There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
From: Adam Walker
1b. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
From: Jim Henry
1c. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
From: H. S. Teoh
1d. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
From: Adam Walker
1e. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
From: Allison Swenson
1f. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
From: H. S. Teoh
1g. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
From: Jim Henry
2a. Re: Yet Another Simple Self-Segregating Morphology
From: Gary Shannon
2b. Re: Yet Another Simple Self-Segregating Morphology
From: R A Brown
2c. Re: Yet Another Simple Self-Segregating Morphology
From: Leonardo Castro
3a. LCC5 photos at pics.conlang.org
From: Jim Henry
3b. Re: LCC5 photos at pics.conlang.org
From: David Peterson
3c. Re: LCC5 photos at pics.conlang.org
From: Adam Walker
4.1. Re: Conlangs and English Language History
From: Leonardo Castro
5a. Re: Distribution of phonemes in lexicon
From: Roger Mills
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 8:00 am ((PDT))
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There is always a silver lining, and no mistake! More badgers!
>
> Padraic
>
I made mention of you and your badgers a couple of times during the events
surrounding the reading out o the LCC5 relay. there were those in
attendance who are not on the Conlang-L or are new there to who professed
astoundment. Once one has fireproof turtles that morph into lions by way
of dragons, all that one lacks is the badgers!
Adam
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 8:05 am ((PDT))
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- On Thu, 5/9/13, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If I'd known it was going to last so long, I wouldn't have been in such
>> a hurry to get my text finished within 48 hours despite being really
>> busy with other things.
>
> Well, be that as it may, I would still commend you for upholding your end
> of the bargain! If everyone starts up with the attitude of "well, we always
> take four or six months to do these things, so I'll just take an extra
Yes, I was being facetious. I wouldn't mind seeing some relays with a
72-hour or 96-hour time limit, to make it easier for people with
really complicated conlangs or very busy lives to participate, but if
you start out a relay with the standard 48-hour rule, you should stick
to it.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 10:00 am ((PDT))
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 07:19:50AM -0700, Padraic Brown wrote:
> --- On Thu, 5/9/13, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> Over on the relay list, relay 20 is still sloooooowly grinding
> > >> its way
> >
> > > A *month* or *two*!?
> >
> > Well, I think that should be enough time, given that at least one of
> > the rings seems to be at an end.
>
> Me, I think three months ought to be enough time for a whóle relay to
> run its course. There seems to be either too many people, too much
> time being taken, too much diddling, not enough passing on of torches
> if one can't work out a reasonable solution within the time frame or
> perhaps too many goblins in the works.
This makes me wonder if someone should develop an online relay system
that strictly enforces the relay schedule, as in, if 48 hours (or
whatever the alloted time) is past, then the system will automatically
skip over the current participant and forward the torch to the next
email address. Any subsequent attempt to submit a late entry will be
rejected. The system will be fully automated, so that there will still
be some semblance of closure even if the relaymaster drops off the face
of the earth for whatever reason.
I'd develop such a system, if I only had the time.
> > The most recent post on the relay list says that Mechtild Czapp sent
> > her text to Chrysaor Jordan some time ago, and he's the relay
> > master. I'm not sure about the other ring; there doesn't seem to
> > have been any activity on that one since March.
>
> Wow again.
Yeah, 2 months of total silence is just ... wow.
[...]
> > If I'd known it was going to last so long, I wouldn't have been in
> > such a hurry to get my text finished within 48 hours despite being
> > really busy with other things.
>
> Well, be that as it may, I would still commend you for upholding your
> end of the bargain! If everyone starts up with the attitude of "well,
> we always take four or six months to do these things, so I'll just
> take an extra week to do my torch -- if I get around to it!", then
> these relays will never finish.
[...]
I think having an automated relay system would alleviate these sorts of
problems. We all are human, and Real Life always interrupts at
inopportune times, so having an automaton push things forward will at
least get things done without being prone to mysterious disappearances
of participants.
--T
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 12:36 pm ((PDT))
Hmm. I have probably missed the dead line by an hour or two in nearly
every relay I have joined. That sort of mechanistic application of
the rules would have bumped me from almost every one of them. If such
a rule were to be strictly applied I would argue for requieing
adjacent relay slots to be in nearby time zones and disallowing
sending the text more than acouple of hours early as well since relays
have gotten days ahead in the past only to hit someone who had already
said they would be unavailable on the day the text arrived in their in
box.
Just some stuff to think about.
Adam
On 5/9/13, H. S. Teoh <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 07:19:50AM -0700, Padraic Brown wrote:
>> --- On Thu, 5/9/13, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > >> Over on the relay list, relay 20 is still sloooooowly grinding
>> > >> its way
>> >
>> > > A *month* or *two*!?
>> >
>> > Well, I think that should be enough time, given that at least one of
>> > the rings seems to be at an end.
>>
>> Me, I think three months ought to be enough time for a whóle relay to
>> run its course. There seems to be either too many people, too much
>> time being taken, too much diddling, not enough passing on of torches
>> if one can't work out a reasonable solution within the time frame or
>> perhaps too many goblins in the works.
>
> This makes me wonder if someone should develop an online relay system
> that strictly enforces the relay schedule, as in, if 48 hours (or
> whatever the alloted time) is past, then the system will automatically
> skip over the current participant and forward the torch to the next
> email address. Any subsequent attempt to submit a late entry will be
> rejected. The system will be fully automated, so that there will still
> be some semblance of closure even if the relaymaster drops off the face
> of the earth for whatever reason.
>
> I'd develop such a system, if I only had the time.
>
>
>> > The most recent post on the relay list says that Mechtild Czapp sent
>> > her text to Chrysaor Jordan some time ago, and he's the relay
>> > master. I'm not sure about the other ring; there doesn't seem to
>> > have been any activity on that one since March.
>>
>> Wow again.
>
> Yeah, 2 months of total silence is just ... wow.
>
>
> [...]
>> > If I'd known it was going to last so long, I wouldn't have been in
>> > such a hurry to get my text finished within 48 hours despite being
>> > really busy with other things.
>>
>> Well, be that as it may, I would still commend you for upholding your
>> end of the bargain! If everyone starts up with the attitude of "well,
>> we always take four or six months to do these things, so I'll just
>> take an extra week to do my torch -- if I get around to it!", then
>> these relays will never finish.
> [...]
>
> I think having an automated relay system would alleviate these sorts of
> problems. We all are human, and Real Life always interrupts at
> inopportune times, so having an automaton push things forward will at
> least get things done without being prone to mysterious disappearances
> of participants.
>
>
> --T
>
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
Posted by: "Allison Swenson" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 12:44 pm ((PDT))
Well, there could always be a built-in grace period--at the deadline,
perhaps the system starts sending you increasingly sternly-worded e-mails,
until eventually it gives up on you and moves onto the next person. Just
like my mother! I kid, I kid. :)
Alternately, perhaps you could request extra time. Log on and push a button
(or send the system an e-mail) and it extends your deadline by, say, four
hours at a time, up to a total of 24 or 48 or however many extra hours are
declared to be enough.
--Allison Swenson
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hmm. I have probably missed the dead line by an hour or two in nearly
> every relay I have joined. That sort of mechanistic application of
> the rules would have bumped me from almost every one of them. If such
> a rule were to be strictly applied I would argue for requieing
> adjacent relay slots to be in nearby time zones and disallowing
> sending the text more than acouple of hours early as well since relays
> have gotten days ahead in the past only to hit someone who had already
> said they would be unavailable on the day the text arrived in their in
> box.
>
> Just some stuff to think about.
>
> Adam
>
> On 5/9/13, H. S. Teoh <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 07:19:50AM -0700, Padraic Brown wrote:
> >> --- On Thu, 5/9/13, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > >> Over on the relay list, relay 20 is still sloooooowly grinding
> >> > >> its way
> >> >
> >> > > A *month* or *two*!?
> >> >
> >> > Well, I think that should be enough time, given that at least one of
> >> > the rings seems to be at an end.
> >>
> >> Me, I think three months ought to be enough time for a whóle relay to
> >> run its course. There seems to be either too many people, too much
> >> time being taken, too much diddling, not enough passing on of torches
> >> if one can't work out a reasonable solution within the time frame or
> >> perhaps too many goblins in the works.
> >
> > This makes me wonder if someone should develop an online relay system
> > that strictly enforces the relay schedule, as in, if 48 hours (or
> > whatever the alloted time) is past, then the system will automatically
> > skip over the current participant and forward the torch to the next
> > email address. Any subsequent attempt to submit a late entry will be
> > rejected. The system will be fully automated, so that there will still
> > be some semblance of closure even if the relaymaster drops off the face
> > of the earth for whatever reason.
> >
> > I'd develop such a system, if I only had the time.
> >
> >
> >> > The most recent post on the relay list says that Mechtild Czapp sent
> >> > her text to Chrysaor Jordan some time ago, and he's the relay
> >> > master. I'm not sure about the other ring; there doesn't seem to
> >> > have been any activity on that one since March.
> >>
> >> Wow again.
> >
> > Yeah, 2 months of total silence is just ... wow.
> >
> >
> > [...]
> >> > If I'd known it was going to last so long, I wouldn't have been in
> >> > such a hurry to get my text finished within 48 hours despite being
> >> > really busy with other things.
> >>
> >> Well, be that as it may, I would still commend you for upholding your
> >> end of the bargain! If everyone starts up with the attitude of "well,
> >> we always take four or six months to do these things, so I'll just
> >> take an extra week to do my torch -- if I get around to it!", then
> >> these relays will never finish.
> > [...]
> >
> > I think having an automated relay system would alleviate these sorts of
> > problems. We all are human, and Real Life always interrupts at
> > inopportune times, so having an automaton push things forward will at
> > least get things done without being prone to mysterious disappearances
> > of participants.
> >
> >
> > --T
> >
>
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 1:13 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 02:36:58PM -0500, Adam Walker wrote:
> Hmm. I have probably missed the dead line by an hour or two in nearly
> every relay I have joined. That sort of mechanistic application of
> the rules would have bumped me from almost every one of them. If such
> a rule were to be strictly applied I would argue for requieing
> adjacent relay slots to be in nearby time zones and disallowing
> sending the text more than acouple of hours early as well since relays
> have gotten days ahead in the past only to hit someone who had already
> said they would be unavailable on the day the text arrived in their in
> box.
Well, I guess some degree of leeway can be built into the system, say a
window of about 3-6 hours, so an entry would still be accepted within
that timeframe. Obviously, if the text was received on time, then it
would be forwarded to the next participant at the scheduled time.
OTOH I don't see a problem with receiving an entry early. The system
could just wait until the appointed time before forwarding the entry.
One issue is what happens after a late entry was received (and
accepted). The leeway of about 3-6 hours or so would, technically
speaking, have to be added to the allowed timeframe of the next
participant, since otherwise it would be an unfair disadvantage for that
person. But allowing this means the relay schedule may slip -- enough
late submissions and accumulated extra hours will push the schedule back
a day or two, which may be critical for some participants that have
specific windows of available time.
One possible solution is to say that the extra 3-6 hours are actually
not included in the allotted time, so if the relay schedule is, say, 48
hours entry, participants should plan on having only 42 hours to
actually work on it since the previous person may be late.
Another idea is to allow multiple submissions from the same participant
up to the deadline -- in an automated system, there's no danger of the
next person getting premature previews of the text (the system just
refrains from forwarding it until the deadline). So if you anticipate
possibly running out of time, you could first submit a rough version of
the text, and then subsequently resubmit a more refined entry if you did
manage to make it in time.
Or maybe the simplest solution is just to allot more time to each leg of
the relay. :) Then most people can finish early and people needing more
time can make use of the extra time.
T
--
I'm still trying to find a pun for "punishment"...
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: the LCC5 relay is up
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 1:29 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:12 PM, H. S. Teoh <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, I guess some degree of leeway can be built into the system, say a
> window of about 3-6 hours, so an entry would still be accepted within
> that timeframe. Obviously, if the text was received on time, then it
> would be forwarded to the next participant at the scheduled time.
....
> One possible solution is to say that the extra 3-6 hours are actually
> not included in the allotted time, so if the relay schedule is, say, 48
> hours entry, participants should plan on having only 42 hours to
> actually work on it since the previous person may be late.
Over on the relay list, we're talking about maybe having a 24-hour
buffer between turns. Once 48 hours have passed since your turn began
and you haven't sent the torch, the relay master queries you; if they
haven't heard from you in, say, 12 hours, they still have 12 hours to
forward your predecessor's torch to your successor without eating into
your successor's allotted 48 hours.
> Another idea is to allow multiple submissions from the same participant
> up to the deadline -- in an automated system, there's no danger of the
> next person getting premature previews of the text (the system just
> refrains from forwarding it until the deadline). So if you anticipate
> possibly running out of time, you could first submit a rough version of
> the text, and then subsequently resubmit a more refined entry if you did
> manage to make it in time.
That would be a good feature of such an automated system.
I'm a little worried that such an automated system might be too rigid
re: exact matches of email addresses with the forms recorded in its
database, or exact spellings of "relay" and "torch" in the subject
line, etc. It would be a tricky job to code it so that it's not too
brittle. And in any case it shoudn't substitute for a relay master,
but it might be helpful to nudge things along when the relay master is
overwhelmed with real-life responsibilities.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
Messages in this topic (23)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Yet Another Simple Self-Segregating Morphology
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 8:51 am ((PDT))
That's a good alternative. The other thing that occurred to me is that as a
_written_ language a space delimits the words, and perhaps there might be a
required short pause between words when speaking. Alternatively, tone or
emphasis might mark word boundaries. For example, the stress could fall on
the first syllable of each word, or the final syllable might be spoken with
a slight rising tone.
As for monotony, I recall when I was much younger, overhearing two people
speaking an oriental language that I couldn't identify. I listened
carefully for the sounds (even as a kid I loved the sound of strange
languages) but all I could pick out was what sounded to me like "king kong
ping pong ding dong'. It seemed to me that vowel sounds alternated between
the same two, and every word ended in "-ng". It sounded awfully monotonous
to me, but it seems to serve them as a functioning language.
--gary
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I guess maybe word boundaries don't matter so much in this language, ;-)
>
> You could reserve one consonant for marking word boundaries. Or you
> could distinguish diphthongs from vowel sequences, so for instance
> "laj mada" is two words and "laimada" is a compound word.
>
> Actually, I think I'd rather do it the other way around, with a
> reserved consonant or semivowel for compounding roots with the same
> vowel, and an epenthetic vowel for marking word boundaries between
> words ending/beginning with the same vowel. But if you care only
> about one level of boundary, your scheme is a good one, less intrusive
> than many (though it could get monotonous if you wind up needing a lot
> of 3+ syllable morphemes).
>
> --
> Jim Henry
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
> http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Yet Another Simple Self-Segregating Morphology
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 8:59 am ((PDT))
On 09/05/2013 16:51, Gary Shannon wrote:
> That's a good alternative. The other thing that occurred
> to me is that as a _written_ language a space delimits
> the words, and perhaps there might be a required short
> pause between words when speaking.
IMO that's artificial and ain't going to work in practice.
> Alternatively, tone or emphasis might mark word
> boundaries.
Well, yes - isn't that what actually happens in many
natlangs? (At least as far as phonological words go, which
doesn't always correspond to written words, cf the different
treatment of clitics in the writing systems of different
languages)
> For example, the stress could fall on the first syllable
> of each word,
Favorite places for languages that use fixed stress seem to
be the first syllable, the penultimate syllable or the final
syllable. Any of those would work
> or the final syllable might be spoken with a slight
> rising tone.
Or slight falling tone ;)
There are many possibilities.
--
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 (7)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Yet Another Simple Self-Segregating Morphology
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 3:58 pm ((PDT))
2013/5/9 R A Brown <[email protected]>:
> On 09/05/2013 16:51, Gary Shannon wrote:
>>
>> That's a good alternative. The other thing that occurred
>> to me is that as a _written_ language a space delimits
>> the words, and perhaps there might be a required short
>> pause between words when speaking.
I don't know why, but this sounds stereotypically as German language speech.
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. LCC5 photos at pics.conlang.org
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 1:13 pm ((PDT))
I've started adding the best of my photos from LCC5 to:
http://pics.conlang.org/v/LCC5/
If I understand the permissions settings correctly, other people can
add photos to the same album.
I still have about thirty more pictures to add; I'll probably finish
them tomorrow if not today.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: LCC5 photos at pics.conlang.org
Posted by: "David Peterson" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 1:23 pm ((PDT))
I can confirm that others can add to it (though my photo got turned on its
side!).
David Peterson
LCS President
[email protected]
www.conlang.org
On May 9, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've started adding the best of my photos from LCC5 to:
>
> http://pics.conlang.org/v/LCC5/
>
> If I understand the permissions settings correctly, other people can
> add photos to the same album.
>
> I still have about thirty more pictures to add; I'll probably finish
> them tomorrow if not today.
>
> --
> Jim Henry
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
> http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: LCC5 photos at pics.conlang.org
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 2:33 pm ((PDT))
Good pics! almost as good as being back there!
Adam who wonders when and where LCC6 will be and when he can submit his
topic for a presentation...
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Jim Henry <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've started adding the best of my photos from LCC5 to:
>
> http://pics.conlang.org/v/LCC5/
>
> If I understand the permissions settings correctly, other people can
> add photos to the same album.
>
> I still have about thirty more pictures to add; I'll probably finish
> them tomorrow if not today.
>
> --
> Jim Henry
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
> http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4.1. Re: Conlangs and English Language History
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 3:48 pm ((PDT))
2013/4/30 Herman Miller <[email protected]>:
> On 4/30/2013 12:38 PM, Leonardo Castro wrote:
>>
>> 2013/4/30 BPJ<[email protected]>:
>>>
>>> 2013-04-30 13:49, Leonardo Castro skrev:
>>>
>>>> BTW, does anyone have a system that distinguishes /n/, /m/, /N/ and a
>>>> general nasal stop /~/ with Roman characters?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You mean nasalization like in French or Portuguese I suppose,
>>> coz that's what /~/ is.
>>
>>
>> I meant a nasal stop that has the same place of articulation as the
>> following consonant. That is, it "absorbs" the place of articulation
>> of the following consonant.
>
>
> Sounds like anusvara in Indic languages, which can be represented as m with
> a dot under it (á¹). If you're using <á¹>, you might as well also use <á¹
>
> (n
> with dot above) for /Å/.
>
> In Yasaro romanization I use <ñ> for homorganic nasals and <Å> (eng) for
> /Å/.
Nice! I have already considered <ñ> or <Å> for /Å/ and <ñ> or <~> for
homorganic nasals. I think your choices are probably the best looking;
"teñki" looks a lot better than "te~ki". There's also the option of
letting <n> always stand for homorganic nasals before consonants and
for /n/ before vowels, if you conlang doesn't have minimal pairs that
cause ambiguity in this system.
Até mais!
Leonardo
Messages in this topic (35)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Distribution of phonemes in lexicon
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Thu May 9, 2013 8:37 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 06:59:52AM -0700, Roger Mills wrote:
Teoh wrote:
> What does the distribution of phonemes in yall's conlangs look like?
> =================================
> RM Aargh. I have no idea, though I've been meaning to try figuring
> some out, in view of this recent thread. But it takes time.......
Well, tonight I did a little bit of counting-- not in the dictionary (several
thousand words!!), but in just the first two sentences of a translation
exercise from some years back.
There were just 61 words
the count (in Kash alph. order)
h [x] 1
k 18
ng [Ng] 7
ç {S] 4
c [tS] 13
nj [ndZ] 3
ñ 6
y [j] 10 (not always phonemic, required in i,e__V and a__i,e, but phonemic
elsewhere)
s 11
t 16
nd 4
n 10
r 20
l 10
f 1
p 7
mb 4
m 15
(w) 2 (non-phonemic, only in u_V or a_u)
v 2
a 64
i 36
e 14
u 22
o15
The only surprise was the low number of /h/, I think a longer sample would have
more.
Anyway, now what do I do with this info? Haaaalp!!!
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
