There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
From: Leonardo Castro
1b. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
From: Roger Mills
1c. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
From: George Corley
1d. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
From: Matthew George
1e. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
From: Matthew George
2a. Re: On Creating Altlangs
From: carolandray+ray
2b. Re: On Creating Altlangs
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
2c. Re: On Creating Altlangs
From: BPJ
3.1. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
From: Leonardo Castro
4a. 'bogolang'
From: And Rosta
4b. Re: 'bogolang'
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
4c. Re: 'bogolang'
From: Patrick Dunn
4d. Re: 'bogolang'
From: MorphemeAddict
4e. Re: 'bogolang'
From: Leonardo Castro
4f. Re: 'bogolang'
From: Alex Fink
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:40 am ((PST))
BTW, the word "puta" ("whore") can have an exclamatory function when
placed before a noun (informally):
"Este é um puta carro!" = "This is a great car!"
"Esta é uma puta conlang!" = "This is an impressive conlang!"
In the Big Brother Brasil TV Show (sorry for mentioning it), a woman
recently said "Eu sou uma puta mulher!" with the sense of "I'm a great
woman!", what unavoidbly caused many people to made the obvious pun
"Puta mulher ou mulher puta?":
http://www.rac.com.br/index.php?id=/blogs/olha_so/materia.php&cd_matia=27530
Até mais!
Leonardo
2013/2/20 Leonardo Castro <[email protected]>:
> 2013/2/20 Matthew George <[email protected]>:
>> Poetic language often violates principles of grammar regarding syntax and
>> word order. I think it may be for reasons other than meter and rhyme.
>>
>> What effect does placing adjectives before the noun they describe have,
>> compared with placing them after?
>
> All the Romance languages I know have some adjectives whose meaning is
> different depending on whether they precede or follow the noun. IIRC,
> the sense of the adjective is always more literal, more concrete when
> it follow the noun. The following page has some nice examples of it in
> French:
>
> http://french.about.com/od/grammar/a/adjectives_fickle.htm
>
>> Afterwards seems like a more logical
>> method - a gradual focusing within a general field - but since you can't
>> form a mental representation in adjective-first descriptions until the noun
>> is given, perhaps it induces people to form mental images differently.
>>
>> I realize that meaning is expressed equally well either way, but there
>> might be secondary instrumental effects that vary. I'm a novice at
>> studying linguistics, and I have very limited experience with languages, so
>> I have no way of judging from experience. What do those of you who are
>> fluent in languages that follow different word orders think?
>
> As a native Portuguese speaker, I feel that adjectives preceding the
> noun are more free semantically. Many Brazilian cities have their name
> from Tupi whose adjectives usually follow the nouns they modify and
> whose compound words usually have very concrete meanings such as
> "yellow-headed fish" -> "fish-head-yellow" = "piracanjuba" <- "pira
> acang yuba". This reinforce my native intuition.
>
>>
>> Matt G.
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:28 am ((PST))
--- On Wed, 2/20/13, Matthew Boutilier <[email protected]> wrote:
But *"Once dreary a midnight upon" would have been an impossible choice for
Poe (unless he were writing in Turkish, incidentally).
Where do you draw the line between poetically grammatical and totally
ungrammatical?
============================================
When you break up constituents (as your example breaks up a prep.phrase.)
Milton's great line:
"Him the Almighty hurled headlong from the sky" can undergo a variety of
permutations, but you have to keep "the Almighty" and "from the sky" intact, no
matter where they're located.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Daniel Burgener
<[email protected]>wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Matthew George, On 20/02/2013 21:22:
> >
> > Poetic language often violates principles of grammar regarding syntax
> and
> >> word order. I think it may be for reasons other than meter and rhyme.
> >>
> >
> > What sorts of principles of grammar regarding syntax and word order does
> > it violate?
> >
> > Do you have examples in mind?
> >
> > (I think I would be inclined to say that poetic language doesn't often
> > violate principles of grammar regarding syntax and word order.)
> >
> > --And.
> >
>
> How about the first line of Poe's The Raven? "Once upon a midnight
> dreary". In non-poetic speech that would be "a dreary midnight".
>
> -Daniel
>
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:13 am ((PST))
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Roger Mills <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Wed, 2/20/13, Matthew Boutilier <[email protected]> wrote:
> But *"Once dreary a midnight upon" would have been an impossible choice for
> Poe (unless he were writing in Turkish, incidentally).
>
> Where do you draw the line between poetically grammatical and totally
> ungrammatical?
> ============================================
> When you break up constituents (as your example breaks up a prep.phrase.)
>
> Milton's great line:
> "Him the Almighty hurled headlong from the sky" can undergo a variety of
> permutations, but you have to keep "the Almighty" and "from the sky"
> intact, no matter where they're located.
Ah, but you could say "It was the sky that the Almighty hurled Him headlong
from". It's not even such a poetic use, it's just suggest a very
low-frequency structure that would require a particular discourse context.
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
Posted by: "Matthew George" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:06 pm ((PST))
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]>wrote:
> BTW, the word "puta" ("whore") can have an exclamatory function when
> placed before a noun (informally):
>
> "Este é um puta carro!" = "This is a great car!"
> "Esta é uma puta conlang!" = "This is an impressive conlang!"
>
General question: would be English equivalent be "bitchin' "?
Matt G.
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: What psychological effect does word order have in languages?
Posted by: "Matthew George" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:24 pm ((PST))
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:13 AM, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ah, but you could say "It was the sky that the Almighty hurled Him headlong
> from". It's not even such a poetic use, it's just suggest a very
> low-frequency structure that would require a particular discourse context.
>
But then the subject becomes "the sky" instead of "Him". The meaning is
fundamentally changed - the alteration to word order disrupts the semantics.
I'm fascinated by the possibility that people with differently-structured
native languages perceive preceding adjectives as having variant
implications. Mr. Corley thinks they're more restrictive, while Mr. Castro
thinks they're freer - and if their respective native tongues are English
and Portuguese (correct?), that's very suggestive.
Perhaps I should seek out some poetry in languages where either position is
possible and see what choices people make.
Matt g.
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: On Creating Altlangs
Posted by: "carolandray+ray" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:20 am ((PST))
I'm away from home & having to use webmail, so formatting
may not be brilliant.
On 20.02.2013 23:01, BPJ wrote:
> On 2013-02-19 20:39, R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>>> Amen! I had to fudge the sound changes, especially the
>>> vowel changes, *a lot* when I was doing Roman Germanech
>>> because Common West Germanic is quite far away from
>>> Vulgar Latin in terms of phonology!
>>
>> Always a problem for bogolangers. :)
>
> But that's what allows them to break out of the
> bogosphere and into the altosphere (yes, intentiontally
> ambiguous coinage!)
_May_ allow them if:
1. the situation is a plausible one, e.g. applying Bantu
phonological developments to Vulgar Latin is IMHO not a
plausible scenario and no altlang, as I understand the word,
will result.
2. the conlanger has the nous to allow such a break in a
plausible situation.
> so it's actually a good thing.
Not necessarily IMO. Some bogolangs I've seen remain
bogolangs & do not cross the threshold into the altosphere.
[snip]
> yet you generally need to peg even an
> altlang on something, like what features of English and
> Welsh are areal/Sprachbund features which perhaps could
> have existed in a Brittanno-Romance language. It's
> still essentially the same beast -- langauge A on
> language B's turf,
No - that is not the same as applying, say, Welsh or Irish or
Germanic diachronic sound changes to Vulgar Latin. AIUI a
bogolang is produced by:
1. taking language A;
2. forming a "master plan" from the diachronic sound of language B;
3. applying the "master plan" to language A.
That is *not* the way I would develop, say, a Britanno-Romance lang.
> with the difference that one tries
> to create something which *might* have evolved under
> normal conditions of language evolution as we know them
> by humans like us, as opposed to something that absolutely
> *could not* have so evolved.
Of course.
> My own Rhodrese is a case in point: it started out
> decades ago as my 'ideal' mix between French and
> Italian, which was certainly not realistic:
I'm not sure what "ideal" means in that context.
As this was a dialect _continuum_ from Sicily to Picardy, there
was in reality a whole band of "mix between French and Italian"
languages. Some may well still survive despite attempts of schools
to impose the national languages of the two countries within their
national borders.
essentially
[snip]
>
> An altlang without side-glances on what actually grew
> up in the same soil is just an arbitrary a-posteriori
> conlang of indeterminate plausibility, and one which
> does make such side-glances runs the risk of becoming a
> parody of the thing glanced at,
It does run such a risk, if the side glances are not checked
and kept in balance. As I've observed before, I think Brithenig
paid undue attention to Welsh, including...
> unless it is spiced up
> with something which is probably implausible.
...the implausible (IMO) spelling of [v] as _f_ in a Romancelang.
Implausibility may add spice, but then the thing passes from the
altosphere into the artosphere.
> Neither
> is that much of an improvement over the bogolang unless
> one keeps in mind that the main goal of conlanging is
> aesthetic gratification and learning about Language,
Is it? I agree with "learning about language", but is all
conlanging about "aesthetic gratification"? Some auxlangers
may want a result that is aesthetically pleasing, but I am not
convinced that they all do. I'm not certain that aesthetics are
a prime concern of engelangers.
Aesthetic considerations certainly do not play any part in TAKE; it
was just an experiment in trying to produce an "ancient Greek without
inflexions." Nor I convinced that way back in the 17th century Dr
Outis
was concerned with aesthetics any more than his near contemporary
Philippe
Labbé was.
Ray.
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: On Creating Altlangs
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:14 am ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
On Thursday 21 February 2013 11:20:03 R A Brown wrote:
> I'm away from home & having to use webmail, so formatting
> may not be brilliant.
Never mind. It came out OK.
> On 20.02.2013 23:01, BPJ wrote:
> > On 2013-02-19 20:39, R A Brown wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >>> Amen! I had to fudge the sound changes, especially the
> >>> vowel changes, *a lot* when I was doing Roman Germanech
> >>> because Common West Germanic is quite far away from
> >>> Vulgar Latin in terms of phonology!
> >>
> >> Always a problem for bogolangers. :)
> >
> > But that's what allows them to break out of the
> > bogosphere and into the altosphere (yes, intentiontally
> > ambiguous coinage!)
>
> _May_ allow them if:
> 1. the situation is a plausible one, e.g. applying Bantu
> phonological developments to Vulgar Latin is IMHO not a
> plausible scenario and no altlang, as I understand the word,
> will result.
> 2. the conlanger has the nous to allow such a break in a
> plausible situation.
Yes.
> > so it's actually a good thing.
>
> Not necessarily IMO. Some bogolangs I've seen remain
> bogolangs & do not cross the threshold into the altosphere.
I have seen several bogolangs that were broken beyond repair,
usually starting with an utterly implausible scenario (often
involving Roman mercenaries in Africa, China or wherever).
A common failure mode of bogolangs is to ignore those phonemes
of the starting language which are not covered by the GMP because
the language the GMP is based on does not have them, and leave
them unchanged in the midst of the turmoil.
> [snip]
>
> > yet you generally need to peg even an
> >
> > altlang on something, like what features of English and
> > Welsh are areal/Sprachbund features which perhaps could
> > have existed in a Brittanno-Romance language. It's
> > still essentially the same beast -- langauge A on
> > language B's turf,
>
> No - that is not the same as applying, say, Welsh or Irish or
> Germanic diachronic sound changes to Vulgar Latin. AIUI a
> bogolang is produced by:
> 1. taking language A;
> 2. forming a "master plan" from the diachronic sound of language B;
> 3. applying the "master plan" to language A.
Yes, that's how the word _bogolang_ is usually defined.
> That is *not* the way I would develop, say, a Britanno-Romance lang.
Indeed not!
My Hesperic family, a family of European lostlangs meant to
represent the residues of a Neolithic European language family,
will not contain *any* bogolangs. Some of the languages are
*inspired* by the phonologies of Indo-European languages of the
relevant region, which I justify by assuming areal influences
being in play, and some parallels in the sound changes occur
here or there (for instance, Proto-Alpianic has undergone a
consonant shift not unlike the High German consonant shift
- in its complete and thorough form as found in Swiss German,
complete with velar affricates - but it is not the same shift,
starting, to mention one point, with *three* grades of stops
rather than two in German, and many other things, such as the
vowels, have developed in utterly different ways), and there will
be three Albic languages showing some resemblance to Welsh, Irish
and Quenya respectively, but even those won't be bogolangs. It is
infinitely more realistic and especially more *fun* to develop
your own sound changes than to apply those of an existing language
to another language!
Geoff Eddy, author of Breathanach, had a conlang family, named
"Sunovian", which seemed to involve a great degree of bogolanging,
applying sound changes of various IE languages and of Quenya to
an a priori proto-language.
> > with the difference that one tries
> > to create something which *might* have evolved under
> > normal conditions of language evolution as we know them
> > by humans like us, as opposed to something that absolutely
> > *could not* have so evolved.
>
> Of course.
Yes. Some artlangs could never have so evolved. Of course, this
does not necessarily mean that the language was a bad artlang, if
the motivation is not one of realism. But an altlang or a lostlang
must be crafted in a way that one can say, "Yes, this language
could have evolved that way", otherwise it is a failure.
> > My own Rhodrese is a case in point: it started out
> > decades ago as my 'ideal' mix between French and
> > Italian, which was certainly not realistic:
> I'm not sure what "ideal" means in that context.
Nor am I. Ideal things live on a separate tier of existence
which in turn only exists in the mind of Platonists ;)
> As this was a dialect _continuum_ from Sicily to Picardy, there
> was in reality a whole band of "mix between French and Italian"
> languages. Some may well still survive despite attempts of schools
> to impose the national languages of the two countries within their
> national borders.
Yep. The dialects of northern Italy, I have been told, show
many features where they are closer to Gallo-Romance than to
Standard Italian.
> essentially
>
> [snip]
>
> > An altlang without side-glances on what actually grew
> > up in the same soil is just an arbitrary a-posteriori
> > conlang of indeterminate plausibility, and one which
> > does make such side-glances runs the risk of becoming a
> > parody of the thing glanced at,
>
> It does run such a risk, if the side glances are not checked
> and kept in balance. As I've observed before, I think Brithenig
> paid undue attention to Welsh, including...
It did.
> > unless it is spiced up
> > with something which is probably implausible.
>
> ...the implausible (IMO) spelling of [v] as _f_ in a Romancelang.
Yes. Romance spelling is largely etymological, and you'd only
get _f_ for /v/ if you have a /f/ > /v/ rule, which Brithenig
IMHO doesn't have. (Not that I'd have a clue how _f_ ended up
representing /v/ in Welsh, though.)
> Implausibility may add spice, but then the thing passes from the
> altosphere into the artosphere.
Certainly.
> > Neither
> > is that much of an improvement over the bogolang unless
> > one keeps in mind that the main goal of conlanging is
> > aesthetic gratification and learning about Language,
>
> Is it? I agree with "learning about language", but is all
> conlanging about "aesthetic gratification"? Some auxlangers
> may want a result that is aesthetically pleasing, but I am not
> convinced that they all do. I'm not certain that aesthetics are
> a prime concern of engelangers.
Head on. Aesthetic gratification is a goal in many (but not
all) artlangs; Tolkien's Elvish languages are a case in point.
It is less of a concern of engelangers (who strive for a more
rational notion of "elegance"), or of auxlangers.
> Aesthetic considerations certainly do not play any part in TAKE; it
> was just an experiment in trying to produce an "ancient Greek without
> inflexions." Nor I convinced that way back in the 17th century Dr
> Outis
> was concerned with aesthetics any more than his near contemporary
> Philippe
> Labbé was.
Yep.
> Ray.
--
... 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 (24)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: On Creating Altlangs
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:25 am ((PST))
On 2013-02-21 11:20, carolandray+ray wrote:
> I'm away from home & having to use webmail, so formatting
> may not be brilliant.
>
> On 20.02.2013 23:01, BPJ wrote:
>> On 2013-02-19 20:39, R A Brown wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> Amen! I had to fudge the sound changes, especially the
>>>> vowel changes, *a lot* when I was doing Roman Germanech
>>>> because Common West Germanic is quite far away from
>>>> Vulgar Latin in terms of phonology!
>>>
>>> Always a problem for bogolangers. :)
>>
>> But that's what allows them to break out of the
>> bogosphere and into the altosphere (yes, intentiontally
>> ambiguous coinage!)
>
> _May_ allow them if:
> 1. the situation is a plausible one, e.g. applying Bantu
> phonological developments to Vulgar Latin is IMHO not a
> plausible scenario and no altlang, as I understand the word,
> will result.
OK, I should have added "if the scenario isn't all too outrageous.
> 2. the conlanger has the nous to allow such a break in a
> plausible situation.
OK, so maybe I'm expecting to much of the average newbie,
but essentially I agree with these points.
>
>> so it's actually a good thing.
>
> Not necessarily IMO. Some bogolangs I've seen remain
> bogolangs & do not cross the threshold into the altosphere.
Surely. Did I say otherwise? "Allow" and "make" ain't the same thing.
> [snip]
>> yet you generally need to peg even an
>> altlang on something, like what features of English and
>> Welsh are areal/Sprachbund features which perhaps could
>> have existed in a Brittanno-Romance language. It's
>> still essentially the same beast -- langauge A on
>> language B's turf,
>
> No - that is not the same as applying, say, Welsh or Irish or
> Germanic diachronic sound changes to Vulgar Latin. AIUI a
> bogolang is produced by:
> 1. taking language A;
> 2. forming a "master plan" from the diachronic sound of language B;
> 3. applying the "master plan" to language A.
>
> That is *not* the way I would develop, say, a Britanno-Romance lang.
No, but strictly speaking such a language, had it
existed, might or might not have any similarities to
Welsh or English at all; there is simply no way to
know, although the lack of influence from Gaulish in
French or from Brittonic in English makes "might not"
seem the safer guess. I see nothing wrong in donning a
Montesquieuan hat as a design strategy in doing an
altlang or a bogolang, but it's as arbitrary in either
case, the difference being that the 'weak' areal
traits/sprachbund version may actually produce
something plausible. However something entirely
arbitrary, on the "sound changes I like" principle,
might be just as plausible. I actually created Rhodrese
on that principle, and it just turned out as something
which might possibly, if not probably, have arosen in
Gaul, so I located it there after the fact.
>
>> with the difference that one tries
>> to create something which *might* have evolved under
>> normal conditions of language evolution as we know them
>> by humans like us, as opposed to something that absolutely
>> *could not* have so evolved.
>
> Of course.
>
>> My own Rhodrese is a case in point: it started out
>> decades ago as my 'ideal' mix between French and
>> Italian, which was certainly not realistic:
>
> I'm not sure what "ideal" means in that context.
Note the scare quotes! My personal predilections which my
youthful self regarded as 'ideal'. I was clear about the
subjectivity, but not about the semantics of "ideal"! :-)
>
> As this was a dialect _continuum_ from Sicily to Picardy, there
> was in reality a whole band of "mix between French and Italian"
> languages. Some may well still survive despite attempts of schools
> to impose the national languages of the two countries within their
> national borders.
> essentially
Several Gallo-Italian varieties live on to varying degrees
in the Alpine valleys of Italy, where the school system's
attitude to how the students speak out of class seems much
more relaxed than (it traditionally was) in France
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergonha>.
I see now that the particular mix of features of my
youthful "Roumain" (sic!), high mid diphthongization
*and* lack of intervocalic lenition, may perhaps be
found "sur la côte Sud-Est de l'Italie, depuis Molfetta
jusque dans l'intérieur des Abruzzes" which is an _ei_
area, but it still doesn't seem very interesting to my
present self. Something like the current Rhodrese --
**minus** i-umlaut -- is perhaps more *plausible* to
actually (have) exist(ed) somewhere in the continuum,
but it's not more *likely* in any way. First and last
its only raison d'être is as a reflection of my
personal lámatyáve, but I do also wish for it to
possess a modicum of plausibility which "Roumain"
didn't. There's no telling how my self thirty years
into the future will judge it of course.
> [snip]
>>
>> An altlang without side-glances on what actually grew
>> up in the same soil is just an arbitrary a-posteriori
>> conlang of indeterminate plausibility, and one which
>> does make such side-glances runs the risk of becoming a
>> parody of the thing glanced at,
>
> It does run such a risk, if the side glances are not checked
> and kept in balance. As I've observed before, I think Brithenig
> paid undue attention to Welsh, including...
>
>> unless it is spiced up
>> with something which is probably implausible.
>
> ...the implausible (IMO) spelling of [v] as _f_ in a Romancelang.
> Implausibility may add spice, but then the thing passes from the
> altosphere into the artosphere.
Yes, at least unless VL /f/ were regularly lenited to
/v/, but then intervocalic /f/ was rather rare in
Latin. Actually a Britanno-Romance which coexisted with
Old English could have picked up the _f_ == [v] mapping
from OE; not very likely but possible.
I'd say spelling is a rather superficial aspect. I
don't think the way Rhodrese uses the digraphs _ch gh
gn gl tx_ makes it anymore like Italian, Rumantsch or
Basque *as a language*, but nor do I think that the
presence or lack of linguistic similarity makes it more
or less likely that it would have those spellings
either, though its chosen geographical and cultural
position, and the way Latin GN, C'L and X developed and
some back vowels after /k g/ ended up as front vowels
in the language, might.
>
>> Neither
>> is that much of an improvement over the bogolang unless
>> one keeps in mind that the main goal of conlanging is
>> aesthetic gratification and learning about Language,
>
> Is it? I agree with "learning about language", but is all
> conlanging about "aesthetic gratification"? Some auxlangers
> may want a result that is aesthetically pleasing, but I am not
> convinced that they all do. I'm not certain that aesthetics are
> a prime concern of engelangers.
>
> Aesthetic considerations certainly do not play any part in TAKE; it
> was just an experiment in trying to produce an "ancient Greek without
> inflexions." Nor I convinced that way back in the 17th century
> Dr Outis
> was concerned with aesthetics any more than his near contemporary
> Philippe
> Labbé was.
Perhaps not if you equate "aesthetic" with "beauty". I
don't. I think there is always an element of
consideration of artistic impact and appearance. How
much and in what way may differ of course, as do the
relevant preferences and concerns of the author and the
perceived audience. Surely even the most cacophonous
and/or mechanical engelang somehow reflects the
artistic preferences and sensibilities of its author,
or it would turn out differently. All engelangs I've
seen have some sort of 'aesthetic coherence', as does
the Black Speech which Tolkien meant to reflect his
idea of ugliness (it isn't phonaesthetically or
'morphoaesthetically' ugly to me, but the idea
expressed in its main extant text is no more or less
repulsive for that!)
/bpj
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:56 am ((PST))
2013/2/17 Mia. <[email protected]>:
> I know I am a little late to this party, but I am a female (although not
> terribly gender-typical) and I really don't care much about what others
> think of me at all. I don't care much about what I look like. Avoiding a
> citation for indecent exposure is my fashion priority. I don't care if
> people are impressed with what I do; I am doing what I want to do. I don't
> try to fit in at all. I just don't have that kind of social awareness. And I
> tend to be friends with women who are like me.
>
> Conlanging is a pretty low priority for me, but I am a single mom, a
> full-time student, and I work, so there's very little downtime in my life,
> and there's no way for me to shift my priorities that wouldn't end up
> costing me something I'm not willing to give up. As a result, I work on my
> languages between other things, and I hardly ever participate in the online
> communities, which renders me invisible, for the most part. It's not that
> I'm not doing it. It's just too much extra effort to post about it
> regularly, and I definitely don't have the time to read what's being posted.
When I was a Physics student, a female colleague told us that women
usually don't think about doing scientific research as seriously as
men do because they usually want to get married and have children
until their early 30`s, so they can't take so many years studying.
>
>
> I am not sure that the numbers of women with languages projects is as low as
> it appears from participation in the community. It is, after all, a pretty
> solitary activity in the first place, so unless you make the effort to get
> out there, nobody would know you were doing it.
>
>
> (Today is the first time I've looked at CONLANG mail in months. Most other
> people would have unsubscribed by now, but this goes to an email I use
> exclusively for CONLANG and a couple of other lists, so it is invisible to
> me most of the time.)
>
> Mia.
>
>
> On 2/12/2013 4:43 PM, Randy Frueh wrote:
>>
>> My girlfriend has an interest in many 'geeky' activities: roleplaying,
>> linguistics, ancient cultures, and other things. But she tells me that it
>> is hard to fit these less than critical activities into her life.
>> I'd probably be more successful were I as driven as she is. But my
>> priorities are different. I've noticed that she cares A LOT about how
>> others see her. I couldn't care less about what others think of me.
>>
>> Is this a common difference? Men and women of the list; what are your
>> impressions on this?
>>
>> (Sorry if this is getting away from the OP's question but I feel that the
>> comparative geekdom of men and women may be closely related to the topic.)
>> On Feb 12, 2013 1:01 PM, "Krista D. Casada" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
Messages in this topic (29)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. 'bogolang'
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:03 am ((PST))
is the _bogo_ in _bogolang_ from _bogus_ or _bogof_ (buy one get one free) or
something else? If _bogus_, what sense is meant? Something that looks real but
is in fact false?
--And.
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: 'bogolang'
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:04 am ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
On Thursday 21 February 2013 18:03:13 And Rosta wrote:
> is the _bogo_ in _bogolang_ from _bogus_ or _bogof_ (buy one get one free)
> or something else? If _bogus_, what sense is meant? Something that looks
> real but is in fact false?
I think it is from _bogus_ in the sense of looking real but being
false.
--
... 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 (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: 'bogolang'
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:38 am ((PST))
That's what I assumed, and therefore do not like the term very much. It
seems to imply an attempt to pass something off as something it's not.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hallo conlangers!
>
> On Thursday 21 February 2013 18:03:13 And Rosta wrote:
>
> > is the _bogo_ in _bogolang_ from _bogus_ or _bogof_ (buy one get one
> free)
> > or something else? If _bogus_, what sense is meant? Something that looks
> > real but is in fact false?
>
> I think it is from _bogus_ in the sense of looking real but being
> false.
>
> --
> ... 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
>
--
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 (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: 'bogolang'
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:46 am ((PST))
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's what I assumed, and therefore do not like the term very much. It
> seems to imply an attempt to pass something off as something it's not.
>
> Ditto. Might as well call it "fakelang".
stevo
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]
> >wrote:
>
> > Hallo conlangers!
> >
> > On Thursday 21 February 2013 18:03:13 And Rosta wrote:
> >
> > > is the _bogo_ in _bogolang_ from _bogus_ or _bogof_ (buy one get one
> > free)
> > > or something else? If _bogus_, what sense is meant? Something that
> looks
> > > real but is in fact false?
> >
> > I think it is from _bogus_ in the sense of looking real but being
> > false.
> >
> > --
> > ... 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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 (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4e. Re: 'bogolang'
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:15 am ((PST))
I didn't know the meaning of bogolang either, but I had no courage
enough to ask...
A thing that comes to mind is that a conlang that is aimed to be
realistic should have a kind of controllable rate of things such as
homonyms. But I have an impression that conlangers dislike homonyms,
homophones, etc.
Até mais!
Leonardo
2013/2/21 MorphemeAddict <[email protected]>:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That's what I assumed, and therefore do not like the term very much. It
>> seems to imply an attempt to pass something off as something it's not.
>>
>> Ditto. Might as well call it "fakelang".
>
> stevo
>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > Hallo conlangers!
>> >
>> > On Thursday 21 February 2013 18:03:13 And Rosta wrote:
>> >
>> > > is the _bogo_ in _bogolang_ from _bogus_ or _bogof_ (buy one get one
>> > free)
>> > > or something else? If _bogus_, what sense is meant? Something that
>> looks
>> > > real but is in fact false?
>> >
>> > I think it is from _bogus_ in the sense of looking real but being
>> > false.
>> >
>> > --
>> > ... 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 (6)
________________________________________________________________________
4f. Re: 'bogolang'
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:40 am ((PST))
As I said in the other thread, I think Geoff Eddy was the first to apply
"bogus" to this sort of conlanging:
http://jc.tech-galaxy.com/bricka/bogo_linguistics.html
| > "Historical bogo-linguistics"? What's that?
|
| It's the name I've chosen for the method of conlanging whereby one
| language (the source) is given a phonology resembling that of another
| (the target). "Bogo" implies that, while fun, this is historically bogus.
| The term bogolang has been proposed (not by me!) as a classification for
| the resulting language, and I'm happy to support its offical adoption.
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:15:21 -0300, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]>
wrote:
>A thing that comes to mind is that a conlang that is aimed to be
>realistic should have a kind of controllable rate of things such as
>homonyms. But I have an impression that conlangers dislike homonyms,
>homophones, etc.
Oh man, do they ever. And it's not just the noobs! Mark Rosenfelder is big on
this, for instance: there are remarks here and there in the LCC books about how
to avoid homophones, taking for granted that this is a thing that you'll want
to do. I remember being stricken by his avoidance when he released Uyseʔ
<http://zompist.com/Uyse7.htm> -- in a lexicon that size, even with uniform
sound distribution, there shoulda been a dozen or two pairs of homophones; but
there were, IIRC, two, and they looked like mistakes given that they both
involved a word that also was missorted alphabetically.
Alex
Messages in this topic (6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
