There are 9 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Online Moten Dictionary
From: BPJ
1b. Re: Online Moten Dictionary
From: BPJ
1c. Re: Online Moten Dictionary
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
1d. Re: Online Moten Dictionary
From: BPJ
1e. Re: Online Moten Dictionary
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
1f. Re: Online Moten Dictionary
From: A. da Mek
2a. Re: Of Elves and Mountains (Hesperic etymologies)
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
3a. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
From: Leonardo Castro
3b. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
From: Daniel Burgener
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Online Moten Dictionary
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 6, 2013 10:28 am ((PST))
On 2013-03-05 17:33, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
> The document itself is a plain PDF file, without fancy things like
> hyperlinks or anything similar. It's basically the output of the Export
> function of Toolbox, with only minimal post-processing from me (which I
> unfortunately had to do in Microsoft Word, given that's the expectation
> from Toolbox). In the future when I update this document, I will try to see
> whether I can add hyperlinks, but for now you'll have to make do with plain
> browsing and the search function of your PDF viewer.
Provided that Toolbox's data file is just a plain text file
in Shoebox format you might find this olde dogge, which parses
such files, useful:
<https://metacpan.org/release/Text-Shoebox>
You would have to write routines to go through the parsed
data[^1] and format it, but you could target LaTeX!
[^1]: the object-oriented helper modules are really helpful,
although they have a slightly arcane method set.
/bpj
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Online Moten Dictionary
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 6, 2013 12:22 pm ((PST))
On 2013-03-06 08:31, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
> Anyway, the Moten script is a romanisation rather than a native script
> (even within the fiction where the language actually exists), so it's very
> phonemic. All letters have their IPA values (barring allophony), except the
> four special letters _|l_, _|n_, _|s_ and _|z_ (| isn't a separate
> character). Those are respectively /Ê/, /ɲ/,/ts/ and/dz/ (the last two
> are affricates, not clusters). Allophony does change things a bit, but
> there's luckily not much of it in Moten.
>
I have great trouble distinguishing | from l in the dictionary,
as they are the same height in the font used. A font where |
extends well below the baseline, or with heavier serifs, would be
preferable (ĺ ŠŠź or ḷ Ṡṣ Ạwould be even preferabler,
but something tells me you won't go for that! ;-)
/bpj
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Online Moten Dictionary
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 6, 2013 4:14 pm ((PST))
On 6 March 2013 19:27, BPJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Provided that Toolbox's data file is just a plain text file
> in Shoebox format you might find this olde dogge, which parses
> such files, useful:
>
> <https://metacpan.org/release/**Text-Shoebox<https://metacpan.org/release/Text-Shoebox>
> >
>
>
Toolbox's files are plain text, but I don't know if they have a similar
format as Shoebox. I'll look into it. Thanks for the link!
> You would have to write routines to go through the parsed
> data[^1] and format it, but you could target LaTeX!
>
> [^1]: the object-oriented helper modules are really helpful,
> although they have a slightly arcane method set.
>
>
My programming skills are rusty, but that may be a good opportunity to
revive them. It may be useful for other people as well.
I have great trouble distinguishing | from l in the dictionary,
> as they are the same height in the font used. A font where |
> extends well below the baseline, or with heavier serifs, would be
> preferable
Good point! I'll experiment with other fonts. The template used by Toolbox
uses styles throughout, so it shouldn't be too difficult. I'm not too happy
with Times New Roman's look anyway.
> (ĺ ŠŠź or ḷ Ṡṣ Ạwould be even preferabler,
> but something tells me you won't go for that! ;-)
>
>
Indeed not! While I have nothing against diacritics, the pipe has been part
of Moten's typographic identity since the very beginning, and comes closest
to the way I actually write Moten with pen and paper (which predates my
first foray on the Internet!). I am not going to throw away 20 years of
history if I can help it :P .
The alternative would be to create a special font with the correct shapes
for these characters (maybe using ligatures for ease of typing). But it
seems a lot of work for just four characters (eight if we count the capital
letters).
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Online Moten Dictionary
Posted by: "BPJ" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 1:43 am ((PST))
Den torsdagen den 7:e mars 2013 skrev Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets:
> On 6 March 2013 19:27, BPJ <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> >
> > Provided that Toolbox's data file is just a plain text file
> > in Shoebox format you might find this olde dogge, which parses
> > such files, useful:
> >
> > <https://metacpan.org/release/**Text-Shoebox<
> https://metacpan.org/release/Text-Shoebox>
> > >
> >
> >
> Toolbox's files are plain text, but I don't know if they have a similar
> format as Shoebox. I'll look into it. Thanks for the link!
>
> As far as I could gauge from information found on the SIL website they are
basically the same. I used Shoebox once upon a time but have been keeping
my vocabularies in CSV files for years now.
>
> > You would have to write routines to go through the parsed
> > data[^1] and format it, but you could target LaTeX!
> >
> > [^1]: the object-oriented helper modules are really helpful,
> > although they have a slightly arcane method set.
> >
> >
> My programming skills are rusty, but that may be a good opportunity to
> revive them. It may be useful for other people as well.
>
> I looked at the code for that parser and it wasn't that complicated. I got
a bit of an itch to rewrite it -- easy to resist since I don't have any
currently relevant data set of my own and many other things including Real
Work(TM) on my hands. The main disadvantage with the format is that keys
aren't required to be unique and that the order of items within an entry
may be significant since this means you can't just slurp each entry into an
associative array. With CSV I can do that although I often want more than
two dimensions. In practice I often have semicolon-separated subfields or
even compact YAML fragments within a field.
> I have great trouble distinguishing | from l in the dictionary,
>
> > as they are the same height in the font used. A font where |
> > extends well below the baseline, or with heavier serifs, would be
> > preferable
>
>
> Good point! I'll experiment with other fonts. The template used by Toolbox
> uses styles throughout, so it shouldn't be too difficult. I'm not too happy
> with Times New Roman's look anyway.
>
>
It does have it's uses though when you need to use narrow columns. Perhaps
you could take some font with a suitable license and adjust the pipe
character!
>
> > (ĺ ŠŠź or ḷ Ṡṣ Ạwould be even preferabler,
> > but something tells me you won't go for that! ;-)
> >
> >
> Indeed not! While I have nothing against diacritics, the pipe has been part
> of Moten's typographic identity since the very beginning, and comes closest
> to the way I actually write Moten with pen and paper (which predates my
> first foray on the Internet!). I am not going to throw away 20 years of
> history if I can help it :P .
I know the feeling! I changed the transcription of Sohlob once when going
from ASCII to Latin-1 -- which then only meant to replace some unambiguous
digraphs tj sj dj ae with c ç j æ -- but I won't 'remedy' the digraphs that
remain, especially since ny ng ngg for /J N Ng/ and hl hr hm hn hng for
voiceless liquids and nasals are pretty intuitive. Rather the problem is
that c ç for /ts\ s\/ aren't intuitive for most people!
/bpj
> The alternative would be to create a special font with the correct shapes
> for these characters (maybe using ligatures for ease of typing). But it
> seems a lot of work for just four characters (eight if we count the capital
> letters).
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Online Moten Dictionary
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 2:33 am ((PST))
On 7 March 2013 10:43, BPJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > As far as I could gauge from information found on the SIL website they
> are
> basically the same. I used Shoebox once upon a time but have been keeping
> my vocabularies in CSV files for years now.
>
>
I like Toolbox because it keeps things tidy, automatically sorts entries
(with the correct alphabet order, despite my use of weird letters :) ),
while the back-end is still just plain text files. It lowers the overhead a
lot.
> > >
> > My programming skills are rusty, but that may be a good opportunity to
> > revive them. It may be useful for other people as well.
> >
> > I looked at the code for that parser and it wasn't that complicated. I
> got
> a bit of an itch to rewrite it -- easy to resist since I don't have any
> currently relevant data set of my own and many other things including Real
> Work(TM) on my hands.
I've actually discovered a PDF entitled "From Toolbox to LaTeX", with a
link to a Perl script and a LaTeX style that claim to do exactly what I
want. It's at: http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/uploads/media/tb-to-tex.pdf
I've downloaded the scripts, and it seems that they could be useful as
starting point, but there's a lot of work needed before either can be used
with my dictionary. You're welcome to scratch your itch on those if you
want (my Perl skills are basically non-existent. I'm more of a Ruby guy
myself).
> The main disadvantage with the format is that keys
> aren't required to be unique and that the order of items within an entry
> may be significant since this means you can't just slurp each entry into an
> associative array. With CSV I can do that although I often want more than
> two dimensions. In practice I often have semicolon-separated subfields or
> even compact YAML fragments within a field.
>
>
Since I started using Toolbox I haven't looked back. So far it's better for
my own use than any alternative I've come across.
> >
> It does have it's uses though when you need to use narrow columns. Perhaps
> you could take some font with a suitable license and adjust the pipe
> character!
>
>
>
Unfortunately, the only computer I have access to on which I can use Word
is locked down, and I can't install fonts on it. So I'll just have to make
do with the fonts already installed there.
That's why I'm so keen on a LaTeX solution. I could then use XeLaTeX on my
home computer and use any font I want to.
>
>
> I know the feeling! I changed the transcription of Sohlob once when going
> from ASCII to Latin-1 -- which then only meant to replace some unambiguous
> digraphs tj sj dj ae with c ç j æ -- but I won't 'remedy' the digraphs that
> remain, especially since ny ng ngg for /J N Ng/ and hl hr hm hn hng for
> voiceless liquids and nasals are pretty intuitive. Rather the problem is
> that c ç for /ts\ s\/ aren't intuitive for most people!
>
>
In the past I've looked at alternatives for |l, |n, |s and |z, but I could
never find anything pleasing. It's important that those four characters
should keep a connection (the phonemes they represent behave in the same
way in some environments, and differently from any other consonant), but
I've never found anything that worked across the board. Diacritics just
look wonky on _l_. Using unused letters of the alphabet would be
unintuitive (how do I represent /Ê/ when the only letters available are c,
h, q, r, w, x and y? Or /ɲ/ for that matter?). Replacing the | with an
unused letter would result to something not unlike the x-notation of
Esperanto (which was useful in the days before Unicode, but was ugly as
hell!), also not especially intuitive. I toyed with doubling letters (based
on Castillan Spanish's _l_ /l/ vs. _ll_ /Ê/), which would have been
unambiguous since Moten phonotactics don't allow doubled or long phonemes.
But I'm not sure how intuitive _nn_ for /ɲ/, _ss_ for /ts/ and _zz_ for
/dz/ would be (I'd rather have people plainly not knowing how to pronounce
words rather than people *thinking* they know how to pronounce words and
doing it wrong). Also, it would mess up with writing down interjections in
the Moten script (interjections routinely break Moten phonotactics and
allow long and doubled phonemes, and I wanted to be able to mark those with
double letters).
In the end, I decided to stick with the pipe. It may be a weird choice, but
it works for me, and it now *feels* like part of Moten's identity. It gives
it a unique look on the page at least :) .
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Online Moten Dictionary
Posted by: "A. da Mek" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 5:03 am ((PST))
> In the past I've looked at alternatives for |l, |n, |s and |z, but I could
never find anything pleasing. It's important that those four characters
should keep a connection (the phonemes they represent behave in the same
way in some environments, and differently from any other consonant),
> Using unused letters of the alphabet would be
unintuitive (how do I represent /Ê/ when the only letters available are c,
h, q, r, w, x and y? Or /ɲ/ for that matter?)
ly and ny seem to me intuitive enough for palatals; these digraphs are used
for example in Hungarian.
But if the palatals and affricates shall be marked alike, then anything
intuitive for the first pair will be unintuitive for the second pair.
Maybe lÌ nÌ sÌ zÌ could work; this hook may remind an apostrophe which is
sometimes used to mark palatalisation and sometimes for a glottal stop,
which in a combination with a fricative could suggest the plosive onset of
an affricate.
And it is one of the five diacritic modifiers which are on my computer
available in the usual fonts (Times, Courier, Arial):
oÌ grave
oÌ acute (They both are anyway available precomposed on most letters, but
the modifiers can be useful for a combination of two diacritic, such as
accented long vowel ÅÌ.
oÌ tilde (Useful if there is no precomposed eÌ; and also if you want
write gÌ instead of Å)
oÌ hook
ọ dot under
> In the end, I decided to stick with the pipe.
There is one disadvantage of non-letter characters - Google does not
recognize such string as one word.
I considered to use <è èh àh òh> instead of <¨ ¨h ªh ºh> which I am now
writing for [?], [h], [X\] and [?\], but a text with è used as a consonat
looks like a file with Ä written in the Central European codepage and then
misinterpreted as the Western codepage.
It is difficult to find some letter for the glottal stop. The letter з may
remind the glyph used by Egyptologists to transcribe the glottal stop, but
most people would probably read з either as [Z] or [dz)].
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Of Elves and Mountains (Hesperic etymologies)
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [email protected]
Date: Wed Mar 6, 2013 1:15 pm ((PST))
Hallo conlangers!
On Tuesday 05 March 2013 21:15:05 I wrote:
> Hallo conlangers!
>
> I have a new Hesperic etymological finding to report.
>
> On New Year's Day, I had written:
> > Also, Alpianic
> >
> > *alp- 'mountain' looks like a regular descendant of PH *xalb-,
> > perhaps from the notion that high mountains (such as those of
> > the Alps where Alpianic languages are spoken) are snow-capped
> > and thus "white".
>
> Actually, this is wrong. The Alpianic reflex of PH *xalb- is
> *ôpa 'ancestor'. The word *alpa 'mountain' is a cognate of
> Old Albic _arb_ < PH *xarb 'hill, mountain' (the shift *r > *l,
> counterfeeding *al > *ô, is regular before stops). This is in
> turn an extended form of the PH root *xar- 'high' (cf. Old Albic
> _ar_ 'high', _aran_ 'up'). So no connection between Elves and
> mountains, despite the similarities of the words.
The name of the _Alb_, a lesser mountain range north of the Alps
in southern Germany, probably has the same origin. This range
certainly wasn't named for its whiteness, as the Alb is not
snow-capped but forested and therefore dark green and in no way
"white". Apparently, the above mentioned changes to the liquids
happened in the unknown Hesperic language of southern Germany as
well, because otherwise, the Alb would be known as the "Arb".
--
... 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 (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 4:35 am ((PST))
2013/3/5 Daniel Burgener <[email protected]>:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> 2013/3/4 Matthew George <[email protected]>:
>> > I was thinking about Roman numerals, and how terrible for performing
>> > mathematics that whole system is.
>>
>> I once affirmed that to a friend and he told me "Let's check!" and
>> started trying to make basic operations with Roman numerals. To my
>> surprise, he succeeded! He succeeded and said: "It's not that
>> difficult...". I watched he performing the operations while analyzing
>> developing the methods himself and it really didn't looked very
>> difficult.
>>
>> I don't have time to repeat what he did now, but I challenge you do so.
>>
>
> Interesting! I just tried some basic addition and multiplication with
> roman numerals and it was in fact quite easy. Multiplication got tedious
> quickly and I didn't go far enough to figure out really complicated
> problems. (I could do, for example MXIII * V with little trouble, but I
> haven't tackled MXIII * XVII yet). Addition was easy though.
>
> Here's a simple example of the method I came up with for addition:
>
> CCLXXIV + CXCVII
>
> I did the work in two phases: First, "clump everything together", then
> "rewrite".
>
> Since each roman numeral represents a quantity, I can add them by simply
Yes, Roman numbers' representations are representations of sums
themselves (except for the preffix), that's why sum is so simple. In
the Indo-Arabic system, a 9 is not simply nine.
> grouping those quantities together, with special rules for cases like "IX"
> etc. I, X and C can be prefixed to larger numbers to indicate
> subtraction. In this situation, there are two cases. If there is a
> positive numeral of the same value in the other number, they cancel. If
> not, you can carry the prefix down.
>
> So here's the "clumping" for the above example:
>
> CCCCLXVVI
>
> The prefixed X and I each cancel one in the other number. Now this result
> isn't good because it has four Cs and two Vs, which should become a "CD"
> and an "X" respectively. That's what the "rewrite" phrase is for.
>
> So the end result is:
>
> CDLXXI.
>
> (Note that the second phase may require multiple iterations, if for example
> our "VV" -> "X" transformation resulted in four Xs. There are also
> additional rules to follow if your result has prefixed numerals in it.
>
> So to check in base 10, we did: 274 + 197, and got 471, which is the
> correct answer.
>
> I would wager that once one became familiar with the method, this could be
> faster than addition in modern numerals (although not worth the time to
> convert back and forth to Roman numerals). Multiplication seems easier
> with the modern way though based on my brief experimentation with it.
>
> -Daniel
I don't remember if my friend found a simple way of performing
divisions. I think division requires "guessing" quotients and checking
if you have to raise or lower it in the next trial. That's how we do
with Indo-Arabic numerals too, isn't it?
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: OT: Math with roman numerals (Was: Do people ever make variant n
Posted by: "Daniel Burgener" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 4:57 am ((PST))
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> I don't remember if my friend found a simple way of performing
> divisions. I think division requires "guessing" quotients and checking
> if you have to raise or lower it in the next trial. That's how we do
> with Indo-Arabic numerals too, isn't it?
>
I don't believe that's how I learned it. I learned a method like this:
http://www.mathsisfun.com/long_division.html
The guess and check method sounds especially tedious in roman numerals
where multiplication is tedious.
-Daniel
Messages in this topic (7)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
