There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
From: Herman Miller
1b. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
From: Mathieu Roy
1c. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
From: Gary Shannon
1d. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
From: Nikolay Ivankov
1e. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
From: BPJ
1f. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
1g. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
From: Alex Fink
1h. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
From: George Corley
1i. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
1j. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
From: MorphemeAddict
2.1. Re: On not perceiving (was: RE: Loglan[g] VS Natlang)
From: Leonardo Castro
3.1. Re: Conlang music (was RE: Orthography congruous to pronunciation)
From: Tim Smith
3.2. Re: Conlang music (was RE: Orthography congruous to pronunciation)
From: Adam Walker
4a. Re: to be cognate or not to be cognate
From: David McCann
5a. Re: Natlang evolution (was RE: French spelling (was: logical languag
From: Padraic Brown
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:03 pm ((PST))
On 1/24/2013 9:10 PM, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> How did you decide where to stop in the quantity of substantives? For
> example, if your conlang is to be use on Earth, how many mammals of the 10k
> that exist did you name and how did you picked?
I don't think there's ever really a point where you stop naming things
in a category; there are always gaps to fill in later. I have some ideas
for naming things like mammals and birds, but I haven't gone
systematically through the 10,000 birds or how ever many thousand
mammals to figure out which ones to name. And now I've been reworking a
few of my languages to fit them into the Sangari world, and they've got
all these words for terrestrial plants and animals. So I just redefine
the words to refer to native Sarangian wildlife with some vague
resemblance. What was a kind of cat could end up as a small flying dragon.
One approach for animals and plants is to start with the larger
categories and add names for smaller categories as needed. That mostly
works fine with mammals, as you end up with words like (Jarda) "ķitŗa"
for all of Chiroptera (bats), "dev" for rabbits and hares (Leporidae),
"łełka" for New World porcupines (Erethizontidae), etc. Monkeys in
general are "ģan", but specific subgroups of monkeys have more specific
names like "pağŏ" for baboons. It doesn't work so well for plants. While
some categories like "oak" (Jarda "glên") or "pine" (Jarda "niś") are
useful, it's often more convenient to have words for specific kinds of
plants like rice (ðoś) or wheat (rił).
So one thing I'd like to try with some language (a new one, since Jarda,
Tirelat, and Lindiga are Sangari languages now) is to start with a list
of specific things to name. It could be birds, colors, or musical
instruments. For each thing on the list, decide if it's similar enough
to belong to an existing category that you've named or if it gets a new
name. E.g., is the Blue Jay different enough from the American Crow? How
about the Fish Crow? The Scrub Jay? You might end up like English and
have words for "jay" and "crow", or maybe they're all similar enough
that you have one word in your language for all corvids.
The problem is that what starts out as an orderly set of categories can
quickly get messy. Say you've got jays and crows. What happens when you
add magpies? Are they jays, or crows, or something new? Say you're
classifying the tit family (Paridae), and you start with North American
birds. It looks like you've got two nicely distinct categories,
chickadees and titmice. But then you start adding related birds from
other parts of the world and it gets complicated. (I think that's the
sort of thing that must have happened with "mouse" vs. "rat" in English.)
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
Posted by: "Mathieu Roy" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:35 pm ((PST))
That makes me feel like I need to be an expert in every fields to create a
language I consider good/logical/coherent/complete; and I think it is the case
actually (IMO). The good side of it is that I learn amazing things in a lot of
domains; like one time I've read during two days on how humans perceive colors,
so I could find a good/logical/coherent/complete way to name them. But in order
to name every insects (of the order of 100k), not even a doctorate in biology
would be enough. Not only there's a huge amount of them, but there's not always
a clear-cut between two species (or any taxonomic ranks). I wish my conlang had
no ambiguities, but that just seems practically impossible. But teamwork with
people specialized in different fields can help to achieve something better (in
the sense complete/logical/coherent/less ambiguous). And logical ways to name
things, like the IUPAC system for molecules, can allow to name a big amount of
things with a small set of rules.
Do you know of any other naming pattern like the one used for molecules?
-Mathieu
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] De la part
de Herman Miller
Envoyé : vendredi 25 janvier 2013 06:02
À : [email protected]
Objet : Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
On 1/24/2013 9:10 PM, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> How did you decide where to stop in the quantity of substantives? For
> example, if your conlang is to be use on Earth, how many mammals of
> the 10k that exist did you name and how did you picked?
I don't think there's ever really a point where you stop naming things in a
category; there are always gaps to fill in later. I have some ideas for naming
things like mammals and birds, but I haven't gone systematically through the
10,000 birds or how ever many thousand mammals to figure out which ones to
name. And now I've been reworking a few of my languages to fit them into the
Sangari world, and they've got all these words for terrestrial plants and
animals. So I just redefine the words to refer to native Sarangian wildlife
with some vague resemblance. What was a kind of cat could end up as a small
flying dragon.
One approach for animals and plants is to start with the larger categories and
add names for smaller categories as needed. That mostly works fine with
mammals, as you end up with words like (Jarda) "ķitŗa"
for all of Chiroptera (bats), "dev" for rabbits and hares (Leporidae), "łełka"
for New World porcupines (Erethizontidae), etc. Monkeys in general are "ģan",
but specific subgroups of monkeys have more specific names like "pağŏ" for
baboons. It doesn't work so well for plants. While some categories like "oak"
(Jarda "glên") or "pine" (Jarda "niś") are useful, it's often more convenient
to have words for specific kinds of plants like rice (ðoś) or wheat (rił).
So one thing I'd like to try with some language (a new one, since Jarda,
Tirelat, and Lindiga are Sangari languages now) is to start with a list of
specific things to name. It could be birds, colors, or musical instruments. For
each thing on the list, decide if it's similar enough to belong to an existing
category that you've named or if it gets a new name. E.g., is the Blue Jay
different enough from the American Crow? How about the Fish Crow? The Scrub
Jay? You might end up like English and have words for "jay" and "crow", or
maybe they're all similar enough that you have one word in your language for
all corvids.
The problem is that what starts out as an orderly set of categories can quickly
get messy. Say you've got jays and crows. What happens when you add magpies?
Are they jays, or crows, or something new? Say you're classifying the tit
family (Paridae), and you start with North American birds. It looks like you've
got two nicely distinct categories, chickadees and titmice. But then you start
adding related birds from other parts of the world and it gets complicated. (I
think that's the sort of thing that must have happened with "mouse" vs. "rat"
in English.)
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:16 pm ((PST))
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Herman Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 1/24/2013 9:10 PM, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>
>> How did you decide where to stop in the quantity of substantives? For
>> example, if your conlang is to be use on Earth, how many mammals of the 10k
>> that exist did you name and how did you picked?
>
>
> ---snip---
>
> One approach for animals and plants is to start with the larger categories
> and add names for smaller categories as needed. That mostly works fine with
> mammals, as you end up with words like (Jarda) "ķitŗa" for all of Chiroptera
> (bats), "dev" for rabbits and hares (Leporidae), "łełka" for New World
> porcupines (Erethizontidae), etc. Monkeys in general are "ģan", but specific
> subgroups of monkeys have more specific names like "pağŏ" for baboons.
The problem with that is that "primitive" cultures tend to have names
for specific animals or plants, but no names for the general group. A
hunter-gather group may have 10 words for the 10 different kinds of
tree in their range, but no generic word "tree".
I prefer to build up my lexicon in a sort chronological order with the
most "basic" words being formed using the older morphologies and
orthographies, and the "newer" words using a later morphology and
orthography. Anyway, that's the idea, even though it almost never
works out that way in practice.
--gary
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
Posted by: "Nikolay Ivankov" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:35 am ((PST))
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Mathieu Roy <[email protected]>wrote:
> What is the proportion of
> verbs/adverbs/adjectives/substantives/conjunctions/prepositions (or
> whatever
> categories you use) of the words in your (or someone else) conlang?
>
In Sivarian, there is a fixed amount of 'true' verbs. There are about 10
auxiliary verbs and several dozens of exceptional verbs with synthetic
paradigm. All the rest is obtained by combining an auxiliary verb with
passing nouns, which, previously used to be masdars form the verbs of
protolang. Thus, in the limit the percentage of the verbs in Sivarian will
tend to 0. This scheme is inspired by Gaelic and Basque, though in current
state Sivarian has considerably larger number of verbs as those two.
> What are the conlangs that have the most (different) words? (using the two
> different definition of "words": 1. all possible sequences of letters
> without a space AND 2. All "basic" words that cannot be derivate from some
> grammar rules such has adding an 's' for plurality). Also (to the conlangs
> it can apply) what about the most (different) unconjugated verbs?
> Adjectives/adverbs? Substantives? Conjonctions/prepositions? And how many
> do they have?
>
> How did you decide where to stop in the quantity of substantives? For
> example, if your conlang is to be use on Earth, how many mammals of the 10k
> that exist did you name and how did you picked?
>
> Mathieu
>
> PS: I've read the tread "Word limit" of last week, but I don't think these
> questions have been answered and I was curious about them.
>
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:13 am ((PST))
On 2013-01-25 06:35, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> That makes me feel like I need to be an expert in every fields to create a
> language I consider good/logical/coherent/complete; and I think it is the
> case actually (IMO).
There is no such thing as a complete vocabulary. What
you need words for is determined by your environment
and your culture, and both vary/change in time and
place. Five hundred years ago people living where I
live had several words for different kinds of plough
which I couldn't tell apart if my life depended on it,
but they had no words at all for different kinds of
computer. Your vocabulary will always mirror your
experiences, and your interests. The difference is that
in a natlang with thousands or millions of speakers you
have a greater breadth in interests and experiences,
but still each individual's vocabulary is limited or
augmented by their particular biasses. For instance
most males in western culture have at least som
knowledge of and hence vocabulary for the innards of
automobiles which I totally lack. OTOH I have some
rather refined vocabulary for the innards of languages
:) and the anatomy of writing and printing which most
people lack. (I also know a bit about wheelchairs,
which is the kind of vehicle I maneuver most often! ;)
You can't even judge by an ordinary dictionary: most
dictionaries contain much vocabulary which is actually
obsolete but gets included in order to help people
reading classical literature -- one of the chief uses
of monolingual dictionaries. OTOH most dictionaries
lack a lot of vocabulary relevant to specific areas of
expertise. The common core of vocabulary which is used
most and by everyone is rather small -- a couple of
thousand words at the most!
/bpj
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:47 am ((PST))
On 25 January 2013 14:13, BPJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The common core of vocabulary which is used
> most and by everyone is rather small -- a couple of
> thousand words at the most!
>
>
I use the following rule of thumb, which is useful to measure both
advancement in learning a language and in creating one:
- At 50 words you basically can't really interact with others only in that
language;
- At 500 words you can get by in the most basic conversations with natives;
- At 5000 words you can handle at least 95% of the situations thrown at you
except discussions necessitating specific jargons;
- At 50000 words you know the language as well as if not better than most
natives.
Languages can have many more words than that, but those are usually very
specialised vocabularies only known to a subset of native speakers.
Of course, this rule assumes that you learn/create the grammar, syntax and
pragmatics of the language at the same time (or earlier) as you
learn/create the lexicon. But I don't consider that learning by heart a
bilingual dictionary is "learning a language", just like I don't consider
that creating a list of words without grammar is "creating one", so the
assumption is in the wording of my rule of thumb :) .
ObMyConlang: At the moment, Moten has 358 dictionary entries totalling 762
(not necessarily unique) glosses. Mmmphr... Guess I've got a lot of work to
do...
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:36 am ((PST))
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:35:16 +0100, Mathieu Roy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>That makes me feel like I need to be an expert in every fields to create a
>language I consider good/logical/coherent/complete; and I think it is the case
>actually (IMO).
Ah, the old question of central planning. Letting myriads of people across the
history of science create your specialised lexica, as opposed to one expert,
may yield a complete shambles of a system but at least it's possible for them
to finish the job.
>The good side of it is that I learn amazing things in a lot of domains; like
>one time I've read during two days on how humans perceive colors, so I could
>find a good/logical/coherent/complete way to name them. But in order to name
>every insects (of the order of 100k), not even a doctorate in biology would be
>enough. Not only there's a huge amount of them, but there's not always a
>clear-cut between two species (or any taxonomic ranks).
Nor have we even described them all, even nearly! Wikipedia estimates at least
six million species of insects exist, and one million have names. Your conlang
can hardly outdo the collective efforts of all Earthly field biologists on that
score.
In some sense I feel that species names are most of the way along the continuum
to proper names: why should your conlang bring into the non-proper lexicon the
name of some local species of beetle if it doesn't the name of the local river
or the proprietor of the local corner store?
I suppose even if "logical/coherent/complete" doesn't imply "useful for most
people most of the time", "good" can be stretched to. And for most people most
of the time, when they're talking about organisms, they don't care about
cladistics; they care instead about ways thèy might potentially interact with
the organism in question. "Fish" e.g. doesn't name a clade, it really should
be seen as naming 'one of those critters which you have to catch out of a body
of water if you want one'. That is, the best way to fall short of naming every
insect mày not be just to name higher nodes in the taxonomy (though that has a
bias towards being good), but to bear human interactions in mind more.
>I wish my conlang had no ambiguities, but that just seems practically
>impossible. But teamwork with people specialized in different fields can help
>to achieve something better (in the sense complete/logical/coherent/less
>ambiguous). And logical ways to name things, like the IUPAC system for
>molecules, can allow to name a big amount of things with a small set of rules.
As for chemistry, if you care about the way natural languages have approached
it historically, Rosenfelder has the definitive treatment:
http://zompist.com/versci.htm
>Do you know of any other naming pattern like the one used for molecules?
None come straight to mind, especially if I try to recall along the lines of
what sort of words win these (preposterous) Guinness Book-style records for
"longest word". It's always a chemical name.
Maybe chemistry is anomalous in having decided that it wants an actually
languagey name for all these compounds, for which systematic notations of the
(CH_3CH_2)_4Pb type would have totally sufficed. I mean, to nowhere nearly the
same extent do mathematicians give wòrds to all the different algebraic
expressions, or physicists give words (only letters and indices) to all the new
composite subatomic particles they're making these days, or biologists give
words to every sequence of amino acids, or music theorists give words to every
chord progression, or scholars of chess/go/... give words to every different
line of play. Important ones will have names in an individual and
idiosyncratic fashion, but no-one has had the idea to name every single one in
a systematic way, as opposed to just reading the notation aloud. Why did the
chemists diverge?
Alex
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:42 am ((PST))
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On 25 January 2013 14:13, BPJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > The common core of vocabulary which is used
> > most and by everyone is rather small -- a couple of
> > thousand words at the most!
> >
> >
> I use the following rule of thumb, which is useful to measure both
> advancement in learning a language and in creating one:
> - At 50 words you basically can't really interact with others only in that
> language;
> - At 500 words you can get by in the most basic conversations with natives;
> - At 5000 words you can handle at least 95% of the situations thrown at you
> except discussions necessitating specific jargons;
> - At 50000 words you know the language as well as if not better than most
> natives.
>
> Languages can have many more words than that, but those are usually very
> specialised vocabularies only known to a subset of native speakers.
>
I'm very skeptical that 500 words can get you much utility. Maybe with
that much you can negotiate and ask for prices, and maybe order everything
at exactly one restaurant, but not much else. AIUI, conversational fluency
is usually pegged at around 2000 words.
> Of course, this rule assumes that you learn/create the grammar, syntax and
> pragmatics of the language at the same time (or earlier) as you
> learn/create the lexicon. But I don't consider that learning by heart a
> bilingual dictionary is "learning a language", just like I don't consider
> that creating a list of words without grammar is "creating one", so the
> assumption is in the wording of my rule of thumb :) .
>
Well yes, of course. Though I think grammar can have natural limits where
the lexicon doesn't, especially when not trying to be naturalistic. To get
theoretical for a second -- the entire reason that linguists posit that
grammar exists is that it allows a finite set of rules to be stored in our
brains to put together infinite patterns. Individual lexicons would be
necessarily finite as well, but I'd say there's no limit to how many words
can exist "in the wild" among the entire speaker community.
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
1i. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:07 am ((PST))
On 25 January 2013 16:42, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I use the following rule of thumb, which is useful to measure both
> > advancement in learning a language and in creating one:
> > - At 50 words you basically can't really interact with others only in
> that
> > language;
> > - At 500 words you can get by in the most basic conversations with
> natives;
> > - At 5000 words you can handle at least 95% of the situations thrown at
> you
> > except discussions necessitating specific jargons;
> > - At 50000 words you know the language as well as if not better than most
> > natives.
> >
> > Languages can have many more words than that, but those are usually very
> > specialised vocabularies only known to a subset of native speakers.
> >
>
> I'm very skeptical that 500 words can get you much utility. Maybe with
> that much you can negotiate and ask for prices, and maybe order everything
> at exactly one restaurant, but not much else.
Which is exactly what I wrote above: "the most basic conversations" was
supposed to be parsed as "the (most basic) conversations", not "the most
(basic conversations)". So yeah, doing a bit of shopping, asking for price,
saying hello, goodbye and maybe talking generically about the weather, but
not much else.
> AIUI, conversational fluency
> is usually pegged at around 2000 words.
>
>
That was a rule of thumb, so the figures are naturally approximate. But
I've read myself the figure for conversational fluency being given more as
an interval "2000-5000 words". Using the 5000 figure fits better with the
other figures.
>
> > Of course, this rule assumes that you learn/create the grammar, syntax
> and
> > pragmatics of the language at the same time (or earlier) as you
> > learn/create the lexicon. But I don't consider that learning by heart a
> > bilingual dictionary is "learning a language", just like I don't consider
> > that creating a list of words without grammar is "creating one", so the
> > assumption is in the wording of my rule of thumb :) .
> >
>
> Well yes, of course. Though I think grammar can have natural limits where
> the lexicon doesn't, especially when not trying to be naturalistic. To get
> theoretical for a second -- the entire reason that linguists posit that
> grammar exists is that it allows a finite set of rules to be stored in our
> brains to put together infinite patterns. Individual lexicons would be
> necessarily finite as well, but I'd say there's no limit to how many words
> can exist "in the wild" among the entire speaker community.
>
Of course. Which means that whatever a language throws at you in terms of
grammar, by the time you've learned 50000 words you should have had more
than enough time to master it! :)
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
1j. Re: Lexicon (proportion and quantity)
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:25 am ((PST))
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:42 AM, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 25 January 2013 14:13, BPJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The common core of vocabulary which is used
> > > most and by everyone is rather small -- a couple of
> > > thousand words at the most!
> > >
> > >
> > I use the following rule of thumb, which is useful to measure both
> > advancement in learning a language and in creating one:
> > - At 50 words you basically can't really interact with others only in
> that
> > language;
> > - At 500 words you can get by in the most basic conversations with
> natives;
> > - At 5000 words you can handle at least 95% of the situations thrown at
> you
> > except discussions necessitating specific jargons;
> > - At 50000 words you know the language as well as if not better than most
> > natives.
> >
> > Languages can have many more words than that, but those are usually very
> > specialised vocabularies only known to a subset of native speakers.
> >
>
> I'm very skeptical that 500 words can get you much utility. Maybe with
> that much you can negotiate and ask for prices, and maybe order everything
> at exactly one restaurant, but not much else. AIUI, conversational fluency
> is usually pegged at around 2000 words.
>
I think all of bpj's numbers should be multiplied by 4:
200 words for modest communication
2000 for conversation
20000 for complete fluency
200000 more than most people will ever actually know
stevo
>
>
> > Of course, this rule assumes that you learn/create the grammar, syntax
> and
> > pragmatics of the language at the same time (or earlier) as you
> > learn/create the lexicon. But I don't consider that learning by heart a
> > bilingual dictionary is "learning a language", just like I don't consider
> > that creating a list of words without grammar is "creating one", so the
> > assumption is in the wording of my rule of thumb :) .
> >
>
> Well yes, of course. Though I think grammar can have natural limits where
> the lexicon doesn't, especially when not trying to be naturalistic. To get
> theoretical for a second -- the entire reason that linguists posit that
> grammar exists is that it allows a finite set of rules to be stored in our
> brains to put together infinite patterns. Individual lexicons would be
> necessarily finite as well, but I'd say there's no limit to how many words
> can exist "in the wild" among the entire speaker community.
>
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: On not perceiving (was: RE: Loglan[g] VS Natlang)
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:31 am ((PST))
2013/1/24 Adam Walker <[email protected]>:
> I once knew a Russian guy named Vladik. He was a music major, an
> excellent pianist. He cloud put on the most convincing New York
> accent, sounded like he was born in the Bronx! But when he was just
> speaking, he had the "typical" Russian accent with odd vowels and
> unneeded palatalizations and overly aspirated consonants. I never
> quite understood that.
>
> Adam
Singing is a more controlled situation than normal conversation.
Singers knows the words they'll sing previously, so they can have a
better control over their accents. It's also interesting that many
stutterers don't stutter while singing.
Singers usually mimic characters and other singers' voices and nuances
very well, but this ability is not always the same in normal speech. I
could imitate Louis Armstrong singing "What I wonderful world" but I
could not imitate his voice while discussing Quantum Physics in
English.
Messages in this topic (36)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Re: Conlang music (was RE: Orthography congruous to pronunciation)
Posted by: "Tim Smith" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:59 am ((PST))
On 1/24/2013 11:31 AM, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo conlangers!
>
>
> I am not sure yet what kind of scale Old Albic music uses, but
> I am leaning towards some kind of just intonation. I am not
> very versed in tuning theory, I must say. Some ideas about Old
> Albic music can be found here:
>
> http://www.frathwiki.com/Old_Albic_music
Tuning theory, and just intonation in particular, is something I've been
interested in for some time, and actually know quite a bit about, as an
outgrowth of my involvement in early music. I'd be happy to discuss
this with you offlist (I suspect it's too far off-topic to be of much
interest to most list members).
- Tim
>
> --
> ... 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 (27)
________________________________________________________________________
3.2. Re: Conlang music (was RE: Orthography congruous to pronunciation)
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:58 am ((PST))
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Thu, 1/24/13, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> the simple answer is *here's* Tunisia, but their territory stretches from
> the western bit of Libya to the easter 2/3 of Algeria's coast, about to
> Oran.
>
> Adam
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Garth Wallace <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I haven't really made up my mind about Carraxan music either. One
> > > thing I continually debate is how much influence Arab music should
> > > have. Should Carraxan music use the quarter tones? Should it sould
> > > like Sardinian or Corsican polyphony? Should it sounnd like Radio
> > > Tarifa? Should there be clear Troubador influence? I just can't quite
> > > make up my mind for more than a few days at a stretch.
> >
> > Polyphonic singing with quarter tones would be pretty interesting to
> > hear. Where are the Carraxans located again?
> >
> ============================================
>
> I can certainly see some Arabic influence, but also Jewish,
Yes, but *which* Jewish musical influence? Certainly not Klezmer!!
> and what about pre-Islamic Berber/Tuareg music?
Most definitely...if I had the foggiest notion what Berber music sounded
like in 500AD.
> and Greek Orthodox?
Yes, actually, this is one of the musics I listen to when I'm trying to
work out in my head what Carraxan music ough to sound like, and Greek folk
music as well.
> and of course Roman Catholic~European. Maybe something like Spanish
> Mozarabic liturgical music, of which some has been preserved? IIRC your
> elite/ruling family is of European origin, no? Didn't they stem from the
> Vandal (Germanic) invasion of N.AFrica?
They're Norman French, actually. From the Norman Kingdom of Sicily.
> Maybe too early for troubador influence, but by early Renaissance times,
> that could have reached Carraxa..........
Well, The Kingdom of Talosa is now Donatist. And there has been some
intermarrying of the ruling houses.
> Do we know anything about Donatist liturgical usages? Very early I'd
> suspect, so probably monophonic.
In the real world, I don't think we know anything, but in my world, I'm
assuming that it sounds very much like the Maronite and other non-Greek
Orthodox Churches of the Middle East.
> But "popular" music could be a mix of everything :-))) depending on much
> much interaction there is between the various ethnic groups.
>
> I don't recall your historical work exactly-- has it reached modern times
> yet?
>
Not yet. I'm still stuck in the 1300's.
Adam
Messages in this topic (27)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: to be cognate or not to be cognate
Posted by: "David McCann" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:46 am ((PST))
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:06:58 -0800
Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for the Romanian. I've been wondering about Ital. chiudere.
> Shouldn't *claudere have > **clodere, then modern ?chiodere? After
> all we have cosa < causa, poco < paucus....but I can't summon up any
> others offhand. My knowlege of Italian developments is scanty; I do
> know that the "standard" shows a lot of dialect mixing.
The verb cludere turns up occasionally in Latin, alongside claudere;
it's a back-formation from derivatives like excludere, where the vowel
weakening is standard.
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Natlang evolution (was RE: French spelling (was: logical languag
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:37 am ((PST))
Well, this reply was rather ill said on my part! For reasons that may not
be apparent to most, but will be painfully transparent to two people here,
I wish to offer a sincere apology for stepping rather far over the line,
and then stomping all over it.
Padraic
--- On Mon, 1/21/13, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Padraic Brown <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [CONLANG] Natlang evolution (was RE: French spelling (was:
> logical language VS not-so-logical language))
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Monday, January 21, 2013, 10:20 AM
> [The following message is written on
> a CG scale of 1, i.e., no satire or
> other potentially mistakable content and will cause him no
> further constipation.]
>
> --- On Mon, 1/21/13, George Corley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > This is so false that it sounds like satire.
>
> Yes indeed! Got it in one.
>
> > > For example, were I such a Central Planner
> >
> > Do spelling reforms have to come from a despotic
> "Central
> > Planner"?
>
> "Reforms" I think probably do. Ordinary people are certainly
> capable of
> doing whatever they like. Just look at all the text messages
> that have a
> completely different spelling system as compared to an
> ordinary email or
> written text. A quick look at some common conventions shows
> a sort of
> return to vowelless writing as well as some use of numerical
> rebuses or
> symbological writing and heavy use of abbreviations and
> acronyms.
>
> None of this came from a central planner, to be sure, but
> neither is it
> a "reform". It's simply a natural evolution specific to a
> particular
> written medium. Put a device like a cell phone in enough
> people's hands
> and they'll come up with an easy way to communicate with it.
> But I
> wouldn't call Textlish a "reform" of any kind.
>
> You mentioned that printers and dictionary writers
> standardiz/sed the
> spelling -- sure, that's a natural consequence of the
> business. It didn't
> come from any kind of language board or governmental
> authority or
> Academy. These kinds of changes are much more organic and
> democratic.
>
> > Webster's reforms caught on in the US because his
> > dictionary sold well.
> > Many languages have undergone reforms due to
> independant
> > action of
> > intellectuals and writers which were only later
> officially
> > supported. Even
> > the Chinese Communist Party, when it created
> simplified
> > characters, drew
> > from existing calligraphic forms and shorthand that
> was
> > already in use. If
> > such a strictly authoritarian system can draw from the
> > existing culture
> > when making reforms, certainly small reforms occuring
> in the
> > populace can bubble up in a democratic system.
>
> I don't see any problem with this at all! As a matter of
> fact, I was
> thinking largely of these fictitious central planners
> drawing heavily on
> Textlish and other modern net-based jargons for their
> reforms.
>
> I guess it's more a matter of definition. I see "reform" as
> more of a top
> down and official process, where decisions are made and
> executed and
> enforced; while ordinary language change, such as we all
> know languages
> undergo all the time, is a bottom up process -- whether it's
> yokels out in
> the bush or intellectuals in the cultural centers generating
> the change,
> the change is organic and non-directed!
>
> --- Mathieu Roy wrote:
>
> > I call Poe's law. ;) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)
>
> Hadn't heard of that one! Good one to know. I'm certainly
> aware of the
> shortcomings of the text only medium; but sometimes a good
> bit of satire
> or fiction is just ruined all to hell with a plethora of
> warning labels
> and needless consumer advisories.
>
> --- Christophe Grandsire wrote:
>
> > No. I will always call out nonsense when I see it. If
> you don't like it,
> > that's *your* problem. Stop spouting nonsense then.
>
> I shall continue to spout whatever nonsense I damn well
> please, sir, and
> whenever the spirit move me so to do!
>
> > If you were not being serious, there was *absolutely no
> way to see that
> > in your mail*.
>
> Humor not always marked. Deal with it.
>
> > On the contrary, it was very much in line with the
> ultra-conservative
> > opinions you've shown time and again on the list.
>
> I very much doubt you can name five "ultra-conservative"
> opinions that I
> hold. I don't ever recall inviting you into the voting booth
> with me, nor
> have I ever discussed my own views on those matters with
> you. I can only
> guess at the things that stick in your craw, though would
> caution against
> falling for the assumption that whatever constitutes
> discussions about
> creative matters or fictional realities must be identical to
> views held
> about real world issues.
>
> > This is email: there's no way to see if you're
> winking!
>
> Indeed not. And it is not a requirement that I must wink at
> you every
> damn time I write a message here.
>
> > As George's message shows, I'm not the only one who
> took what you wrote
> > seriously. So maybe the problem is not on my side but
> rather on yours.
>
> And George instantly got that it is satire. One would think
> that after ten
> or more years of writing such things, you'd get it by now.
> Guess not! I
> freely admit my own faults, Mr Perfection, so I thank you
> very much for
> pointing out the speck in my eye. Yet again. Guess if you
> can't deal,
> well, as they say, al fe rout ou.
>
> Padraic
>
>
>
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (16)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
