There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Gripping language mini-documentary
From: Sai
1b. Re: Gripping language mini-documentary
From: Sai
1c. Re: Gripping language mini-documentary
From: Arnt Richard Johansen
1d. Re: Gripping language mini-documentary
From: Alex Fink
1e. Re: Gripping language mini-documentary
From: MorphemeAddict
1f. Re: Gripping language mini-documentary
From: Sai
2a. Re: ASL writing systems (and other OT subjects)
From: Sai
2b. Re: ASL writing systems (and other OT subjects)
From: MorphemeAddict
3a. Re: Not really a conlang...
From: R A Brown
3b. Re: Not really a conlang...
From: Jeffrey Brown
3c. Re: Not really a conlang...
From: MorphemeAddict
3d. Re: Not really a conlang...
From: Roger Mills
3e. Re: Not really a conlang...
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
3f. Re: Not really a conlang...
From: Jeffrey Brown
3g. Re: Not really a conlang...
From: Patrick Dunn
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Gripping language mini-documentary
Posted by: "Sai" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 10:35 pm ((PST))
In 2010, Jake Sollins shot this mini documentary about the gripping
language +Alex Fink & I made (000024.org/conlang/gripping.html); it's
just now online:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqiBHRJUAkg
It's kinda sappy, more about the coupley-ness of the project than its
linguistics, but still cute. (He caught some footage of my reaction to
skritching⦠>.>)
FWIW, we never really got the language into a fully usable state; we
got distracted by UNLWS (saizai.com/nlws) instead, which is the main
language we've worked on for the last couple years (and something we
can actually use for real-time communication in to some extent, unlike
gripping). Anyway, enjoy.
- Sai
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Gripping language mini-documentary
Posted by: "Sai" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 10:55 pm ((PST))
PS See http://goo.gl/9PzS8 for explanation of the holiday greeting card.
See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DRnXASa1VM for a translation
challenge story, and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtO5wSmQZdE for
our LCC3 presentation on the griping language phonology.
- Sai
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Sai <[email protected]> wrote:
> In 2010, Jake Sollins shot this mini documentary about the gripping
> language +Alex Fink & I made (000024.org/conlang/gripping.html); it's
> just now online:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqiBHRJUAkg
>
> It's kinda sappy, more about the coupley-ness of the project than its
> linguistics, but still cute. (He caught some footage of my reaction to
> skritching⦠>.>)
>
> FWIW, we never really got the language into a fully usable state; we
> got distracted by UNLWS (saizai.com/nlws) instead, which is the main
> language we've worked on for the last couple years (and something we
> can actually use for real-time communication in to some extent, unlike
> gripping). Anyway, enjoy.
>
> - Sai
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Gripping language mini-documentary
Posted by: "Arnt Richard Johansen" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 5:10 am ((PST))
On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 10:34:43PM -0800, Sai wrote:
> In 2010, Jake Sollins shot this mini documentary about the gripping
> language +Alex Fink & I made (000024.org/conlang/gripping.html); it's
> just now online:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqiBHRJUAkg
>
> It's kinda sappy, more about the coupley-ness of the project than its
> linguistics, but still cute. (He caught some footage of my reaction to
> skritching⦠>.>)
That's adorable!
This might be a FAQ, but I'm wondering how successful you were in the goal of
making the GL a âcovertâ language. From looking at the footage, it seems
obvious that you are doing *something* with your hands, but perhaps a naive
onlooker would just dismiss it as nervous fidgeting and not some kind of
communication.
Suppose there were someone else in the world who were completely fluent in the
GL. Would such a person be able to train themself to eavesdrop on GL
conversations, visually, or would enough of the conversation be hidden from
view to make that impossible?
--
Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
I think it's fair to say that a lot of Hikawa's popularity is due to the
novelty factor of his youth; most male enka singers look like they've been
driving trucks up and down the Tomei Highway for 20 years while living on a
diet of ramen, shochu and shabu (speed). -Steve McClure
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Gripping language mini-documentary
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 6:51 am ((PST))
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 14:10:19 +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>That's adorable!
Aww, thanks.
>This might be a FAQ, but I'm wondering how successful you were in the goal of
>making the GL a âcovertâ language. From looking at the footage, it seems
>obvious that you are doing *something* with your hands, but perhaps a naive
>onlooker would just dismiss it as nervous fidgeting and not some kind of
>communication.
>
>Suppose there were someone else in the world who were completely fluent in the
>GL. Would such a person be able to train themself to eavesdrop on GL
>conversations, visually, or would enough of the conversation be hidden from
>view to make that impossible?
I don't think we actually got ourselves to the stage where this is testable.
The perceptual discrimination on the back of the hand required to carry the
receiving side of a gripping conversation is not something that comes naturally
(to us, at least), so in our conversations we sit there raising our tactile
voices at each other like a loutish tourist to make ourselves understood. We
hypothesise that a more sensitive perception is learnable, so that the motions
could be subtler, but we're not there yet.
It ought to be possible to read the gripping language visually, if you know
what you're doing and are concentrating, especially if you had a good
perspective and could see all the fingers (as opposed to say looking on from
the thumb side, so the fingers are all behind each other). None of the
important motion actually takes place between the palms or anything.
Of course, being fluent in conversation in the ordinary sense wouldn't be
enough; this would be a skill akin to knowing what someone's typing by watching
their hand motions, or interpreting spectrograms.
Alex
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Gripping language mini-documentary
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 8:34 am ((PST))
In the videos, it's emphasized that the gripping language is an
exactly-two-person communication scheme, but it occurs to me that more
people could participate together, with hands held in a chain or circle.
Has this been explored at all?
stevo
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Sai <[email protected]> wrote:
> In 2010, Jake Sollins shot this mini documentary about the gripping
> language +Alex Fink & I made (000024.org/conlang/gripping.html); it's
> just now online:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqiBHRJUAkg
>
> It's kinda sappy, more about the coupley-ness of the project than its
> linguistics, but still cute. (He caught some footage of my reaction to
> skritching⦠>.>)
>
> FWIW, we never really got the language into a fully usable state; we
> got distracted by UNLWS (saizai.com/nlws) instead, which is the main
> language we've worked on for the last couple years (and something we
> can actually use for real-time communication in to some extent, unlike
> gripping). Anyway, enjoy.
>
> - Sai
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Gripping language mini-documentary
Posted by: "Sai" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 11:04 am ((PST))
Interesting point. It hasn't come up. FWIW though, I think it'd still
be true that any particular communication *would* still be pair based;
it just means that any person can have two parallel conversations (if
they're good enough).
Also FWIW, we found that perception is overall a much harder skill
than production. It's why we eliminated various other potential
movements that could've expanded the phoneme range; they just weren't
reliably distinguishable enough. Plus the experience is different as
sub or dom (yes yes, snicker), again more for the recipient than the
producer.
- Sai
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:32 AM, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
> In the videos, it's emphasized that the gripping language is an
> exactly-two-person communication scheme, but it occurs to me that more
> people could participate together, with hands held in a chain or circle.
> Has this been explored at all?
>
> stevo
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Sai <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In 2010, Jake Sollins shot this mini documentary about the gripping
>> language +Alex Fink & I made (000024.org/conlang/gripping.html); it's
>> just now online:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqiBHRJUAkg
>>
>> It's kinda sappy, more about the coupley-ness of the project than its
>> linguistics, but still cute. (He caught some footage of my reaction to
>> skritching⦠>.>)
>>
>> FWIW, we never really got the language into a fully usable state; we
>> got distracted by UNLWS (saizai.com/nlws) instead, which is the main
>> language we've worked on for the last couple years (and something we
>> can actually use for real-time communication in to some extent, unlike
>> gripping). Anyway, enjoy.
>>
>> - Sai
>>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: ASL writing systems (and other OT subjects)
Posted by: "Sai" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 11:33 pm ((PST))
Take a look at http://dedalvs.conlang.org/slipa.html#othersystems re
writing systems.
For learning: if you're comfortable with linguistics and are willing
to acquire your vocabulary elsewhere, IMO the ASL Green Book,
Teacher's Edition is the best text I've seen on ASL grammar.
I've yet to find an ASL dictionary I really liked. Most are more
English-to-ASL one-way, with very little attention paid to ASL
structure, no handshape/motion/etc index, not organized by /
explaining ASL's semantic clustering. Sad. (If anyone finds an ASL
dictionary that's actually natural to ASL, please let me know, I want
one.)
- Sai
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Mathieu Roy <[email protected]> wrote:
> What do you think of the different writing systems that have been created
> since 1825?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Sign_Language#Writing_systems Which one
> is your favorite and why?
>
> What is the percentage of people signing in ASL that can also write in this
> language?
>
> [The rest of this email is off topic. But your answers would be appreciate.]
>
> Some of my friends and I are starting to learn ASL. So I have some questions
> related to this language.
>
> As far as you know and in your experience...
>
> How many people in Quebec know ASL in comparison to LSQ?
>
> How good can a LSQ (language des signes du Québec) signer understand an ASL
> signer and vice versa?
>
> How many people know ASL as a second language? and as a second signing
> language? (in the world)
>
> Is there a higher, lower or similar percentage of people in the world
> communicating/knowing a sign language (not necessarily ASL) now than let's
> say 50 or 100 years ago?
>
> Are non-deaf people generally welcome in deaf communities?
>
> What are your favorite web sites and/or books to learn ASL?
> I have started to watch some videos here:
> http://www.youtube.com/user/BYUFanatic/videos
> And I also saw these websites: http://www.aslpro.com/,
> http://www.alldeaf.com/, and http://www.handspeak.com/word/search.php
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: ASL writing systems (and other OT subjects)
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 3:53 am ((PST))
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Sai <[email protected]> wrote:
> Take a look at http://dedalvs.conlang.org/slipa.html#othersystems re
> writing systems.
>
> For learning: if you're comfortable with linguistics and are willing
> to acquire your vocabulary elsewhere, IMO the ASL Green Book,
> Teacher's Edition is the best text I've seen on ASL grammar.
>
> I've yet to find an ASL dictionary I really liked. Most are more
> English-to-ASL one-way, with very little attention paid to ASL
> structure, no handshape/motion/etc index, not organized by /
> explaining ASL's semantic clustering. Sad. (If anyone finds an ASL
> dictionary that's actually natural to ASL, please let me know, I want
> one.)
>
You might be interested in _The American Sign Language Handshape Starter: A
Beginner's Guide_, by Richard A. Tennant and Marianne Gluszak Brown,
9781563681301. Except for the initial division into subject categories,
it's pretty good.
"The _Handshape Starter_ is divided into twenty major subject categories.
Within each category the signs are arranged in order of the initial
handshape that is used in producing the sign. Additionally, the one-hand
signs precede the two-hand signs. Each sign illustration is accompanied by
its equivalent English vocabulary and a sign description. The description
includes the handshape, palm orientation, location, movement, and when
appropriate, nonmanual signals." (p. 7)
I'd like to find an ASL dictionary that is done like the _Dictionary of
British Sign Language/English_ by the British Deaf Association and edited
by David Brien, 9780571143467. It orders the signs by strict Stokoe
Notation and has photographs.
stevo
>
> - Sai
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Mathieu Roy <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > What do you think of the different writing systems that have been
> created since 1825?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Sign_Language#Writing_systems Which
> one is your favorite and why?
> >
> > What is the percentage of people signing in ASL that can also write in
> this language?
> >
> > [The rest of this email is off topic. But your answers would be
> appreciate.]
> >
> > Some of my friends and I are starting to learn ASL. So I have some
> questions related to this language.
> >
> > As far as you know and in your experience...
> >
> > How many people in Quebec know ASL in comparison to LSQ?
> >
> > How good can a LSQ (language des signes du Québec) signer understand an
> ASL signer and vice versa?
> >
> > How many people know ASL as a second language? and as a second signing
> language? (in the world)
> >
> > Is there a higher, lower or similar percentage of people in the world
> communicating/knowing a sign language (not necessarily ASL) now than let's
> say 50 or 100 years ago?
> >
> > Are non-deaf people generally welcome in deaf communities?
> >
> > What are your favorite web sites and/or books to learn ASL?
> > I have started to watch some videos here:
> http://www.youtube.com/user/BYUFanatic/videos
> > And I also saw these websites: http://www.aslpro.com/,
> http://www.alldeaf.com/, and http://www.handspeak.com/word/search.php
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mathieu
>
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Not really a conlang...
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sat Feb 2, 2013 11:49 pm ((PST))
On 03/02/2013 00:07, MorphemeAddict wrote:
> In the verb section, you discuss "trilaterals". I've
> always seen these as "triliterals".
>
Yes, they are. Trilaterals have three sides (tria latera),
whereas triliterals have three letters (tres litteras).
That is in Arabic & Hebrew and related scripts, where only
consonants normally are written, the verb-forms have three
letters.
Now, three-sided verbs? Interesting idea ;)
============================================================
On 02/02/2013 19:10, Jeffrey Brown wrote:
[snip]
>
> Essentially what I did was to create a conlang based on a
> single source language: Arabic. I simplified and
> regularized the grammar,
So why "Not really a conlang"?
Peano's "Latino sine flexione" is simplified Latin and it
has long been classed as a conlang:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino_sine_flexione
My own TAKE is simplified and regularized ancient Greek. I
certainly consider it a conlang:
http://www.carolandray.plus.com/TAKE/
> and adopted a Romanized alphabet.
..and I didn't even Romanize TAKE. Writing your simplified
& regularized Arabic in Roman letters surely makes it even
more of a conlang!
> I call it âSim-Arabicâ (because Iâm not very imaginative
> when it comes to naming my conlangs).
Maybe - but IMO Sim-Arabic is a conlang.
> If youâre interested, Iâd appreciate it if you would
> take a look and return comments.
Two immediate reactions:
- I really do not like Romanized systems that use a mix of
upper and lower case; it maybe OK for Klingon, but generally
I fund it off-putting. The advantages and disadvantages of
diacritics versus digraphs has often been debated on this
list. But I would prefer either solution to that of a mixed
case system.
- as you can see from my TAKE, if I'm going to simplify a
language I like to get rid of all inflexions, if possible.
IMO the so-called "Latino sine flexione" has retained too
many! But that is a personal preference, I know.
> (To avoid the delay caused by the email digest, please CC
> my address in your reply.)
OK
--
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)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Not really a conlang...
Posted by: "Jeffrey Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 7:21 am ((PST))
Dustfinger Batailleur said:
> I thought the Baha'i faith was most interested in Esperanto, conlang-wise.
This was certainly true 20-30 years ago. Now, not very many Bahais learn
Esperanto.
J. M. DeSantis said:
> I am, in
> fact, basing one of my conlangs on Arabic, for a graphic novel series
> I'm working on, and, as an American who only knows English and has had
> four years of Italian (most of which I've forgotten) you're "accessible"
> version might help me to better understand Arabic in order to recreate
> it's flavour.
> I hope you don't mind.
Of course not. Use Sim-Arabic in any way you see fit. I hope it helps you
with your graphic novel.
stevo said:
> In the verb section, you discuss "trilaterals". I've always seen these as
> "triliterals".
Oops! Yes, triliterals is correct. (I suppose I could blame this on my
spell checker, but I wont.) My fault. Thanks for catching this.
R A Brown said:
> So why "Not really a conlang"?
> Peano's "Latino sine flexione" is simplified Latin and it
> has long been classed as a conlang:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino_sine_flexione
> My own TAKE is simplified and regularized ancient Greek. I
> certainly consider it a conlang:
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/TAKE/
I guess its just my natural modesty. (Aw, shucks!) Alright, then,
Sim-Arabic IS a conlang.
and R A Brown continues:
> I really do not like Romanized systems that use a mix of
> upper and lower case; its maybe OK for Klingon, but generally
> I fund it off-putting. The advantages and disadvantages of
> diacritics versus digraphs has often been debated on this
> list. But I would prefer either solution to that of a mixed
> case system.
I dont like digraphs, and I dont like diacritics. When I decided to use
the Roman alphabet, it then became necessary to use both majuscule and
miniscule letters. Others may have chosen a different solution.
Thank you, all, for your comments!
Jeffrey
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Not really a conlang...
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 8:07 am ((PST))
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jeffrey Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dustfinger Batailleur said:
>
> > I thought the Baha'i faith was most interested in Esperanto,
> conlang-wise.
>
> This was certainly true 20-30 years ago. Now, not very many Bahaâis learn
> Esperanto.
>
> J. M. DeSantis said:
>
> > I am, in
> > fact, basing one of my conlangs on Arabic, for a graphic novel series
> > I'm working on, and, as an American who only knows English and has had
> > four years of Italian (most of which I've forgotten) you're "accessible"
> > version might help me to better understand Arabic in order to recreate
> > it's flavour.
>
> > I hope you don't mind.
>
> Of course not. Use Sim-Arabic in any way you see fit. I hope it helps you
> with your graphic novel.
>
> âstevoâ said:
>
> > In the verb section, you discuss "trilaterals". I've always seen these as
> > "triliterals".
>
> Oops! Yes, âtriliteralsâ is correct. (I suppose I could blame this on my
> spell checker, but I wonât.) My fault. Thanks for catching this.
>
> R A Brown said:
>
> > So why "Not really a conlang"?
>
> > Peano's "Latino sine flexione" is simplified Latin and it
> > has long been classed as a conlang:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino_sine_flexione
>
> > My own TAKE is simplified and regularized ancient Greek. I
> > certainly consider it a conlang:
> > http://www.carolandray.plus.com/TAKE/
>
> I guess itâs just my natural modesty. (Aw, shucks!) Alright, then,
> Sim-Arabic IS a conlang.
>
> ⦠and R A Brown continues:
>
> > I really do not like Romanized systems that use a mix of
> > upper and lower case; itâs maybe OK for Klingon, but generally
> > I fund it off-putting. The advantages and disadvantages of
> > diacritics versus digraphs has often been debated on this
> > list. But I would prefer either solution to that of a mixed
> > case system.
>
> I donât like digraphs, and I donât like diacritics. When I decided to use
> the Roman alphabet, it then became necessary to use both majuscule and
> miniscule letters. Others may have chosen a different solution.
>
In my own transliteration system for Arabic and Persian, I use upper and
lower case letters, no diacritics or digraphs.
stevo
>
> Thank you, all, for your comments!
>
> Jeffrey
>
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: Not really a conlang...
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 8:13 am ((PST))
--- On Sun, 2/3/13, R A Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
(snips)
Two immediate reactions:
- I really do not like Romanized systems that use a mix of
upper and lower case; it maybe OK for Klingon, but generally
I find it off-putting. The advantages and disadvantages of
diacritics versus digraphs has often been debated on this
list. But I would prefer either solution to that of a mixed
case system.
RM That was my reaction too. When I have time, I'll try to make some specific
suggestions.
--------------------------------------------------------
- as you can see from my TAKE, if I'm going to simplify a
language I like to get rid of all inflexions, if possible.
IMO the so-called "Latino sine flexione" has retained too
many! But that is a personal preference, I know.
RM I don't object to a "few" inflections.... I'd have to examine the materials
more closely, however. Offhand, I'm not at all sure it's necessary to retain
the masc/fem differences in the tenses, but that, I know, is one of Arabic's
features.....
Do I gather (perhaps incorrectly?) that your intention is that Sim-Arabic
should be primarily a _literary_ rather than a spoken language????
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: Not really a conlang...
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 8:33 am ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
On Sunday 03 February 2013 17:13:38 Roger Mills wrote:
> --- On Sun, 2/3/13, R A Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> (snips)
> Two immediate reactions:
> - I really do not like Romanized systems that use a mix of
> upper and lower case; it maybe OK for Klingon, but generally
> I find it off-putting. The advantages and disadvantages of
> diacritics versus digraphs has often been debated on this
> list. But I would prefer either solution to that of a mixed
> case system.
>
> RM That was my reaction too. When I have time, I'll try to make some
> specific suggestions.
Mixed-case transcription/transliteration systems just suck and
are as ugly as an oil spill. A transcription avoiding this can
easily be made up for Klingon (basically, as there is only *one*
letter that is used both upper- and lower-case, you can just
change _Q_ into _qh_ and then dispose of the case distinction).
Yet, the current mixed-case system is firmly established among
Klingonists, and if you ask me: the *language* is itself as
ugly as an oil spill, too! But that, too, is just my personal
taste. Let the Klingonists do what they want to, and let our
colleague do what he wants to with SimArabic.
And for Arabic, we have a pretty serviceable transcription
system developed by the Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft,
which is in international use. There really is no good reason,
in these days of most computers being capable of handling the
required diacritics, not to use that for a morpologically
simplified Arabic.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> - as you can see from my TAKE, if I'm going to simplify a
> language I like to get rid of all inflexions, if possible.
> IMO the so-called "Latino sine flexione" has retained too
> many! But that is a personal preference, I know.
>
> RM I don't object to a "few" inflections.... I'd have to examine the
> materials more closely, however. Offhand, I'm not at all sure it's
> necessary to retain the masc/fem differences in the tenses, but that, I
> know, is one of Arabic's features.....
I am not much into this kind of "simplified natlangs". Sure,
they are easier to learn than the real thing, but what is the
point of them? Someone who has learned SimArabic will still
be lost at understanding real Arabic, because the latter is
full of irregular forms he does not know because they have
been excised from SimArabic!
Basically, such simplified languages are perhaps useful as
regional auxlangs, but apart from the fact that regional
auxlangs IMHO make less sense than global ones, I doubt that
simplifiying a natlang in such a half-hearted way as in
SimArabic is a good way of achieving that. Why not go the
whole path and dispose of *all* inflections?
But we are about to slip into auxlang advocacy here, and
this list is not the right place for that.
--
... 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 (12)
________________________________________________________________________
3f. Re: Not really a conlang...
Posted by: "Jeffrey Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 9:17 am ((PST))
My intention is that Sim-Arabic is ENTIRELY a written language; not a
spoken one. Essentially, it is for translations from literary Arabic.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On *Sun, 2/3/13, R A Brown <[email protected]>* wrote:
>
> (snips)
>
> Two immediate reactions:
> - I really do not like Romanized systems that use a mix of
> upper and lower case; it maybe OK for Klingon, but generally
> I find it off-putting. The advantages and disadvantages of
> diacritics versus digraphs has often been debated on this
> list. But I would prefer either solution to that of a mixed
> case system.
>
> RM That was my reaction too. When I have time, I'll try to make some
> specific suggestions.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> - as you can see from my TAKE, if I'm going to simplify a
> language I like to get rid of all inflexions, if possible.
> IMO the so-called "Latino sine flexione" has retained too
> many! But that is a personal preference, I know.
>
> RM I don't object to a "few" inflections.... I'd have to examine the
> materials more closely, however. Offhand, I'm not at all sure it's
> necessary to retain the masc/fem differences in the tenses, but that, I
> know, is one of Arabic's features.....
>
> Do I gather (perhaps incorrectly?) that your intention is that Sim-Arabic
> should be primarily a _literary_ rather than a spoken language????
>
>
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
3g. Re: Not really a conlang...
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Sun Feb 3, 2013 9:52 am ((PST))
It might be useful, then, to have a three-way dictionary from Arabic -
Sim-Arabic - English, so S-A can be used as an interlanguage between the
two.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Jeffrey Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> My intention is that Sim-Arabic is ENTIRELY a written language; not a
> spoken one. Essentially, it is for translations from literary Arabic.
>
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > --- On *Sun, 2/3/13, R A Brown <[email protected]>* wrote:
> >
> > (snips)
> >
> > Two immediate reactions:
> > - I really do not like Romanized systems that use a mix of
> > upper and lower case; it maybe OK for Klingon, but generally
> > I find it off-putting. The advantages and disadvantages of
> > diacritics versus digraphs has often been debated on this
> > list. But I would prefer either solution to that of a mixed
> > case system.
> >
> > RM That was my reaction too. When I have time, I'll try to make some
> > specific suggestions.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > - as you can see from my TAKE, if I'm going to simplify a
> > language I like to get rid of all inflexions, if possible.
> > IMO the so-called "Latino sine flexione" has retained too
> > many! But that is a personal preference, I know.
> >
> > RM I don't object to a "few" inflections.... I'd have to examine the
> > materials more closely, however. Offhand, I'm not at all sure it's
> > necessary to retain the masc/fem differences in the tenses, but that, I
> > know, is one of Arabic's features.....
> >
> > Do I gather (perhaps incorrectly?) that your intention is that Sim-Arabic
> > should be primarily a _literary_ rather than a spoken language????
> >
> >
>
--
Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
order from Finishing Line
Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
and
Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (12)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
