There are 14 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: Jim Henry
1b. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: G. van der Vegt
1c. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: Leonardo Castro
1d. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: Kasran
1e. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: Seo Sanghyeon
1f. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: George Corley
1g. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: G. van der Vegt
1h. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: And Rosta
1i. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: George Corley
1j. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: And Rosta
1k. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: H. S. Teoh
1l. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: Garth Wallace
2a. Re: THEORY: Lost of final-syllable rhotic.
From: Leonardo Castro
3a. Re: ASL writing systems (and other OT subjects)
From: MorphemeAddict
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:21 am ((PST))
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Wm Annis <[email protected]> wrote:
> skills must translate, but I really don't think so. A programming
> language is like a human language about as much as a prion is like an
> elephant. The mismatch between them is so great I literally cannot
In gjâ-zym-byn, which in most semantic fields is more lexically
parsimonious than not, human languages and programming languages are
denoted by unrelated root words, {gjâ} and {ʝĭ}. The latter can be
generalized to refer to other restricted symbol-systems like
mathematical or logical notations, and I suppose the former can more
generally refer to languages of nonhuman sentients that share the
open-endedness of human language.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
Messages in this topic (25)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "G. van der Vegt" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:34 am ((PST))
Is Toki Pona the Brainfuck of constructed languages? Both are experiments
in how little is sufficient to serve their purposes (communication between
humans and instructing computers respectively.)
I know Brainfuck can be pretty expressive, since someone wrote a piece of
interactive fiction in it. (Which leads me to an interesting idea, a piece
of interactive fiction written in brainfuck (programming) and Toki Pona
(interface.)
On 27 February 2013 19:21, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Wm Annis <[email protected]> wrote:
> > skills must translate, but I really don't think so. A programming
> > language is like a human language about as much as a prion is like an
> > elephant. The mismatch between them is so great I literally cannot
>
> In gjâ-zym-byn, which in most semantic fields is more lexically
> parsimonious than not, human languages and programming languages are
> denoted by unrelated root words, {gjâ} and {ʝĭ}. The latter can be
> generalized to refer to other restricted symbol-systems like
> mathematical or logical notations, and I suppose the former can more
> generally refer to languages of nonhuman sentients that share the
> open-endedness of human language.
>
> --
> Jim Henry
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
> http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
>
Messages in this topic (25)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:10 am ((PST))
2013/2/27 Wm Annis <[email protected]>:
> I spend a good deal of my time dealing either with human languages or
> with programming languages. More than one person has assumed the
> skills must translate, but I really don't think so. A programming
> language is like a human language about as much as a prion is like an
> elephant. The mismatch between them is so great I literally cannot
> even *begin* to imagine how to link Ithkuil to even the most advanced
> programming languages.
That's why this kind of analogy is based on "deviations from the
mean". The more complex conlang represents the more complex
"programlang", and the same for the more concise, the more simple, the
typical, etc.
It's like comparing people to birds. You'll relate people with long
legs to flamingos, swimmers to penguins, hook-nosed people to eagles,
etc.
It can not be taken more seriously than a game.
>
> --
> William S. Annis
> www.aoidoi.org � www.scholiastae.org
Messages in this topic (25)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "Kasran" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:28 pm ((PST))
Hallo!
The mentions of brainfuck and INTERCAL caught my eye. I'll just jump in
briefly and suggest that we all ponder what a Befunge-analogue conlang
would look like. Or if that'd even be possible!
(Also, reading about Fith: I think Rhiemeier dropped the ball with Shallow
Fith; he should have called it Diminished Fith, but perhaps that's just the
musician in me talking.)
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]>wrote:
> 2013/2/27 Wm Annis <[email protected]>:
> > I spend a good deal of my time dealing either with human languages or
> > with programming languages. More than one person has assumed the
> > skills must translate, but I really don't think so. A programming
> > language is like a human language about as much as a prion is like an
> > elephant. The mismatch between them is so great I literally cannot
> > even *begin* to imagine how to link Ithkuil to even the most advanced
> > programming languages.
>
> That's why this kind of analogy is based on "deviations from the
> mean". The more complex conlang represents the more complex
> "programlang", and the same for the more concise, the more simple, the
> typical, etc.
>
> It's like comparing people to birds. You'll relate people with long
> legs to flamingos, swimmers to penguins, hook-nosed people to eagles,
> etc.
>
> It can not be taken more seriously than a game.
>
> >
> > --
> > William S. Annis
> > www.aoidoi.org � www.scholiastae.org
>
Messages in this topic (25)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "Seo Sanghyeon" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:38 pm ((PST))
2013/2/27 Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[email protected]>:
> What would be the Smalltalk of conlangs? That'd be a language with
> basically no morphology to speak of, and syntax based on a single structure
> that'd be used everywhere. Mmm... I can't think of any conlang that fits
> the description...
Kelen's approach to "no verb" always reminded me of Smalltalk. Smalltalk
uses ifTrue: ifFalse: message for conditionals, which is similarly exotic.
--
Seo Sanghyeon
Messages in this topic (25)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:41 pm ((PST))
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Kasran <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> The mentions of brainfuck and INTERCAL caught my eye. I'll just jump in
> briefly and suggest that we all ponder what a Befunge-analogue conlang
> would look like. Or if that'd even be possible!
>
I have to ask: why "Brainfuck"? Why would you name a programming language
something that many news sources won't print?
Messages in this topic (25)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "G. van der Vegt" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:47 pm ((PST))
Brainfuck is not a serious programming language, it's an esoteric
programming language more intended as an experiment than for any real
programming. It somehow got somewhat notorious and no efforts to change the
name to something more socially acceptable stuck.
On 27 February 2013 23:41, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Kasran <[email protected]
> >wrote:
>
> > Hallo!
> >
> > The mentions of brainfuck and INTERCAL caught my eye. I'll just jump in
> > briefly and suggest that we all ponder what a Befunge-analogue conlang
> > would look like. Or if that'd even be possible!
> >
>
> I have to ask: why "Brainfuck"? Why would you name a programming language
> something that many news sources won't print?
>
Messages in this topic (25)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:29 pm ((PST))
George Corley, On 27/02/2013 22:41:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Kasran<[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Hallo!
>>
>> The mentions of brainfuck and INTERCAL caught my eye. I'll just jump in
>> briefly and suggest that we all ponder what a Befunge-analogue conlang
>> would look like. Or if that'd even be possible!
>>
>
> I have to ask: why "Brainfuck"? Why would you name a programming language
> something that many news sources won't print?
As a way of giving puritans the finger? Or rather, not as something actually
directed at puritans, but rather as a way of siting oneself in a territory
beyond the pale of puritanism.
--And.
Messages in this topic (25)
________________________________________________________________________
1i. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:34 pm ((PST))
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:47 PM, G. van der Vegt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Brainfuck is not a serious programming language, it's an esoteric
> programming language more intended as an experiment than for any real
> programming. It somehow got somewhat notorious and no efforts to change the
> name to something more socially acceptable stuck.
Ah, that makes sense.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:28 PM, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> As a way of giving puritans the finger? Or rather, not as something
> actually directed at puritans, but rather as a way of siting oneself in a
> territory beyond the pale of puritanism.
I don't think it has to be motivated by "Oh, I don't care about your silly
rules: shitfuckcuntfuckingmotherfuck!" As was pointed out by G. van der
Vegt, it's a silly name for a language that no one was seriously trying to
market. That makes sense to me.
Messages in this topic (25)
________________________________________________________________________
1j. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:49 pm ((PST))
Alex Fink, On 27/02/2013 04:28:
> Myself, I can't quite see Lojban as Haskell. Haskell's too elegant;
> Lojban kinda doesn't feel simple / refined enough for it, not
> compared to the approaches that are being taken in something like
> Xorban. I might call Livagian the Haskell of conlangs.
If Haskell were vapourware that was so refined in its goals that its inventors
never succeeded in publishing it and nary a program got written in it, then the
analogy would be most apt. The Wikipedia page on Haskell didn't really mean
much to me, but your description of it makes me feel highly flattered by the
analogy.
Can something be baroque in its simplicity and elegance? Sometimes that's how
Livagian feels to me (at the level of morphosyntax).
Aha: Quotes from Google (different sources):
"The highly influential but rather baroque three-volume Principia Mathematica"
"One of the most baroque pieces of Principia Mathematica in fact has to do with
types-and later ramified types"
"They developed a somewhat baroque theory of types and showed that a
significant amount of mathematics could be rigorously derived from their axioms"
--And.
Messages in this topic (25)
________________________________________________________________________
1k. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:58 pm ((PST))
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 05:34:35PM -0600, George Corley wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:47 PM, G. van der Vegt <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Brainfuck is not a serious programming language, it's an esoteric
> > programming language more intended as an experiment than for any
> > real programming. It somehow got somewhat notorious and no efforts
> > to change the name to something more socially acceptable stuck.
[...]
In my understanding, it's not even an "experiment", it's a joke language
deliberately made to as minimal as possible (and therefore, very hard to
program in). The joke is that even such a horribly badly-designed
language is "Turing-complete" -- that is, it is capable of performing
exactly the same computations as any other serious programming language
can (given, of course, enough time and memory -- which may be vastly
greater than that needed by a more traditional programming language).
The name comes from the language being deliberately made to mess with
the programmer's head.
It is, of course, not the only esoteric programming language with these
characteristics. There is a whole subculture of enthusiasts who have
invented a great variety of strange, bizarre, or otherwise crazy
programming language designs that are all Turing-complete, but nobody
would seriously consider using them for any real programming tasks.
These are called "Turing tarpits" -- they exemplify the point that just
because some particular programming language or computational paradigm
is powerful enough to express any conceivable algorithm, does not mean
that such a language or paradigm is *practical* (hence, "tarpit").
T
--
IBM = I'll Buy Microsoft!
Messages in this topic (25)
________________________________________________________________________
1l. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:18 pm ((PST))
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Kasran <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> The mentions of brainfuck and INTERCAL caught my eye. I'll just jump in
> briefly and suggest that we all ponder what a Befunge-analogue conlang
> would look like. Or if that'd even be possible!
UNLWS?
> (Also, reading about Fith: I think Rhiemeier dropped the ball with Shallow
> Fith; he should have called it Diminished Fith, but perhaps that's just the
> musician in me talking.)
*rimshot*
Messages in this topic (25)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: THEORY: Lost of final-syllable rhotic.
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:02 am ((PST))
2013/2/27 David McCann <[email protected]>:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:41:08 -0300
> Leonardo Castro <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> BTW, could someone tell me how to pronounce geminated r in Italian? Is
>> there a little pause between two trills or the trill just become
>> longer?
>
> It's longer. Ladefoged and Maddieson found (recording 5 speakers) that a
> single /r/ was a single or double tap, while /rr/ was 3 to 7 taps. In
> languages where there was no contrast, /r/ usually had 2 to 3 contacts,
> but many speakers used 1 or 4.
What a relief! I was not wrong in applying the Spanish rule to
Italian: <r> as a flap and <rr> as a trill.
[...]
2013/2/27 Roger Mills <[email protected]>:
> --- On Tue, 2/26/13, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2013/2/15 J. 'Mach' Wust <[email protected]>:
>> (The Italian rhotic is, I think, more accurately described as a
>> trill, and so is the Spanish final rhotic.)
>
> BTW, could someone tell me how to pronounce geminated r in Italian? Is
> there a little pause between two trills or the trill just become
> longer?
> =================================
>
> As best I recall, the rule is similar to that of Spanish--- initial /r/ and
> /rr/ are usually stongly ttrilled**, /r/ is usually a tap, but can optionally
> be a short trill (it may be free variation depending on context/emphasis or
> other personal factors).
>
> **which makes, at least for me, "il re ~ el rey" real tongue-twisters :-(
For me too, but the English th-s boundary, as in "both side", was
equally difficult for me (Portuguese speaker).
> ---note that the Arabic name Abdul Rahman, comes out as "Abderraman" (an
> early Moorish king)
IIRC, the Arabic <r> also absorbs the preceding <l> of the article "al".
Messages in this topic (15)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: ASL writing systems (and other OT subjects)
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:27 pm ((PST))
Excellent list of resources. Thanks for sharing.
stevo
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Mathieu Roy <[email protected]>wrote:
> I felt I had to learn a little bit of ASL before choosing which writing
> system I wanted to use, so since I wrote you last month, I've done the
> first 6 lessons on Lifeprint (as recommended by AA). Then I read all the
> links you gave me (and more!). So I can now say I personally prefer
> Sutton’s SignWriting. However, while I know I'll seriously learn ASL, I'm
> not sure about SignWriting.
>
> With your answers, other people's recommendations and my own research,
> I've made a document with (what looks like) the best ASL online
> documentation:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p9vLMfAPZet0oMTC2z_burEc-LZ0jaNK5TftbXl4hcw/edit#and
> I've also created a community on Google+, take a look (:
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/106294265747168072209
>
> Mathieu
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] De la
> part de Arthaey Angosii
> Envoyé : samedi 2 février 2013 07:47
> À : [email protected]
> Objet : Re: ASL writing systems (and other OT subjects)
>
> 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
>
> Check out the previous email threads on this topic from March 2012:
>
> "Written Form of American Sign Language":
> http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind1203d&L=conlang#28
>
> "Sutton SignWritting":
> http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind1203d&L=conlang#23
>
> > Which one is your favorite and why?
>
> I only seriously considered Sutton SignWritting and si5s, because the
> other systems seem better suited to narrow transcription needed for
> linguistics work, but not the broad transcription I'd want to see for an
> everyday writing system. (But see David Peterson's well-written critique in
> the previous email threads.)
>
> SignWriting is a little older and has a larger following, including
> international support by other sign language communities. However, I really
> just hate how it looks like a bunch of diagrams, not like a "real" writing
> system. This is of course purely an aesthetic, subjective thing, but there
> it is. You can read more about it here:
> http://www.signwriting.org/
>
> si5s is newer and has the "political" benefit of being invented by a Deaf
> person (which is not true of SignWriting). It also just looks more like a
> naturalistic writing system to me. But because it's so much newer, it is
> very much still evolving. I'm actually using si5s to take notes in my ASL
> class and to make flashcards for myself; I'm also talking with one of the
> si5s textbook authors about making a font & IME(s).
>
> Sites about si5s:
>
> http://www.si5s.org/
> http://aslized.org/
> http://www.aslwrite.com/
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/aslwrite
>
> > What is the percentage of people signing in ASL that can also write in
> this language?
>
> Very very few, regardless of which written form of ASL you're talking
> about. As you can see from the previous conversation we'd had about written
> ASL, there is a lot of resistance within the American Deaf community to the
> very idea of a written form of the language, much less consensus about
> *which* form to use.
>
> > Are non-deaf people generally welcome in deaf communities?
>
> In my (limited) experience with ASL Deaf groups, whether hearing people
> are welcome is entirely dependent on said hearing people's attitudes.
> Educate yourself on Deaf culture, what it's like (both now and in past
> generations), and disabuse yourself of the common misconceptions. If you
> treat it like any other cultural & linguistic minority, you should be okay.
>
> Note that there are some Deaf jerks — just like there are hearing jerks.
> But by and large, I've had great experiences chatting with my (very
> beginner!) ASL in Deaf groups. Just be polite and respectful, y'know? :)
>
> > What are your favorite web sites and/or books to learn ASL?
>
> http://www.lifeprint.com/
> http://asl.ms/
>
> > And I also saw these websites: http://www.aslpro.com/,
> > http://www.alldeaf.com/, and http://www.handspeak.com/word/search.php
>
> The All Deaf forums are a great place to lurk and learn about Deaf
> culture. Be prepared to read some shocking stories of the crap they have to
> put up with! :(
>
>
>
> --
> AA
>
> http://conlang.arthaey.com
>
Messages in this topic (10)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
