_! Fortunately,
the French were, for the most part, more sensible than their
English counterparts, and dropped nearly all these
absurdities, e.g. they now write: savoir, dîner. The only
common survival that comes to mind is the _p_ in _sept_.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language
began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: An ambiguous sentence
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:50 am ((PST))
On 18/01/2013 19:16, Roger Mills wrote:
> Here's just about my favorite-- my major professor
> always threw it out to his Ling.101 students:
>
> The police were ordered to stop drinking on campus after
> midnight.
:-D
...and, of course, the term "logical language" itself is
also ambiguous, as anyone who checks the use of the term
will find ;)
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language
began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. Re: logical language VS not-so-logical language (was RE: Loglan[g] V
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:06 am ((PST))
On 18/01/2013 20:51, Padraic Brown wrote:
> --- On Fri, 1/18/13, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>
[snip]
>> I'm not saying we should remove the paint and the
>> wallpaper, I'm just saying we should repair the
>> plumbing and the holes in the wall.
>
> Perhaps there really isn't anything wrong with the
> plumbing after all...
I don't find anything particularly wrong with it, either.
> With all due respect, it's not my intention to get into
> a dreadful loglang v. natlang discussion.
Nor I.
[snip]
>
> Perhaps at this point you might consider taking this to
> Auxlang or some sort of loglang analog?
Yes, _please_.
> I deleted a whole lot of your post, which might be better
> off over that way, since it really is more about loglang
> supremacy at the worst or advocacy at the very least.
Yep. If Mathieu wants to speak a loglang, then there's
already Lojban and the original Loglan to choose from.
Loglangs are an *interesting experiment* as a type of
conlang. I have no quarrel whatever with those interested
in the experiment or with those who want to learn them. The
same goes for auxlangs.
But what I do not and will not go along with is someone who
wants the whole world to speak a particular auxlang or a
particular loglang and, as Padraic says, such advocacy is
not appropriate on this list.
>> FINAL THOUGHT: If there were no natural languages, how
>> would you create one and why?
>
> If there were no natural languages, we wouldn't be able
> to create one, because we'd have no concept of language
> with which to create.
Quite - the question itself is illogical!
[snip]
>
> Final thought: I'm just going to reiterate my totally
> nonlogical assertion: no, it would not be a good thing
> for everyone to speak a loglang.
No indeed it wouldn't. The great varieties of natlangs and
all their endearing idiosyncrasies is what got me interested
in language some sixty or so years ago, and still keeps my
interest. How boring if we all spoke a bland loglang!
> It ain't broke, so why try to fix it? And leave the
> discussion at that.
AMEN!
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language
began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
7b. Re: logical language VS not-so-logical language (was RE: Loglan[g] V
Posted by: "Mathieu Roy" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:22 am ((PST))
Hi Padraic,
What do you mean you deleted "a whole lot of [my] post"? Are you a moderator
of the list? Because I only responded to what other people had written. In
my opinion, if one want to ban a subject, it would be more reasonable to ban
both side of the argument, and not just one. No offense.
"If there were no natural languages, we wouldn't be able to create one,
because we'd have no concept of language with which to create."
Yes clearly; I was more asking the question from a though experiment point
of view.
Mathieu
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] De la
part de Padraic Brown
Envoyé : vendredi 18 janvier 2013 21:52
À : [email protected]
Objet : Re: logical language VS not-so-logical language (was RE: Loglan[g]
VS Natlang)
--- On Fri, 1/18/13, Mathieu Roy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Yep. The loglangs I have seen look very bland and technical; natlangs
> > and naturalistic artlangs are far richer than those. Speaking a
> > loglang is live living in an apartment without wallpaper, lit by
> > naked light bulbs, and with furniture made of unpolished and unpainted
> > pieces of wood coarsely nailed together. It works, but there is no
> > *fun* to it.
>
> I'm not saying we should remove the paint and the wallpaper, I'm just
> saying we should repair the plumbing and the holes in the wall.
Perhaps there really isn't anything wrong with the plumbing after all...
With all due respect, it's not my intention to get into a dreadful
loglang v. natlang discussion. I said before I am no fan of loglangs or
constructed auxlangs. I agree with the above: bland and technical.
Asceptic even. Certainly no fun or mystery there! I think that no loglang
does any better what a natlang can already do; and can't do some of what a
natlang does by nature. So, I don't see much point in them.
Perhaps at this point you might consider taking this to Auxlang or some
sort of loglang analog? I deleted a whole lot of your post, which might be
better off over that way, since it really is more about loglang supremacy
at the worst or advocacy at the very least.
> FINAL THOUGHT: If there were no natural languages, how would you create
> one and why?
If there were no natural languages, we wouldn't be able to create one,
because we'd have no concept of language with which to create. We wouldn't
even be talking about creating one, because we'd be simple, non-speaking
languageless apes living in the forests of Africa somewhere.
Final thought: I'm just going to reiterate my totally nonlogical assertion:
no, it would not be a good thing for everyone to speak a loglang. It ain't
broke, so why try to fix it? And leave the discussion at that.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
7c. Re: logical language VS not-so-logical language (was RE: Loglan[g] V
Posted by: "Mathieu Roy" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:42 am ((PST))
<<But what I do not and will not go along with is someone who wants the
whole world to speak a particular auxlang or a particular loglang and, as
Padraic says, such advocacy is not appropriate on this list.>>
Nor will I. I will quote myself "In the end everybody is (or at least should
be IMO) free to speak the language they want (except maybe in court?). So if
you think that a logical language is "better", then learn one, otherwise
don't."
At worst, I implied that I personally prefer more logical language. But I
did not advocate for any specific language, nor did I say that everyone
should learn a logical language. Please quote me if I did, but before that I
think your reactions are inappropriate.
If I can quote myself again from a previous email "Sorry for my badly
phrased [question]. I agree that people should learn a language only if they
want to [...] That's why I reformulated my though in a latter email asking
for advantages of less logical languages because that's what I really wanted
to know in the end. So I apologize."
My long email was only about discussing of the advantages of logical
languages and non-logical ones in a theoretical way. While it is true that I
enumerated some points that I consider advantages of logical languages, I
did not say anyone should learn one, so I did not advocate anything.
I am creating a logical language, so isn't appropriate for me to ask your
opinion about some aspects of logical languages?
If someone is interested to talk about this off list, please write to me:
[email protected].
Mathieu
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] De la
part de R A Brown
Envoyé : samedi 19 janvier 2013 11:06
À : [email protected]
Objet : Re: logical language VS not-so-logical language (was RE: Loglan[g]
VS Natlang)
On 18/01/2013 20:51, Padraic Brown wrote:
> --- On Fri, 1/18/13, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>
[snip]
>> I'm not saying we should remove the paint and the
>> wallpaper, I'm just saying we should repair the
>> plumbing and the holes in the wall.
>
> Perhaps there really isn't anything wrong with the
> plumbing after all...
I don't find anything particularly wrong with it, either.
> With all due respect, it's not my intention to get into
> a dreadful loglang v. natlang discussion.
Nor I.
[snip]
>
> Perhaps at this point you might consider taking this to
> Auxlang or some sort of loglang analog?
Yes, _please_.
> I deleted a whole lot of your post, which might be better
> off over that way, since it really is more about loglang
> supremacy at the worst or advocacy at the very least.
Yep. If Mathieu wants to speak a loglang, then there's
already Lojban and the original Loglan to choose from.
Loglangs are an *interesting experiment* as a type of
conlang. I have no quarrel whatever with those interested
in the experiment or with those who want to learn them. The
same goes for auxlangs.
But what I do not and will not go along with is someone who
wants the whole world to speak a particular auxlang or a
particular loglang and, as Padraic says, such advocacy is
not appropriate on this list.
>> FINAL THOUGHT: If there were no natural languages, how
>> would you create one and why?
>
> If there were no natural languages, we wouldn't be able
> to create one, because we'd have no concept of language
> with which to create.
Quite - the question itself is illogical!
[snip]
>
> Final thought: I'm just going to reiterate my totally
> nonlogical assertion: no, it would not be a good thing
> for everyone to speak a loglang.
No indeed it wouldn't. The great varieties of natlangs and
all their endearing idiosyncrasies is what got me interested
in language some sixty or so years ago, and still keeps my
interest. How boring if we all spoke a bland loglang!
> It ain't broke, so why try to fix it? And leave the
> discussion at that.
AMEN!
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language
began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
7d. OT: Re: logical language VS not-so-logical language (was RE: Loglan[
Posted by: "taliesin the storyteller" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:47 am ((PST))
On 01/19/2013 02:22 PM, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> What do you mean you deleted "a whole lot of [my] post"?
This is an email-list, not a bulletin board. What has been sent cannot
be unsent. Moderators cannot go in and edit a message after it is sent.
What he meant was that when he made a copy of your message, he removed a
lot of what you wrote in order to highlight the remaining bits, those
that he wanted to reply to. You see, you don't have to include
everything, ever, in every single mail.
Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, bandwidth was expensive and and
connections s-l-o-w, this was used to make replies shorter so that they
could be received quicker. It also has the pleasant side effect of
making individual messages resemble a conversation. Notice how first you
say something, then I reply *below*? And what you said is clearly marked
as being said by you.
I know this is no longer fashionable but I do long back to those days,
besides, brontosaurus steak is soo the yums.
t., grumpy old fart
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
7e. Re: logical language VS not-so-logical language (was RE: Loglan[g] V
Posted by: "Njenfalgar" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:21 am ((PST))
2013/1/18 Mathieu Roy <[email protected]>
> [example] For example, if one love someone (else), but one don't know if
> s/he wants a serious relationship with her/him, then it is good to have a
> word to precisely show that s/he doesn't know exactly how much s/he loves
> her/him; so it is ambiguous in the sense that his/her feelings too are
> ambiguous. However, I think it would be good (by "good" I mean it would
> help
> people to clearly express there though if they want to) to have more
> precise
> word in order to differentiate different kind of love (in fact, there are
> probably some natural languages that do have more words). It is true that
> someone could just explain the kind of love s/he feels toward someone, but
> I
> think it would be better (ie. a lot shorter and simpler) to have other
> words
> for some concepts.
>
English has the words to express all these things. Maybe you won't get
there with just *one* word, but if you use a full sentence (like: "I think
I love you, but I don't know if I'm ready for a serious relationship.")
there's nothing that a human being can feel and that cannot be expressed in
living, natural language. When I was an adolescent I felt like you: the
languages I spoke seemed to "lack" the words to describe my feelings, but
growing up (and reading plenty of books) I realised that human
communication does not really depend on words. If you don't find the exact
word, there's always a gazillion other ways to express yourself clearly and
understandably. And if you do find the exact word, chances are it will be
so specialised a word that your audience won't understand this word, and
you're only off worse. That's why I once invented the 'õSet'akh proverb:
"a'õMèèjnta khi khapeson üsh chajipièè khinapìnkh, ichi nèèn üsh mang
nimarhèè?"
"No word can say all, for who would understand?"
(Interlinear at http://njenfalgar.conlang.org/'oSet'akh.pdf, page 3.)
Greets,
David
--
Dos ony tãsnonnop, koták ony tãsnonnop.
http://njenfalgar.conlang.org/
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
7f. Re: logical language VS not-so-logical language (was RE: Loglan[g] V
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:21 am ((PST))
_brief_ reply in this tedious thread.
On 19/01/2013 13:42, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> <<But what I do not and will not go along with is someone
> who wants the whole world to speak a particular auxlang
> or a particular loglang and, as Padraic says, such
> advocacy is not appropriate on this list.>>
>
> Nor will I. I will quote myself "In the end everybody is
> (or at least should be IMO) free to speak the language
> they want (except maybe in court?).
"except maybe in court" - a little worrying, methinks
> So if you think that a logical language is "better",
> then learn one, otherwise don't."
OK - but I have steeled myself and re-read your long email
of the 18th January. It reads to me a whole lot like
advocating the use of loglangs.
> At worst, I implied that I personally prefer more logical
> language. But I did not advocate for any specific
> language,
Indeed not. So then you advocate different people learning
different loglangs?
> nor did I say that everyone should learn a logical
> language.
It was the overall impression I got from your very long
email which, I must confess, I found (and still find)
difficult to follow in full.
[snip]
> I am creating a logical language, so isn't appropriate
> for me to ask your opinion about some aspects of logical
> languages?
That would be fine, if you confined your questions to
loglang design. But all the clap-trap about the advantages
of a loglang is IMO advocacy.
BTW I don't really understand what the subject means. Is a
"not-so-logical language" something like Voksigid? Or what?
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language
began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8. A Practice Conlang - For Your Enjoyment & Critiques
Posted by: "J. M. DeSantis" [email protected]
Date: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:55 am ((PST))
Conlang List,
First of all, I just want to warn and apologise about the length. I'm
listing all of the information here on a short, quick conlang exercise I
did, for those who are interested, so this message is going to be quite
long, in the end.
That said, even though I'm behind on where I want to be in my script for
a Chadhiyana graphic novel (which I've started writing and is part of
the fantasy world, which includes many conlangs, I've been working on
and which. I also mentioned previously, I published a small preview
comic for the character, Chadhiyana), I was in the midst of creating new
names for some characters and had a startling revelation. Though I've
been coining new words and names, stumbling in the dark through the
process (seemingly), I realised I've never created a conlang from
(relative) start to finish. So I decided to take some time over the past
two days and create something new that I could coin some names from and
write a few sentences in. I wasn't concerned so much with how the
language sounded. Merely this was an exercise I took on to get ideas on
paper, commit to choices made, and build a working structure. A sketch,
so to speak. Practice. The exercise was both eye opening and surprising.
Some of the language, to me, sounds very good to my ear, though, as
usual with my conlangs, I find concentrating on the language first
results in awkward names. Whereas, creating names first, makes the
language difficult to build properly. (Anyone else have this problem or
know how to solve it?) But, first the language in full. And note it *is*
very small; I was just trying to build something quick to put together a
few sentences with, but I thought I'd share it anyway. After that,
perhaps a few more comments:
PHONOLOGY:
As in English: /B, D, K, L, M, N, P, T/
F *f*ar
G *g*et
H *h*orse
R trilled
S initially and finally say*s*. Elsewhere *s*even
V *v*ery
W *w*et
I initially before a vowel, *y*ore. Elsewhere, vowel i
A f*a*ther
E *e*ducate
I st*ee*l
U s*oo*n
AI st*a*ke
EI gr*ey*
Word Order: SOV
No definite or indefinite articles
2 noun classes: neuter & living things
Neuter Endings: L, M, N
Living-Things Endings: B, D, K
Prefixes (for Morphology):
atru- multiple
gei- half
teg- true
al- inside
eig- non/un
asa- part of
ain- from/of
NOUNS:
beil darkness/dark
freb tree
tuk man
dad woman
grel swamp
vek bird
teb beast/animal (non-bird)
wud fish
mim light
krel water
ren sky
pak fire (notice it's classified as a living thing)
hib earth (again, living thing)
farn blade
sail wheel
aldad child
geivek penguin (I don't know why, I really love that penguin means
"half bird")
ainvek egg
ril steel
tegril sword
eigtuk corpse
tegdad mother
geifarn knife/dagger
ainhib life
atrufarn fork
atrutuk community/society
sed ear
gub demon
wreg tale
verun time
ADJECTIVES: (created by appending the suffix *it* to nouns)
wilit yellow
ienit green
lalit white
krimit black
valit red
geivalit orange
tegwulit blue
wulit purple
mimit gleam/shine
eigmimit dull
rilit strong
dadit caring
aldadit innocent
tegmimit pure
tirnit noble
VERBS:
Verbs are conjugated by person and tense. Tense is created by adding a
suffix to the root. Person by adding a prefix.
Personal Prefixes:
a- he
ai- she
i- it
li- you
uli- you (all)
ura- they
ira- we
Tense Suffixes:
-ri Present
-rug Past Perfect
-tug Past Imperfect
-aw Future
-it Imperative
Root forms of verbs take the ending *agal* which is dropped during
conjugation.
eigtukagal to die
dadagal to give birth/to begin
tegdadagal to care
tegrilagal to fight/to wage war
ainhibagal to live
renagal to fly
valitagal to bleed
wulitagal to rage/to be angry
beilagal to sleep
sedagal to hear
tainagal to kill
hinagal to break/to destroy
faimagal to avenge
brukagal to be
PRONOUNS (some):
ugra how
fav thus
sego this
PREPOSITIONS:
la by
hik for
MISC WORDS (which I added while doing the translation below):
utu all
ug it
agr her
d and
TRANSLATION EXERCISE: (note, I may have messed up the grammar on the end
of the last sentence, but the sentence was so complex (as I tend to
write) I was uncertain of some of it's order--corrections on this welcome)
Sedit! Lisedri ugra Tegmimit Dad agr aldad aifaimrug la Grelgub
aitainrug d Krimit Tegril aihinrug, hik utu verun. Ibrukri tirnit wreg.
Fav idadri!
Listen! Hear how the Pure Mother avenged her child by slaying the Swamp
Demon and broke the Black Sword, for all time. This is a noble tale.
Thus it begins!
Now, I won't say this is the most wonderful language (or fragment of a
language, rather) ever created, however, the exercise was fun to do, and
it did produce some fun results. Some of the words I am not so crazy
about, and I really dislike the name Grelgub (even for a swamp demon),
but the other names are good, at least to me. But the exercise still did
not solve a few concerns which always make me uncertain about what I'm
doing: roots, word/name length and (as I alluded to earlier) the fact
that creating words first can create some abysmal names, however,
creating the language from names can create its own set of difficulties
(either forcing rules to change or hours of work just on one name until
it can be modified to fit the language's rules well and still sound good
to the ear). Word and name length is an especial concern of mine
because. An example of my concerns is: if a root is two syllables, then
add a one syllable prefix to modify it's meaning, and then turn that
noun into a verb with a two syllable conjugated ending, you're talking
about a five syllable word. The same with compound names. A root word of
two syllables becomes three with an adjective--let's go with a prefix in
this case. Add the two syllable noun with it's extra single-syllable
noun ending that the adjective is describing and quickly you've coined a
six syllable name. Names such as that could certainly work in the
languages of Chadhiyana's culture (more Indian-based), however, once
moving to the more European-esque parts of the world, a name like that
is just too long. I feel it's too easy to have long names, and very,
very, very difficult (almost impossible) to have one or two syllable
names (even if using a single noun, as a classifier added to a root must
produce at least two syllables, making one syllable impossible).
Anyone's thoughts on this?
Anyway, again, this was just a private exercise I took on. It's nothing
I'm planning to use, but, considering the nature of the list, I thought
I'd share it. Feel free to comment and offer some constructive
criticism. After all, feedback is perhaps the best way for me to learn a
thing or two. All the best.
--
Sincerely,
J. M. DeSantis
Writer - Illustrator
Official Website: jmdesantis.com <http://www.jmdesantis.com>
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
