There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Creating a Conlang with homophones
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
1b. Re: Creating a Conlang with homophones
From: Patrick Dunn
1c. Re: Creating a Conlang with homophones
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
2.1. Re: "English has the most words of any language"
From: Jyri Lehtinen
3a. OT: Fieldwork terminology for a story
From: George Corley
3b. Re: OT: Fieldwork terminology for a story
From: Leland Paul Kusmer
3c. Re: OT: Fieldwork terminology for a story
From: Dirk Elzinga
3d. Re: OT: Fieldwork terminology for a story
From: George Corley
3e. Re: OT: Fieldwork terminology for a story
From: MorphemeAddict
3f. Re: OT: Fieldwork terminology for a story
From: Leland Paul Kusmer
3g. Re: Fieldwork terminology for a story
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
3h. Re: OT: Fieldwork terminology for a story
From: Dirk Elzinga
4.1. Re: Pesky morphemes
From: And Rosta
4.2. Re: Pesky morphemes
From: R A Brown
5. [Joke] Conscript
From: Mathieu Roy
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Creating a Conlang with homophones
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" [email protected]
Date: Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:45 am ((PDT))
I'm thinking to have Yardish not have homophones or homonyms. Could that
work, if so, how? If not, is there an alternative for not having, say
different kinds of there.
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Creating a Conlang with homophones
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:46 pm ((PDT))
I'd say it's theoretically possible, but deeply unlikely for a language to
have no homophones or homonyms. Languages are always changing, both on the
level of sound and on the level of meaning, and so even if it was at one
stage without homophones or homonyms, all its takes is one generation to
drop a sound or two, or change a sound, or shift the meaning of a word, for
that to no longer be true.
I believe there are some auxlangs or loglangs that claim not to have
homophones or homonyms. I wonder, if they were adopted by a significant
number of living people, how long it would take before that was no longer
the case. My guess is, at most, maybe three generations.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm thinking to have Yardish not have homophones or homonyms. Could that
> work, if so, how? If not, is there an alternative for not having, say
> different kinds of there.
>
--
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 (3)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Creating a Conlang with homophones
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" [email protected]
Date: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:01 pm ((PDT))
Oh interesting. That must be where the semantics comes in. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Patrick Dunn
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:47 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Creating a Conlang with homophones
I'd say it's theoretically possible, but deeply unlikely for a language to
have no homophones or homonyms. Languages are always changing, both on the
level of sound and on the level of meaning, and so even if it was at one
stage without homophones or homonyms, all its takes is one generation to
drop a sound or two, or change a sound, or shift the meaning of a word, for
that to no longer be true.
I believe there are some auxlangs or loglangs that claim not to have
homophones or homonyms. I wonder, if they were adopted by a significant
number of living people, how long it would take before that was no longer
the case. My guess is, at most, maybe three generations.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm thinking to have Yardish not have homophones or homonyms. Could that
> work, if so, how? If not, is there an alternative for not having, say
> different kinds of there.
>
--
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 (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: "English has the most words of any language"
Posted by: "Jyri Lehtinen" [email protected]
Date: Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:43 pm ((PDT))
> Lots of underived lexemes because of borrowing and the feedback loop of
> being receptive to new underived lexemes.
>
I think this is one important factor that creates differences between
languages but also makes the whole thing a lot more muddier. It often feels
to me that any word you pick from another language and stick into an
English sentence pronouncing it at least somewhat anglicised becomes an
acceptable English word.
When speaking Finnish I have a much less accepting attitude for new loans
and prefer to exercise derivation and compounding instead. What counts as
an acceptable loan is a complicated matter and defeats me. An example is
that last week when giving a lecture I used the phrase _konstruktiivinen
interferenssi_ ("constructive interference"). Immediately after this I was
appalled at using a word like _konstruktiivinen_ instead of a translation
of it. On the other hand I had no strong feelings about using the word
_interferenssi_. The two words are equally modern technical loans and I
have no definitive answer what makes the difference between them in my own
sense of language.
To generalise into other languages, for analysis purposes you need to
define a rule for what it takes for a loan to be accepted as a word in the
language. A native speaker and an outsider doing a lexical study of a
number of languages will probably come up with different rules and there
will almost certainly be differences between the opinions of different
speakers of the language.
-Jyri
Messages in this topic (43)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. OT: Fieldwork terminology for a story
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:52 pm ((PDT))
I am writing an indeterminate-future short story featuring a field
linguist, and I'm curious what y'all's thoughts might be on terminology to
use, particularly those on the list who are trained linguists.
My understanding is that a field linguist's contacts within a speech
community are traditionally called "informants", but recently I have read
that there is some debate as to whether this term is appropriate, as it
might have negative connotations among the lay public, or feel too
impersonal. I'm currently vacillating as to whether my linguist character
should be using "informant" or another alternative (I'm currently writing
the story using the term "consultant").
I'll note that I am not doing any conlanging for this book, but there is an
alien language featured (it is a signed language, and no actual words of
this language will appear in the text). As the language itself is not
driving the plot, I only have a rough idea of what it will be, and haven't
even really thought about how it will differ from human languages (other
than a small bit of phonetics, of course -- these creatures have two
forelimbs and two antennae that are used in production).
Any and all suggestions welcome.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: OT: Fieldwork terminology for a story
Posted by: "Leland Paul Kusmer" [email protected]
Date: Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:48 pm ((PDT))
When I took my first field methods class (not too long ago), we
consistently talked about our speakers as "informants", so that is still in
common use. That said, there tends to be a move these days towards getting
speakers more involved (i.e. involved as more than just research subjects,
often as language activists or documenters in their own right),
particularly in endangered language work, which is the domain that
"consultant" is definitely the most PC term. (I use consultant myself, when
I remember.)
-Leland
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:52 PM, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am writing an indeterminate-future short story featuring a field
> linguist, and I'm curious what y'all's thoughts might be on terminology to
> use, particularly those on the list who are trained linguists.
>
> My understanding is that a field linguist's contacts within a speech
> community are traditionally called "informants", but recently I have read
> that there is some debate as to whether this term is appropriate, as it
> might have negative connotations among the lay public, or feel too
> impersonal. I'm currently vacillating as to whether my linguist character
> should be using "informant" or another alternative (I'm currently writing
> the story using the term "consultant").
>
> I'll note that I am not doing any conlanging for this book, but there is an
> alien language featured (it is a signed language, and no actual words of
> this language will appear in the text). As the language itself is not
> driving the plot, I only have a rough idea of what it will be, and haven't
> even really thought about how it will differ from human languages (other
> than a small bit of phonetics, of course -- these creatures have two
> forelimbs and two antennae that are used in production).
>
> Any and all suggestions welcome.
>
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: OT: Fieldwork terminology for a story
Posted by: "Dirk Elzinga" [email protected]
Date: Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:35 pm ((PDT))
I always refer to the people I work with as "consultants." It seems to
capture the relationship well; they have specialized knowledge that I would
like to know, and I'm willing to compensate them for their time and
expertise. The term "informant" is still used, but I don't like the
connotations of passivity that the term carries. (A couple of decades ago,
and maybe still in some parts of the world, it could also carry dangerous
political connotations, especially if the field linguist was American.)
Some linguists have even gone so far as to refer to the people they work
with as "teacher," but that doesn't describe *my* working relationship with
them, no matter how much I am learning.
Informally, I refer to them as "friends," because that's what they
are/become to me.
Dirk
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Leland Paul Kusmer <[email protected]>wrote:
> When I took my first field methods class (not too long ago), we
> consistently talked about our speakers as "informants", so that is still in
> common use. That said, there tends to be a move these days towards getting
> speakers more involved (i.e. involved as more than just research subjects,
> often as language activists or documenters in their own right),
> particularly in endangered language work, which is the domain that
> "consultant" is definitely the most PC term. (I use consultant myself, when
> I remember.)
>
> -Leland
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:52 PM, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I am writing an indeterminate-future short story featuring a field
> > linguist, and I'm curious what y'all's thoughts might be on terminology
> to
> > use, particularly those on the list who are trained linguists.
> >
> > My understanding is that a field linguist's contacts within a speech
> > community are traditionally called "informants", but recently I have read
> > that there is some debate as to whether this term is appropriate, as it
> > might have negative connotations among the lay public, or feel too
> > impersonal. I'm currently vacillating as to whether my linguist
> character
> > should be using "informant" or another alternative (I'm currently writing
> > the story using the term "consultant").
> >
> > I'll note that I am not doing any conlanging for this book, but there is
> an
> > alien language featured (it is a signed language, and no actual words of
> > this language will appear in the text). As the language itself is not
> > driving the plot, I only have a rough idea of what it will be, and
> haven't
> > even really thought about how it will differ from human languages (other
> > than a small bit of phonetics, of course -- these creatures have two
> > forelimbs and two antennae that are used in production).
> >
> > Any and all suggestions welcome.
> >
>
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: OT: Fieldwork terminology for a story
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:56 pm ((PDT))
I'm really glad to have gotten a couple of field linguists right off the
bat. Maybe you guys would be interested in reading early drafts for me and
helping me with some details. There are obviously parts of the experience
I'll just have to imagine (my field linguist is a simulated consciousness,
and he's involved in the discovery of an intelligent alien species), but
for certain parts of it your experience would probably help me out quite a
bit. I don't have any real experience or knowledge of how fieldwork
progresses, so I may be getting things horribly wrong from the outset.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Dirk Elzinga <[email protected]>wrote:
> I always refer to the people I work with as "consultants." It seems to
> capture the relationship well; they have specialized knowledge that I would
> like to know, and I'm willing to compensate them for their time and
> expertise. The term "informant" is still used, but I don't like the
> connotations of passivity that the term carries. (A couple of decades ago,
> and maybe still in some parts of the world, it could also carry dangerous
> political connotations, especially if the field linguist was American.)
> Some linguists have even gone so far as to refer to the people they work
> with as "teacher," but that doesn't describe *my* working relationship with
> them, no matter how much I am learning.
>
> Informally, I refer to them as "friends," because that's what they
> are/become to me.
>
> Dirk
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Leland Paul Kusmer <[email protected]
> >wrote:
>
> > When I took my first field methods class (not too long ago), we
> > consistently talked about our speakers as "informants", so that is still
> in
> > common use. That said, there tends to be a move these days towards
> getting
> > speakers more involved (i.e. involved as more than just research
> subjects,
> > often as language activists or documenters in their own right),
> > particularly in endangered language work, which is the domain that
> > "consultant" is definitely the most PC term. (I use consultant myself,
> when
> > I remember.)
> >
> > -Leland
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:52 PM, George Corley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I am writing an indeterminate-future short story featuring a field
> > > linguist, and I'm curious what y'all's thoughts might be on terminology
> > to
> > > use, particularly those on the list who are trained linguists.
> > >
> > > My understanding is that a field linguist's contacts within a speech
> > > community are traditionally called "informants", but recently I have
> read
> > > that there is some debate as to whether this term is appropriate, as it
> > > might have negative connotations among the lay public, or feel too
> > > impersonal. I'm currently vacillating as to whether my linguist
> > character
> > > should be using "informant" or another alternative (I'm currently
> writing
> > > the story using the term "consultant").
> > >
> > > I'll note that I am not doing any conlanging for this book, but there
> is
> > an
> > > alien language featured (it is a signed language, and no actual words
> of
> > > this language will appear in the text). As the language itself is not
> > > driving the plot, I only have a rough idea of what it will be, and
> > haven't
> > > even really thought about how it will differ from human languages
> (other
> > > than a small bit of phonetics, of course -- these creatures have two
> > > forelimbs and two antennae that are used in production).
> > >
> > > Any and all suggestions welcome.
> > >
> >
>
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: OT: Fieldwork terminology for a story
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Sun Mar 24, 2013 6:04 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:56 PM, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm really glad to have gotten a couple of field linguists right off the
> bat. Maybe you guys would be interested in reading early drafts for me and
> helping me with some details. There are obviously parts of the experience
> I'll just have to imagine (my field linguist is a simulated consciousness,
> and he's involved in the discovery of an intelligent alien species), but
> for certain parts of it your experience would probably help me out quite a
> bit. I don't have any real experience or knowledge of how fieldwork
> progresses, so I may be getting things horribly wrong from the outset.
>
> Is there anything like "Field linguistics for dummies", with a
step-by-step procedure for studying/capturing languages?
stevo
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
3f. Re: OT: Fieldwork terminology for a story
Posted by: "Leland Paul Kusmer" [email protected]
Date: Sun Mar 24, 2013 6:10 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:03 PM, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is there anything like "Field linguistics for dummies", with a
> step-by-step procedure for studying/capturing languages?
>
I'm not aware of one. I mean, Describing Morphosyntax tries to at least
point you towards the right questions, but doesn't give you any information
about how to elicit the structures it's talking about; there are a variety
of field methods textbooks (Claire Bowern's is my personal preference), but
they're usually best used in conjunction with a field methods class. It's
the sort of thing that takes a lot of direct experience to do well – my
first field trip was definitely an exercise in learning from my mistakes,
despite having had a pretty good class beforehand. (And to be clear: I'm
only just about to start grad school and have just two real field trips
under my belt – I'm very much still learning!)
-Leland
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
3g. Re: Fieldwork terminology for a story
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" [email protected]
Date: Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:53 pm ((PDT))
Hi, I just found this.
Linguistics for Dummies
www.downeu.net/l/Linguistics+For+Dummies
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of George Corley
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 3:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: OT: Fieldwork terminology for a story
I am writing an indeterminate-future short story featuring a field
linguist, and I'm curious what y'all's thoughts might be on terminology to
use, particularly those on the list who are trained linguists.
My understanding is that a field linguist's contacts within a speech
community are traditionally called "informants", but recently I have read
that there is some debate as to whether this term is appropriate, as it
might have negative connotations among the lay public, or feel too
impersonal. I'm currently vacillating as to whether my linguist character
should be using "informant" or another alternative (I'm currently writing
the story using the term "consultant").
I'll note that I am not doing any conlanging for this book, but there is an
alien language featured (it is a signed language, and no actual words of
this language will appear in the text). As the language itself is not
driving the plot, I only have a rough idea of what it will be, and haven't
even really thought about how it will differ from human languages (other
than a small bit of phonetics, of course -- these creatures have two
forelimbs and two antennae that are used in production).
Any and all suggestions welcome.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
3h. Re: OT: Fieldwork terminology for a story
Posted by: "Dirk Elzinga" [email protected]
Date: Sun Mar 24, 2013 8:54 pm ((PDT))
There's a nice book by Bert Vaux (and someone else whose name I can't
remember). Claire Bowern's book was already mentioned. However, beyond the
pretty general advice in those books you pretty much just make it up as you
go along. Every language is different and there really isn't a
"one-size-fits-all" method. Having said that, I will say that I have found
it helpful to get a short narrative early on (after about a month of
phonetic / phonological / lexical work). It provides a nice springboard for
grammatical elicitation, since after you analyze the text, you can use
sentences from it to run through verbal / nominal paradigms. The sentences
already have a context since they came from a narrative to begin with, so
you don't have to go through all kinds of contortions to create contexts
for grammatical elicitation.
However, for me the most important thing is to make friends with your
consultant(s). It sometimes slows down the work--my primary Goshute
consultant liked to chat, and one of my Ute consultants really likes it
when we go out for breakfast (my treat, of course), but it's always worth
it in the end. (I hope I don't have to explain why.)
Dirk
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 7:03 PM, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:56 PM, George Corley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'm really glad to have gotten a couple of field linguists right off the
> > bat. Maybe you guys would be interested in reading early drafts for me
> and
> > helping me with some details. There are obviously parts of the
> experience
> > I'll just have to imagine (my field linguist is a simulated
> consciousness,
> > and he's involved in the discovery of an intelligent alien species), but
> > for certain parts of it your experience would probably help me out quite
> a
> > bit. I don't have any real experience or knowledge of how fieldwork
> > progresses, so I may be getting things horribly wrong from the outset.
> >
> > Is there anything like "Field linguistics for dummies", with a
> step-by-step procedure for studying/capturing languages?
>
> stevo
>
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4.1. Re: Pesky morphemes
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:06 pm ((PDT))
Patrick Dunn, On 24/03/2013 16:20:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:06 AM, R A Brown<[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> On 24/03/2013 14:54, Patrick Dunn wrote:
>>
>>> You win me over with the idea that "sing" is /s_N/ where
>>> _ is /i/ ~ /@/ ~ /^/. You lose me with the assertion
>>> that you slipped in there that the {g} is a morpheme
>>> separate from the {n}, when to my mind they're clearly
>>> just an orthographic convention for representing /N/.
>>> Also, I don't imagine what {s}, {n}, or {g} contributes
>>> to the word that /s_N/ doesn't.
>>>
>>
>> But And did _not_ say that {g} is a morpheme! He was
>> speaking of _morphonemes_ which are different critters from
>> morphemes.
>>
>> In most contemporary varieties of English _ng_ is more often
>> an orthographic convention for [ŋ] (but certainly not
>> always, cf. finger, longer etc.]. But some Brit English
>> varieties do, in fact, pronounce _sing_ as [sɪŋg]. The
>> phonemic status of [ŋ] is debatable.
>
> Oooh! I read "morphoneme" as "morpheme."
>
> What the hell is a morphoneme?
A morphophoneme, understood as a group of variant phonological forms (phonemes,
phoneme sequences) that might be (i) phonologically conditioned, like /s, z,
@z~iz/ for English Z-suffix, (ii) morphologically conditioned, like the C in
-ic/-icity or the I in divine/divinity, (iii) syntactically conditioned. (ii)
is the core class; I'm dubious about (i), and (iii) is not a standard view.
Morphonemes that consist of a single variant are equivalent to phonemes. So //s
. IAU . n . g // means "a sequence of /s/ + /i/ or /a/ or /3/ + /n/ + /g/". It
wasn't the point of my post to discuss /N/, but I am of the school of thought
that holds that English has no /N/ phoneme, only /n g/ (Sapir, Edward (1925)
Sound patterns in language. Language 1, 37–51).
R A Brown, On 24/03/2013 16:06:
> On 24/03/2013 14:50, And Rosta wrote:
>> In my current thinking, I take the stem of lexeme {SING}
>> to consist of a sequence of morphonemes (as all stems
>> do)
>
> Possibly - but _morphoneme_ is not given by Trask, nor does
> David crystal give it in his 'Dictionary of Linguistics and
> Phonetics', so I suspect the term will not be too familiar
> to many on this list ;)
>
> As far I can make out, the term comes theories of the Prague
> School Morphonology. But as Trubetzkoy and Ułaszyn (who
> AIUI first coined the word) differ in their use of the word,
> maybe some explanation would help. I _think_ you are using
> in Trubetzkoy's sense.
That's right. I don't know anything aboutUłaszyn or his work other than that he
originated the term.
--And.
Messages in this topic (43)
________________________________________________________________________
4.2. Re: Pesky morphemes
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:42 am ((PDT))
On 25/03/2013 00:06, And Rosta wrote:
> Patrick Dunn, On 24/03/2013 16:20:
[snip]
>>
>> What the hell is a morphoneme?
>
> A morphophoneme, understood as a group of variant
> phonological forms (phonemes, phoneme sequences) that
> might be (i) phonologically conditioned, like /s, z,
> @z~iz/ for English Z-suffix, (ii) morphologically
> conditioned, like the C in -ic/-icity or the I in
> divine/divinity, (iii) syntactically conditioned. (ii)
> is the core class; I'm dubious about (i), and (iii) is
> not a standard view.
>
> Morphonemes that consist of a single variant are
> equivalent to phonemes. So //s . IAU . n . g // means "a
> sequence of /s/ + /i/ or /a/ or /3/ + /n/ + /g/". It
> wasn't the point of my post to discuss /N/, but I am of
> the school of thought that holds that English has no /N/
> phoneme, only /n g/ (Sapir, Edward (1925) Sound patterns
> in language. Language 1, 37–51).
OK - to avoid turning a thread about morph(on)emes into 'yet
another English phonology thread', let's take instead: swim
~ swam ~ swum. Then we have //s.w.IAU.m//.
That makes sense for English 'strong verbs'. But how does
the morphonemic approach deal with the equivalent forms of
'weak' and 'mixed' verbs, e.g.
love ~ loved ~ loved
buy ~ bought ~ bought
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (43)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5. [Joke] Conscript
Posted by: "Mathieu Roy" [email protected]
Date: Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:14 am ((PDT))
Here's a nice joke about a "conscript" I saw on my Facebook ^^
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151366708121840&set=a.109041001839
.105995.21785951839&type=1&theater
Mathieu
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
