There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Romanization: digraphs vs. diacritics
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
2a. Re: A Practice Conlang - For Your Enjoyment & Critiques
From: Roger Mills
2b. Re: A Practice Conlang - For Your Enjoyment & Critiques
From: J. M. DeSantis
2c. Re: A Practice Conlang - For Your Enjoyment & Critiques
From: J. M. DeSantis
3a. Quoting dialog
From: Gary Shannon
3b. Re: Quoting dialog
From: Roger Mills
3c. Re: Quoting dialog
From: Padraic Brown
4a. Re: So, about Ithkuil...
From: John Q
4b. Re: So, about Ithkuil...
From: John Q
4c. Re: So, about Ithkuil...
From: Daniel Bowman
4d. Re: So, about Ithkuil...
From: Logan Kearsley
4e. Re: So, about Ithkuil...
From: John Q
5a. Re: Natlang evolution (was RE: French spelling (was: logical languag
From: Padraic Brown
6.1. Re: French spelling (was: logical language VS not-so-logical languag
From: Padraic Brown
7a. Re: Hypothetical situation (RE: logical language VS not-so-logical l
From: Herman Miller
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Romanization: digraphs vs. diacritics
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:39 pm ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
On Sunday 20 January 2013 00:02:28 Herman Miller wrote:
> On 1/19/2013 8:44 AM, Melroch wrote:
> > 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 [ʑ] was an allophone of /dʑ/, and <j> was used only in those
> > digraphs. At the same time I used <ny hl hr> for single phonemes and <ng>
> > ambiguously for /ŋ/ and /ŋg/, justified by the conventions in the
> > 'native' script which was and is under-specifying to a high degree.
>
> The ambiguity with "ng" is admittedly one of the drawbacks of
> conventions like these including the spelling I use on the map (in names
> like "Kerngat" and "Nagmingo"). A name like "Nagmingo" could be
> [naɡminɡo], [naɡmiŋɡo], or [naɡmiŋo] (not counting possible variations
> in the vowels that aren't distinguished in the romanization).
In my romanization of Old Albic, _ng_ is always /ŋ/; the sequence
/ŋg/ is transcribed _ngg_, /ŋk/ is _ngc_, and /ng/ does not occur
(a nasal preceding a stop always assimilates to the latter's POA).
Of course, in the native script, there is a letter for /ŋ/ (also
letters for /ɸ/, /θ/ and /x/, so no digraphs are needed at all).
--
... 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 (10)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: A Practice Conlang - For Your Enjoyment & Critiques
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:40 pm ((PST))
--- On Sun, 1/20/13, J. M. DeSantis <[email protected]> wrote:
I know it was probably lost in the feed with all of these other conversations
going, but would anyone mind looking over the post I made early on Saturday
morning and offering some feedback?
===================================
OK, here's a bit.
====================================
>
> 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
==================================
You could simplify this a bit by including f, g, h, v, w in the "like in
English" category.
Personally I find your "s" a little unnatural, but don't see any other choice.
"I" before a V = Engl. "y", OK. But what do you mean by "vowel i"? Which "i"--
Engl., continental, IPA, what?
>
> A f*a*ther--- OK
> E *e*ducate---OK
> I st*ee*l ----- this is the usual IPA value of [i]; so what's the "i"
> mentioned above? English "short i"? which is IPA/CSX [I] (cap. i)
> U s*oo*n--OK
> AI st*a*ke
> EI gr*ey*
========================
In some (most?) dialects of Engl. (esp. Amer.) these are the same sound [ej]
(IPA e with high-front offglide)
> 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
===========================
These offer quite a bit of flexibility in word creation; good!
============================
>
> 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--- but a child isn't _always_ "inside mother"....
> 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
======================================
E-mail formatting is part of the problem here IMO. It would have been more
helpful (to me) to have the various derivatives grouped under their head-word.
In a quick read, it was difficult to spot the prefixes etc. e.g. ainvek
'from/of+bird' = egg. At minimum, it would be helpful to alphabetize the list,
but of course that can come later.
> 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
===============================
What about first pers. sing. "I" ????
==============================
>
> Tense Suffixes:
> -ri Present-- OK
> -rug Past Perfect***
> -tug Past Imperfect***
> -aw Future--OK
> -it Imperative--OK
==========================================
***these are imprecise terms. To many, Past Perfect is the "I had eaten"
tense-- but I have the feeling you're aiming for something more like the
Span/Italian preterit (one-time/finished) vs. imperfect (ongoing in the
past/habitual) distinction-- or maybe the Russian perfective/imperfective
(which I"ve never quite understood ;-(((( ).
>
> 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--- not a pronoun, it's an interrogative or a conjunction(?)
> fav thus-- not a pronoun, it's an adverb
> sego this-- what about "that"? IMO you'll need both eventually.
>
> PREPOSITIONS:
> la by
> hik for
========================
You'll surely need many more than these, no?
>
> MISC WORDS (which I added while doing the translation below):
> utu all
> ug it
> agr her--- doesn't this violate the phonology? I don't see any other words
> ending in 2 consonants. Or is it the possessive form?
> d and--- doesn't this single-C word violate the phonology? One would
> expect "dV" or "Vd"
>
> 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)...
=====================
I like it!
===================
... 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).
=========================
I agree on that. You'll just have to make up your mind :-)
===============================
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?
======================
What do you have against long words? ;-))) If your derivational system
produces them, so be it.
My conlang Kash can produce some fairly long forms too; no problem.
All in all, not a bad sketch by any means. Keep at it.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: A Practice Conlang - For Your Enjoyment & Critiques
Posted by: "J. M. DeSantis" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:47 pm ((PST))
Roger,
Thanks for the critique. Again, this was just a quick day or two
"sketch" (of probably only 5 hours total time invested--maybe 7 or 8 on
the long side). I *did* miss the verb conjunction for I; another
oversight, but not something I'd normally miss.
As for some of the phonology, I noticed you called me out on the IPA
reference. Unfortunately, IPA is not something I'm very familiar with
(and I understand it's a preferred method of reference for linguists and
conlangers). I often have difficulty understanding the sounds it
references precisely (having no linguistic background), and where to put
them in the Phonological Grid when I use them. Thus I resort to the
method used in many English-OtherLanguage dictionaries where I list what
the word sounds like. But the reference to "vowel i" is meant to state
the pronunciation for consonant i only occurs in this situation,
otherwise you're looking at i as a vowel and so refer to that pronunciation.
Also, yes, I normally would alphabetize my word list and include a
English-to-Language section as well. But I was just quickly typing it
all in as I had it written down. I did all of the work in a small pocket
notebook I keep on me for both conlang and story ideas. My apologies. I
should have taken the time to do that before sending it.
Over all, this was a fun exercise to do, and it certainly helped in the
confidence department (as per feeling confident about being able to
create a working language that has a good sound to it). It's something
I'd recommend to anyone starting out. This way, you're free to play
around, without feeling the pressure of messing up one of your conlangs.
And, if something good happens, you can always incorporate it or just
start developing the "sketch" into something more concrete.
I appreciate your encouragement. All the best.
Sincerely,
J. M. DeSantis
Writer - Illustrator
Official Website: jmdesantis.com <http://www.jmdesantis.com>
On 1/20/2013 4:40 PM, Roger Mills wrote:
> --- On Sun, 1/20/13, J. M. DeSantis <[email protected]> wrote:
> I know it was probably lost in the feed with all of these other conversations
> going, but would anyone mind looking over the post I made early on Saturday
> morning and offering some feedback?
> ===================================
> OK, here's a bit.
> ====================================
>> 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
> ==================================
> You could simplify this a bit by including f, g, h, v, w in the "like in
> English" category.
>
> Personally I find your "s" a little unnatural, but don't see any other choice.
>
> "I" before a V = Engl. "y", OK. But what do you mean by "vowel i"? Which
> "i"-- Engl., continental, IPA, what?
>
>
>> A f*a*ther--- OK
>> E *e*ducate---OK
>> I st*ee*l ----- this is the usual IPA value of [i]; so what's the "i"
>> mentioned above? English "short i"? which is IPA/CSX [I] (cap. i)
>> U s*oo*n--OK
>> AI st*a*ke
>> EI gr*ey*
> ========================
> In some (most?) dialects of Engl. (esp. Amer.) these are the same sound [ej]
> (IPA e with high-front offglide)
>> 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
> ===========================
> These offer quite a bit of flexibility in word creation; good!
> ============================
>> 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--- but a child isn't _always_ "inside mother"....
>> 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
> ======================================
> E-mail formatting is part of the problem here IMO. It would have been more
> helpful (to me) to have the various derivatives grouped under their
> head-word. In a quick read, it was difficult to spot the prefixes etc. e.g.
> ainvek 'from/of+bird' = egg. At minimum, it would be helpful to alphabetize
> the list, but of course that can come later.
>
>> 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
> ===============================
> What about first pers. sing. "I" ????
> ==============================
>> Tense Suffixes:
>> -ri Present-- OK
>> -rug Past Perfect***
>> -tug Past Imperfect***
>> -aw Future--OK
>> -it Imperative--OK
> ==========================================
> ***these are imprecise terms. To many, Past Perfect is the "I had eaten"
> tense-- but I have the feeling you're aiming for something more like the
> Span/Italian preterit (one-time/finished) vs. imperfect (ongoing in the
> past/habitual) distinction-- or maybe the Russian perfective/imperfective
> (which I"ve never quite understood ;-(((( ).
>
>> 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--- not a pronoun, it's an interrogative or a conjunction(?)
>> fav thus-- not a pronoun, it's an adverb
>> sego this-- what about "that"? IMO you'll need both eventually.
>>
>> PREPOSITIONS:
>> la by
>> hik for
> ========================
> You'll surely need many more than these, no?
>> MISC WORDS (which I added while doing the translation below):
>> utu all
>> ug it
>> agr her--- doesn't this violate the phonology? I don't see any other
>> words ending in 2 consonants. Or is it the possessive form?
>> d and--- doesn't this single-C word violate the phonology? One would
>> expect "dV" or "Vd"
>>
>> 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)...
> =====================
> I like it!
> ===================
>
> ... 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).
> =========================
> I agree on that. You'll just have to make up your mind :-)
> ===============================
>
> 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?
> ======================
> What do you have against long words? ;-))) If your derivational system
> produces them, so be it.
>
> My conlang Kash can produce some fairly long forms too; no problem.
>
> All in all, not a bad sketch by any means. Keep at it.
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: A Practice Conlang - For Your Enjoyment & Critiques
Posted by: "J. M. DeSantis" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:02 pm ((PST))
On 1/20/2013 4:40 PM, Roger Mills wrote:
> ====================== What do you have against long words? ;-))) If
> your derivational system produces them, so be it. My conlang Kash can
> produce some fairly long forms too; no problem. All in all, not a bad
> sketch by any means. Keep at it.
I don't mean to over do this, but I did want to respond to your question
here (as briefly as I can, since I have a habit of running on a bit). My
aversion to long words (and names) is entirely their approachability. I
find, often enough, Americans and sometimes Europeans (not all) have
difficulty with longer words, especially where their first language (or
only language) consists of mostly short, concise words. The name of my
new fantasy character, Chadhiyana (pronounced Chah-di-yah-nah), who I've
mentioned a few times before, I find most people have trouble
pronouncing the name without some prompt, and that one, I felt, I tried
to make as universally pronounceable as possible (or at least approachable).
It's just that I find, the longer the word, the more daunting it is to
someone who is not familiar enough with the language. And this goes back
to an argument I made so much earlier on this List, which is that, for
anyone incorporating their languages into a fictional word/story (such
as I am doing), it's best to keep in mind that most people will find it
difficult to pronounce your words (especially when using diacritics and
characters they're unfamiliar with). Of course, that's not to say you
should sacrifice your entire vision for the sake of familiarity and
pronoucability. It's just something to keep in mind. And as such, I try
my best not to over use long names (four or more syllables). Though, I
am finding, it's more natural for me to create longer names. Perhaps I
might have some success then with the languages I'm currently working
on, as it's less of a concern.
Sincerely,
J. M. DeSantis
Writer - Illustrator
Official Website: jmdesantis.com <http://www.jmdesantis.com>
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Quoting dialog
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:46 pm ((PST))
Consider the several different ways that natlangs punctuate quoted dialog.
"I'm speaking English," he said.
The dash used in Spanish.
�Wir gehen am Dienstag.�
�Das war damals in Berlin�
I came up with a different approach: bracket the NON-quoted portion of
the sentence, like this:
I have been here three days, [continued Kantos Kan], but I have not
yet found where Dejah Thoris is imprisoned.
I am unarmed and no enemy, [I hastened to explain].
Then syntactically the bracketed text can be treated as if it were a
prepositional phrase.
It could also be written with different style brackets:
I have been here three days, <continued Kantos Kan>, but I have not
yet found where Dejah Thoris is imprisoned.
I am unarmed and no enemy, <I hastened to explain>.
Any opinions?
--gary
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Quoting dialog
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:07 pm ((PST))
--- On Sun, 1/20/13, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
Consider the several different ways that natlangs punctuate quoted dialog.
"I'm speaking English," he said.
The dash used in Spanish.
«Wir gehen am Dienstag.»
„Das war damals in Berlin”
==============================
IIRC Joyce used the dash too..... What's the diff. between the two German exs.??
============================
I came up with a different approach: bracket the NON-quoted portion of
the sentence, like this:
I have been here three days, [continued Kantos Kan], but I have not
yet found where Dejah Thoris is imprisoned.
I am unarmed and no enemy, [I hastened to explain].
Then syntactically the bracketed text can be treated as if it were a
prepositional phrase.
It could also be written with different style brackets:
I have been here three days, <continued Kantos Kan>, but I have not
yet found where Dejah Thoris is imprisoned.
I am unarmed and no enemy, <I hastened to explain>.
Any opinions?
=======================================
As good as any other system, I suppose.... I had a similar problem in my
Locowrimo story a few years back-- how to distinguish telepathic "talk" from
spoken? Italicizing the telepathy would have meant long stretches of italics,
not a Good Thing IMO, so I settled on guillemets («...») for that, regular
"..." quotes for spoken. (Punctuation marks are sorely lacking in my Kash font;
I don't know how they'd be distinguished in native script.)
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Quoting dialog
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:19 pm ((PST))
--- On Sun, 1/20/13, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Consider the several different ways that natlangs punctuate quoted
> dialog.
>
> "I'm speaking English," he said.
> The dash used in Spanish.
> «Wir gehen am Dienstag.»
> „Das war damals in Berlin”
>
> I came up with a different approach: bracket the NON-quoted
> portion of the sentence, like this:
>
> I have been here three days, [continued
> Kantos Kan], but I have not
> yet found where Dejah Thoris is imprisoned.
> I am unarmed and no enemy, [I hastened to
> explain].
>
> Any opinions?
It is indeed an interesting reversal. How much sense would such a system
be if most of a text is unquoted material -- in other words, lots of
sections of non-quote prose will require brackets.
Not saying I don't like it, just more curious about the practicality.
Padraic
> --gary
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: So, about Ithkuil...
Posted by: "John Q" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:19 pm ((PST))
>Hi John,
>I've been thinking about what you said about Ithkuil poetry. I am not sure
>if I understand what you mean. A lot of poetry uses complex metaphors.
>Some of it also utilizes the semantic ambiguity of natural language to
>suggest multiple meanings in a single phrase. My understanding is that
>Ithkuil takes semantic precision to the highest degree possible. If so,
>then a given Ithkuil poem would only have one meaning, and some of the joy
>of unraveling it would be lost - the poem would be self evident from the
>first reading.
>
>If I understand you and Ithkuil correctly, only certain types of poetry
>would be workeable (I imagine Haiku would be very effective) but other
>types of poetry would not make much sense. Also, do you have an example of
>an Ithkuil poem to demonstrate what you mean?
>Danny
Your are correct that the usual metaphor-based sort of poetry would not be very
doable in Ithkuil. (Ithkuil allows metaphors, but they must be overtly marked
as such morphologically.) What I mean by Ithkuil “poetry” (for lack of a
better term) is the ability to succinctly convey
ideas/concepts/scenes/abstractions with single words or short phrases that
essentially paint a picture. One might easily argue that such is not what is
meant by “poetry.” Rather than argue with that, I’ll simply repeat I’m using
the term for lack of a better one.
To me, the idea of allowing a speaker (and one’s listener) to express (and
hear) a whole complex scene’s worth of imagery, or flow of ideas, or an
abstract synergistic amalgamation of thoughts to be expressed in a single word
or short phrase, allows that idea to be subjectively more salient and
personally meaningful than any paraphrase. This is no different than natural
languages who have single words for concepts for which other languages can only
paraphrase. That’s why English speakers have borrowed the word Schadenfreude,
or why Portuguese speakers “grok” a word like “saudade” better than an English
speaker probably understands its translation as “a feeling of wistful longing
for something one once knew and which might never return” or why the Czech
author Milan Kundera doesn’t understand how non-Czech languages could possibly
do without an equivalent to the Czech word “litost,” to which an English
speaker sort of just shrugs when he/she hears the word translated as “a state
of torment created by the sudden sight of one’s own misery.”
Based on the above, one might argue that the single Ithkuil word I listed
earlier spoken by the football announcer would render the whole scene of the
football player’s quick-footed but stumbling run to the goal line to be seen by
the Ithkuil-speaking audience as a beautiful kind of dance performed against
the odds, a synergistic whole encompassed by a single word, as opposed to a
simple long-winded discription of a football play when translated into English.
In this respect, the Ithkuil word might be described as “poetic.”
--John Q.
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: So, about Ithkuil...
Posted by: "John Q" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:31 pm ((PST))
>I'd like to hear John Q about this. Is it really the case that any verb
>or noun has to be fully specified? To me it seemed like some of the
>example sentences he gave used very simple verbs, which clearly couldn't
>have been fully specified and still be so short. Of course you can't
>utter a bound morpheme in isolation, but as far as I can tell, you can
>use a root with just the affixes you need. John?
>
>mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
___________________________________________________
Any Ithkuil formative (i.e., noun or verb) used in a sentence, must be
declined/conjugated for its full complement of morphological categories (eight
categories for nouns, 22 categories for verbs). However, the majority of
nominal/verbal morphological categories have zero-marked morphemes for their
"default" values.
So just as the verb "sing" in the English sentence "We sing" conveys the
categories of present tense, indicative mood, and active voice, each of which
are in its "default" and zero-marked value, so the majority of Ithkuil
morphological categories have a zero-marked "default" value, which is why you
see many examples in the Ithkuil reference grammar as being "short" and being
marked for far less than their full complement of morphological categories.
(In the intralinear analyses which acccompany the Ithkuil examples on the
Ithkuil website or in the grammar book, I rarely if ever, indicate zero-marked
categories.)
--John Q.
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: So, about Ithkuil...
Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:52 pm ((PST))
>
> To me, the idea of allowing a speaker (and one�s listener) to express (and
> hear) a whole complex scene�s worth of imagery, or flow of ideas, or an
> abstract synergistic amalgamation of thoughts to be expressed in a single
> word or short phrase, allows that idea to be subjectively more salient and
> personally meaningful than any paraphrase.
>
...snip...
>
> Based on the above, one might argue that the single Ithkuil word I listed
> earlier spoken by the football announcer would render the whole scene of
> the football player�s quick-footed but stumbling run to the goal line to be
> seen by the Ithkuil-speaking audience as a beautiful kind of dance
> performed against the odds, a synergistic whole encompassed by a single
> word, as opposed to a simple long-winded discription of a football play
> when translated into English. In this respect, the Ithkuil word might be
> described as �poetic.�
>
If I understand you correctly, you view Ithkuil as "poetic" because of its
elegant and concise way of reducing complex phenomena to single words/short
phrases. You give the example of the Ithkuil football announcer, and that
demonstrates your point nicely (but how are they going to fill all those
airwaves if they can speak a whole paragraph in a word :-)).
However, it occurs to me that your definition of "poetic" and the poetic
appeal of the single utterance encompassing a complicated scene can only
exist when Ithkuil is contrasted to other languages. If we posit a
community of native Ithkuil speakers (who can use the language to its
fullest extent), the football commentary would not be poetic at all. It
would be business as usual. So I wonder: what would a *native Ithkuil
speaker* consider poetry? Or "poetic?"
Having followed this thread, I understand that you doubt such a speaker
community could exist. But I am still interested to hear your thoughts on
the matter!
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: So, about Ithkuil...
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:58 pm ((PST))
On 19 January 2013 23:19, David Peterson <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> As to the benefits, I think the personal benefits would far outweigh any
> possible external benefits. I, for one, would be impressed, but that only
> goes so far. If the Ithkuil experiment works as I think it could, working
> with it might sharpen one's observational and analytical skills when it comes
> to examining some gestalt—whatever it is—and breaking it down. It would be a
> different way of approaching a problem that humans often solve via metaphor.
> That is, we understand and conceptualize many abstract concepts (and some not
> so abstract concepts) in terms of concrete processes. It helps us to get a
> hold of those concepts, while at the same time highlighting and sublimating
> certain aspects of them (see Lakoff's work for more on this). Thus, it's a
> benefit and a crutch at the same time. One of the things that gifted writers,
> orators and teachers are able to is to take some concept we understand in a
> number of standard ways and present it in some new way—perhaps using a
> different conceptual metaphor or presenting a different analytic
> framework—which forces to examine a concept we've heretofore understood in an
> entirely new way, perhaps highlighting different aspects that had been
> deemphasized. Thus, we gain a new understanding of that process.
This connects well with my thinking on the "should people speak
loglangs" thread- I would like to live in a world where people can
speak Ithkuil, because of what that says about the nature of such
people. But that does not imply that it would necessarily be good for
people to actually speak Ithkuil as a normal mode of conversation.
> Theoretically with Ithkuil one goes beyond metaphorical understanding
> allowing one to break down any concept into its actual component parts. This
> isn't something that comes easily or naturally to most people. If you
> continue to work with Ithkuil, perhaps you will improve your ability to
> deconstruct abstract phenomena.
This reminds me of the Language from _Embassytown_. Part of the point
is that Language is incapable of metaphor, and speakers of Language
cannot conceive of metaphor, because Language is concerned with
specifying only and exactly that which exists in the world.
_Embassytown_, however, requires some significant Suspension of
Disbelief because the way China Mieville constructs it, it could only
work if the speakers are metaphysically psychic. Ithkuil, however,
(with the ability to explicitly mark metaphor removed) could serve the
same purpose of a language that cannot be non-literal just as a
consequence of its structure and underlying philosophy of semantics.
-l.
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
4e. Re: So, about Ithkuil...
Posted by: "John Q" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:10 pm ((PST))
Danny wrote:
>However, it occurs to me that your definition of "poetic" and the poetic
>appeal of the single utterance encompassing a complicated scene can only
>exist when Ithkuil is contrasted to other languages. If we posit a
>community of native Ithkuil speakers (who can use the language to its
>fullest extent), the football commentary would not be poetic at all. It
>would be business as usual. So I wonder: what would a *native Ithkuil
>speaker* consider poetry? Or "poetic?"
>
>Having followed this thread, I understand that you doubt such a speaker
>community could exist. But I am still interested to hear your thoughts on
>the matter!
_________________________________________
Hah! I think you got me. To tell you the truth, I don't believe I've ever
considered what "poetry" would consist of to a hypothetical native-Ithkuil
speaker. I'm inclined to agree with you that any argument in support of
Ithkuil poetry succeeds only relative to other languages.
I guess, then, that Ithkuil speakers would resort to using other languages for
their poetry, which certainly isn't unheard of among human cultures. And since
I created the damn thing, I hereby declare that for Ithkuil speakers, that
other language is Brazilian Carioca Portuguese! (Because of its sheer
phonological beauty!) ;-D
****
Although, now that I consider it further, another line of thought comes to
mind. The fact that I now believe full fluency in Ithkuil is probably
unattainable, doesn't that in itself render the language available for the very
sort of poetry I described? What I mean is that, since I'm saying no speaker
of Ithkuil would likely be able to come up on the fly with the football
announcer's single word description of the play I described, this is analogous
to saying that no random speaker of a natlang can instantly come up with good
poetry in their own language. So the community of "shallow-Ithkuil" speakers
(to resort to the earlier "Deep Ithkuil" metaphor) would in turn consider the
ability to craft such "Deep-Ithkuil" one-word or brief descriptions of complex
scenes or ideas as their equivalent to poetry, eh?
--John Q.
--John Q.
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Natlang evolution (was RE: French spelling (was: logical languag
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:20 pm ((PST))
--- On Sun, 1/20/13, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Bad social engineering.
> >
> >
> What a load of nonsense!
1. Take a pill
2. Turn on your hyperbolometer -- twill come in handy here!
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6.1. Re: French spelling (was: logical language VS not-so-logical languag
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:28 pm ((PST))
--- On Sun, 1/20/13, Elena ``of Valhalla'' <[email protected]> wrote:
> > monks could not erase (to correct mistakes),
>
> Actually, monks could erase, up to a certain point, by scraping a bit
> of parchment; it is definitely more invasive than hitting
> the backspace key and leaves traces, but for small errors it could be
> done.
Actually, "up to a certain point" can include whole pieces of parchment.
Several ancient works have been discovered only because some ignorant
monks scraped off the earlier work and wrote on top of that a bunch of
psalms. Now, I don't have any problem with psalms per se, but do have an
issue with erasing the irreplaceable literary treasures (no matter how
good or bad) of an earlier age. Get your own damn piece of parchment and
start out fresh! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimpsest
> Elena ``of Valhalla''
Padraic
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. Re: Hypothetical situation (RE: logical language VS not-so-logical l
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [email protected]
Date: Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:43 pm ((PST))
On 1/20/2013 10:23 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
> The thing is: what does "easy to learn" mean? My experience with learning
> languages (I'm fluent in three, conversational in another three) and with
> talking to other people learning languages, is that "easy to learn" for
> languages boils down to one thing, and one thing only: *familiarity*. The
> closest the language is to a language you already know (it needed be your
> native language, by the way), the easier it is to learn, especially in
> terms of getting the sounds right, but the same is true for grammar and
> lexicon. And *that* *is* *all*. In my experience, it's easier to learn a
> language riddled with irregularities, if its structure is close to what you
> already know (especially if the irregularities are also similar), than it
> is to learn a 100% regular language with an alien grammar.
I agree that familiarity is a major factor in languages being easy to
learn, but I do think there are other factors. I think if you pick a
selection of non-IE languages, say Burmese, Hawaiian, Navajo, Quechua,
Swahili, Telugu, and Yidiny, and try learning them, I think you'd find a
lot of similarity in how learners rank the difficulty of learning them.
Specifically I'd predict that Navajo would be near the "hard to learn"
end of the scale for most people, on account of the complex verb
morphology. (The tones, nasalized vowels, and unusual consonants would
also make things difficult, but that's more a matter of familiarity.)
Hawaiian would probably be closer to the easier end of the scale.
Ultimately it's possible that all languages are about equally hard to
learn at the highest level, but not all learning curves are equally
steep. Some languages start out hard and probably don't get much harder
over time, while others are easier to learn at a basic level but get
harder as you learn more of the idiomatic details.
Messages in this topic (7)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
