There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: Daniel Bowman
1.2. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: MorphemeAddict
1.3. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: Alex Fink
1.4. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: George Corley
1.5. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: H. S. Teoh
1.6. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: Allison Swenson
1.7. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
From: George Corley
2a. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
From: Herman Miller
2b. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
From: Dan Henry
2c. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
From: Gleki Arxokuna
2d. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
From: H. S. Teoh
2e. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
From: MorphemeAddict
2f. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
From: Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones
3. New Blog Post: Moten Part X: Surdéclinaison, Other Patterns and
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
4. Kalevala Day
From: Charles Brickner
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:31 pm ((PST))
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.
>
On that subject, what conlang best exemplifies Whitespace?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace_%28programming_language%29
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:06 pm ((PST))
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:18 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!
>
> (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.)
>
I think Shallow Fith is an excellent name for the variety of Fith he
described, since it deals with Fith using only a reduced or shallow stack
depth.
stevo
>
>
> 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 (32)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:25 pm ((PST))
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:48:20 +0000, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
>Alex Fink, On 27/02/2013 04:28:
>> 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.
Well ... in that case, I meant in-world Livagian, not just the models you've
succeeded in making so far!
>Can something be baroque in its simplicity and elegance? Sometimes that's how
>Livagian feels to me (at the level of morphosyntax).
Haskell's use of monads has that flavour, to me.
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:18:43 -0800, Garth Wallace <[email protected]> wrote:
>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?
As the (co-)creator -- thanks for the ego boost, btw! -- I've inevitably got a
"yes but": yes, but UNLWS is supposed to have no defined reading order at all,
and Befunge has all these arrows in it that say "now read in this direction".
Maybe UNLWS is more like Befunge crossed with a non-deterministic Turing
machine?
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:31:08 -0500, Daniel Bowman <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On that subject, what conlang best exemplifies Whitespace?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace_%28programming_language%29
A conlang that you're not supposed to notice is being spoken at all? So the
gripping language, maybe??
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:56:56 -0800, H. S. Teoh <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.
Mhmm. The naming of Brainfuck hasn't annoyed me, anyway -- it's swearing for
swearing's phatic sake, which is what the lexeme is in the language for! What
does, though, make me want to send someone to sit in the corner, railing about
unbigness and uncleverness, are things like
<http://fffff.at/free-universal-construction-kit/>, which wòulda been an
awesome kids' building kit if not for the needlessly boobytrapped name.
>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.
Well, it's certainly in the family of such languages, as you note. But there
are a few approaches to esoteric programming language design: some just try to
break every expectation in a motley collection of ways, or relish in breaking
one big expectation. Others simply go for austerity, while still retaining
Turing-completeness. And I'm not completely happy with calling the latter
class "badly" designed -- perfectly defensible for the former class, but for
the latter it has overtones of minimalism being an inherent error. I bet one
of these languages will have an "application" one day, even if it's an
application such as "we used this to build a universal computer in
Sokobancraft" :)
Anyway, some other examples of languages on the latter theme, of much different
flavour otherwise and accomplishing even severer reductions, are combinator
calculus based ones like Unlambda
<http://www.madore.org/~david/programs/unlambda/> and Iota and Jot
<http://semarch.linguistics.fas.nyu.edu/barker/Iota/>. Any of those (agreeing
with what Logan said earlier) would make a good match for Toki Pona.
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:05:43 -0500, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Kasran <[email protected]>wrote:
>> (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.)
Nicely spotted! If I were Joerg your suggestion would get the immediate seal
of official approval.
>I think Shallow Fith is an excellent name for the variety of Fith he
>described, since it deals with Fith using only a reduced or shallow stack
>depth.
To be serious, Shallow Fith has stack depth just as unbounded as full-blown
Fith. What's restricted isn't having a deep stack, 'cause the _langue_ of a
modifier-head language allows the same: what's restricted is the ability to
play shell games with disappearing cloning marbles mid-sentence, and to nest
one sentence Alien-like inside of another. That is, Joerg's variant of the
language just diminishes the syntactic resources available.
To stop being serious, as long as we're re-christening things, the terminology
for the rotate operation doesn't use the most direct metaphor it could. If you
think of a physical stack of books, you know, nothing's _turning_ if you
perform a rotate up or down; you're simply lifting one item from somewhere in
the stack to the top, or else picking up the second through n-th items and
letting the former top item fall down to place n. And of course, swapping can
be viewed as just the smallest nontrivial case of rotation, with the most minor
possible effect on the stack; and on the other hand there are obvious variants
with more major effects as well.
If Forth and Fith had minor falls and major lifts, I'd really sing a naming
hallelujah.
Alex
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
1.4. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:46 pm ((PST))
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:56 PM, H. S. Teoh <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Interesting. I had not thought of a longer instruction set requiring more
memory. I guess I just presumed that the program's code was converted into
some deeper language like machine code or whatnot when the program was
compiled. But now that I think of it, if that were the case there would
probably no point in the Java Runtime Environment or other such things.
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
1.5. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:29 pm ((PST))
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 09:25:24PM -0500, Alex Fink wrote:
[...]
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:18:43 -0800, Garth Wallace <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> As the (co-)creator -- thanks for the ego boost, btw! -- I've
> inevitably got a "yes but": yes, but UNLWS is supposed to have no
> defined reading order at all, and Befunge has all these arrows in it
> that say "now read in this direction". Maybe UNLWS is more like
> Befunge crossed with a non-deterministic Turing machine?
I felt that Befunge, while innovative in its use of non-linear space to
store program code, didn't go far enough...
... I am guilty of having invented an esoteric programming language in
which the program code, composed of operators, is written on a
4-dimensional grid intermixed with data, composed of "particles".
Particles come in strong and weak flavors, representing binary 1 and 0
respectively. There is no single thread of execution, but the
interpreter basically runs a time-stepped version of a poor man's
bouncing marbles simulation, where all particles travel simultaneously
along their respective paths in one of the 8 cardinal directions until
they hit an operator, which can have various effects like absorbing the
particle without a trace, replicating the particle, reflecting it back
where it came from, toggling particle barriers, etc..
Programming in this "language" involves careful placement of operators
and setting up the initial particles and scheduling their trajectories
so that they strike the right operators at the right time to produce the
desired results. There are no built-in variables; one has to construct
"bit storage boxes" that use replication, reflection, and the right
combination of switches and particle barriers, to "store" a single bit
of information.
I have managed to produce a hello world program on a 5x5x5x5 grid, as
well as the equivalent of the Unix 'cat' (copy input to output verbatim)
on the same sized grid -- no mean feat, considering that the input and
output operators involve the simultaneous emission/absorption of 8
particles in the 8 cardinal 4D directions, representing the bits of a
byte, at exactly the same time step.
[...]
> >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.
>
> Well, it's certainly in the family of such languages, as you note.
> But there are a few approaches to esoteric programming language
> design: some just try to break every expectation in a motley
> collection of ways, or relish in breaking one big expectation. Others
> simply go for austerity, while still retaining Turing-completeness.
> And I'm not completely happy with calling the latter class "badly"
> designed -- perfectly defensible for the former class, but for the
> latter it has overtones of minimalism being an inherent error. I bet
> one of these languages will have an "application" one day, even if
> it's an application such as "we used this to build a universal
> computer in Sokobancraft" :)
Well, I meant "badly-designed" from the pragmatic view of needing to get
the job done at one's day job, for example. While a lot of these Turing
tarpits are by no means carelessly designed, they are utterly
counterproductive in practical usage -- y'know, the kind of thing that
gets you fired from your programming job. :-) But there's no doubt
there's a lot of (twisted) genius that goes into designing such things
(speaking as one who has had his share in the crime).
> Anyway, some other examples of languages on the latter theme, of much
> different flavour otherwise and accomplishing even severer reductions,
> are combinator calculus based ones like Unlambda
> <http://www.madore.org/~david/programs/unlambda/> and Iota and Jot
> <http://semarch.linguistics.fas.nyu.edu/barker/Iota/>. Any of those
> (agreeing with what Logan said earlier) would make a good match for
> Toki Pona.
There are also esolangs go to the other extreme, pushing the envelope of
implementability... such as a wild idea I had of a language that can
store arbitrarily complex data structures using only a single data type,
whose values are transfinite ordinals. :-P
[...]
> If Forth and Fith had minor falls and major lifts, I'd really sing a
> naming hallelujah.
[...]
This gave me a good belly laugh.
T
--
What do you mean the Internet isn't filled with subliminal messages?
What about all those buttons marked "submit"??
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
1.6. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "Allison Swenson" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 28, 2013 5:31 am ((PST))
If you prefer, some people alternately refer to it as Brainfsck (after the
UNIX command fsck - file system consistency check) or, as can probably be
guessed, Brainf***. Although apparently it's not supposed to be capitalized
except at the beginning of sentences--go figure.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:41 PM, 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 (32)
________________________________________________________________________
1.7. Re: CHAT: the Ithkuil of programming languages?
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 28, 2013 5:38 am ((PST))
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Allison Swenson <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you prefer, some people alternately refer to it as Brainfsck (after the
> UNIX command fsck - file system consistency check) or, as can probably be
> guessed, Brainf***. Although apparently it's not supposed to be capitalized
> except at the beginning of sentences--go figure.
Oh, I'm not prudish about it or anything. I was just wondering why you
would name a programming language something that would be so hard to
market. Apparently, that's a non-issue, since it's not intended to be used
seriously.
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:21 pm ((PST))
On 2/27/2013 12:43 PM, Roger Mills wrote:
> RM I can't see any real difference between "buy" and "purchase"--
I don't buy that. :-)
Well, English does have some near exact synonyms. Groundhog and
woodchuck are the same animal, and interchangeable in most contexts, but
a groundhog wouldn't chuck wood, and no one observes Woodchuck Day on
Feb. 2. I can't think of any real distinction between puma and mountain
lion, though.
I get the distinction between "home" and "house", but "house" is really
pretty specific; realtors also sell other kinds of "homes" (like
condominiums). "Home" also (as you mention) has a certain sense of
belonging or welcome associated with it. But I think "residence" and
"dwelling" are pretty near synonyms of each other. The Jarda translation
for "home" in any case is derived from a verb meaning "to reside, dwell,
live at/in, inhabit".
Jarda actually has one word for both "buy" and "sell", basically meaning
"to trade for money".
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
Posted by: "Dan Henry" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:33 pm ((PST))
As far as I know, nobody's shoes are "Mountain Lions".
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Herman Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, English does have some near exact synonyms. Groundhog and woodchuck
> are the same animal, and interchangeable in most contexts, but a groundhog
> wouldn't chuck wood, and no one observes Woodchuck Day on Feb. 2. I can't
> think of any real distinction between puma and mountain lion, though.
>
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
Posted by: "Gleki Arxokuna" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:09 pm ((PST))
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:49 PM, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Matthew George <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > And then, what about abbreviations? Abbrvs oft are n form defd, but r
> > comprhbl to pps fluent in base lang - at worst they take some puzzling
> out.
> >
>
> Actually, at worst people actually fail to understand them. I have no idea
> what "defd" means. But then, people fail to understand words, sometimes.
> Also, if you think the method Monroe cites for determining information
> density of a text, it might account for abbreviations to some extent.
>
>
> > And that's excluding using languages/codes other than English.
> >
>
> Well, yes. Theoretically, Chinese should be far more information dense than
> English, and it does seem that way anecdotally (I have seen Chinese
> microblog posts that would translate to far more than 140 characters in
> English), but only in terms of the written language. An entirely different
> test would be needed to determine information density of the actual spoken
> language.
>
I remember there was an experiment where a text was translated to
Chinese,English,Spanish and Japanese and then native speakers were asked to
read that aloud. Although Spanish text was twice as long as English or
Chinese text native spanish speakers spoke it twice as faster compencating
for it's length. I think this experiment was mentioned in Lexicon Valley
podcast.
>
> > At present, there is to my (very limited) knowledge no theoretical
> > understanding of the informational content of *concepts*. And that,
> rather
> > than words, is what would really matter to the information density.
> >
>
> True. No one really knows if "concepts" even exist cognitively. Does
> language map directly onto our unfiltered perception of the world, or is
> there an intermediate stage? The best we can do is compare two languages
> using a parallel text, though that runs into its own problems, as getting a
> translation to say exactly the same thing as the original can be difficult
> and unnatural.
>
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:33 pm ((PST))
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 09:05:31AM +0400, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:49 PM, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> > Well, yes. Theoretically, Chinese should be far more information
> > dense than English, and it does seem that way anecdotally (I have
> > seen Chinese microblog posts that would translate to far more than
> > 140 characters in English), but only in terms of the written
> > language. An entirely different test would be needed to determine
> > information density of the actual spoken language.
> >
>
> I remember there was an experiment where a text was translated to
> Chinese,English,Spanish and Japanese and then native speakers were
> asked to read that aloud. Although Spanish text was twice as long as
> English or Chinese text native spanish speakers spoke it twice as
> faster compencating for it's length. I think this experiment was
> mentioned in Lexicon Valley podcast.
[...]
Being a native Chinese speaker (albeit not a very good one), I can say
that the structure of the language allows for extreme compression -- but
at the cost of intelligibility. In poetry, for example, it's customary
to compress normally-bisyllabic words into single syllables, and thus
one finds songs in Chinese that, when translated into English, require
so many more syllables there's no way to fit it all into the same melody
and meter. But such compressed text are hard to understand without
actually looking at the written form, because a lot of the built-in
disambiguation in the spoken language (in the form of extra syllables)
are missing. One heavily relies on convention and context to understand
what's being said / sung, and even then, ambiguities abound. Somewhat
compensating for this is the use of (sometimes archaic) set phrases that
are recognized as a whole rather than on a per-word basis.
In the spoken language, the compression ratio is much lower.
T
--
Fact is stranger than fiction.
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:13 pm ((PST))
The homonyms "by" and "bye" might have something to do with it, too.
stevo
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Daniel Bowman <[email protected]>wrote:
> > RM I can't see any real difference between "buy" and "purchase"--
> >
> >
> I think "purchase" tends to occur in more formal situations.
> I believe there's a maxim in ecology that states no two animals can occupy
> the exact same niche.
> It's likely that the same is true of words - there's no reason to have two
> words that are exactly identical.
> If that were to occur, I expect one word would disappear, or change meaning
> to be distinct (however slightly) from the other one.
>
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: Related to the recent discussion about counting the number of po
Posted by: "Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:19 pm ((PST))
In itself this may not be a problem limited to Chinese; whole websites are
dedicated to publishing the (often ridiculous and/or hilarious, and frequently
incomprehensible) "lyrics" of songs in English people *think* they have heard.
Jeff
On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:31, "H. S. Teoh" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 09:05:31AM +0400, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:49 PM, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
>>> Well, yes. Theoretically, Chinese should be far more information
>>> dense than English, and it does seem that way anecdotally (I have
>>> seen Chinese microblog posts that would translate to far more than
>>> 140 characters in English), but only in terms of the written
>>> language. An entirely different test would be needed to determine
>>> information density of the actual spoken language.
>>
>> I remember there was an experiment where a text was translated to
>> Chinese,English,Spanish and Japanese and then native speakers were
>> asked to read that aloud. Although Spanish text was twice as long as
>> English or Chinese text native spanish speakers spoke it twice as
>> faster compencating for it's length. I think this experiment was
>> mentioned in Lexicon Valley podcast.
> [...]
>
> Being a native Chinese speaker (albeit not a very good one), I can say
> that the structure of the language allows for extreme compression -- but
> at the cost of intelligibility. In poetry, for example, it's customary
> to compress normally-bisyllabic words into single syllables, and thus
> one finds songs in Chinese that, when translated into English, require
> so many more syllables there's no way to fit it all into the same melody
> and meter. But such compressed text are hard to understand without
> actually looking at the written form, because a lot of the built-in
> disambiguation in the spoken language (in the form of extra syllables)
> are missing. One heavily relies on convention and context to understand
> what's being said / sung, and even then, ambiguities abound. Somewhat
> compensating for this is the use of (sometimes archaic) set phrases that
> are recognized as a whole rather than on a per-word basis.
>
> In the spoken language, the compression ratio is much lower.
>
>
> T
>
> --
> Fact is stranger than fiction.
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. New Blog Post: Moten Part X: Surdéclinaison, Other Patterns and
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:41 am ((PST))
Hi everyone!
If you follow me on Twitter, G+, are part of the G+ conlangers' community,
or follow the Conlangers' RSS feed, you probably already know about my
latest blog post, but I realise now (nearly a week later! :( ) That I
forgot to add an announcement here. So let's correct that mistake now!
So as you guessed, I published the latest instalment of my Moten grammar
series. It is available at:
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.nl/2013/02/moten-part-x-surdeclinaison-other.html
.
It is the last of a series of three articles about surdéclinaison in Moten.
After discussing surdéclinaison on nouns and verbs in the first two posts,
this one is devoted to other patterns of surdéclinaison that I hadn't
introduced yet, from the very productive if somewhat restricted in use to
isolated forms that do not belong to any kind of productive pattern, and
end up being the closest thing Moten has to adverbs. It's a broad article
and somewhat longish, but that's because there's a lot of material in
there, and a lot of examples! Also, for the people who attended my
presentation at the LCC4, you might remember that after two "slides" (or
whatever you'd call those in a Prezi) of Moten examples of surdéclinaison
on nouns and verbs, I showed an empty slide about other patterns. This post
basically fills that slide up! :)
As usual, you can find other posts about Moten here:
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.nl/p/moten-language.html.
Now, my discussion of Moten surdéclinaison on my blog is well and truly
over. I don't think I have much to add to it, although I do welcome
comments, both here and on my blog itself, and I can always help if
something is not clear. And of course, ANADEWs and ACADEWs are more than
welcome :) .
I've already started working on my next instalment, which will be about
derivational morphology (well, the little of it Moten has in any case) and
compounding. Please look forward to them!
Enjoy your reading! :)
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Kalevala Day
Posted by: "Charles Brickner" [email protected]
Date: Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:37 am ((PST))
Today is Kalevala Day in Finland. According to the Wikipedia article
"Kalevala": "The Kalevala played an instrumental role in...the intensification
of Finland's language strife...."
Charlie
Messages in this topic (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
