There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
From: R A Brown
1b. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
From: Roger Mills
1c. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
From: Roger Mills
1d. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
From: Padraic Brown
1e. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
From: H. S. Teoh
1f. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
From: John Q
1g. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
From: C. Brickner
1h. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
From: Leonardo Castro
2a. Re: Voice Mail
From: C. Brickner
2b. Re: Voice Mail
From: Roger Mills
2c. Re: Voice Mail
From: Padraic Brown
2d. Re: Voice Mail
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
2e. Re: Voice Mail
From: Adam Walker
2f. Re: Voice Mail
From: Padraic Brown
2g. Re: Voice Mail
From: H. S. Teoh
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:58 am ((PDT))
On 25/08/2013 13:06, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo conlangers!
>
> On Sunday 25 August 2013 09:38:33 R A Brown wrote:
[snip].
>>
>> Standard Italian is IMO one of the most mellifluous
>> languages of the western world. When I first came
>> upon Galadriel's song (Ai! laurië lantar lassi
>> súrinen...) more than 50 years ago the very hairs on my
>> neck stood on end - that is SO beautiful, I thought.
>
> Yes. Quenya and Sindarin are among the most beautiful
> languages I know. Italian is also very nice,
Tho when it is barked out in anger, it is not nice. That is
another problem IMO about trying to pin down the most
beautiful sentence in a natlang. It depends how the
sentence is actually said. IME words said in anger in any
language sound ugly ;)
[snip]
>> I don't understand this. Sure, the written words
>> themselves are short (especially compared to other
>> Romancelangs). But French isn't spoken in single
>> lexical words; whole clauses form _single phonological
>> words_ which are not particularly short IMO. I don't
>> understand what "choppy" means in this context.
>
> French is quite lilting, and not at all "short and
> choppy".
Not so many moons ago on this list, someone described French
as 'sexy'. Methinks that other factors are coming in here
(see also below) than just those of sound. There is
probably some unconscious stereotyping going on here harking
back to the Paris of the 'Belle Époque'.
My wife speaks French fluently, we have a French friend
living near us who we see quite often, my daughter-in-law is
French (from the center of the Hexagone) with two bilingual
sons, so I hear a good deal of French spoken. I can't say I
find it any more sexy than any other natlang; to me it is
rather commonplace ;)
[snip]
>> Tolkien thought Welsh a beautiful language; some people
>> find it ugly, guttural and harsh. On the other hand
>> Tolkien considered Gaelic to be ugly and harsh; I find
>> Gaelic with its fondness for palatalization and for
>> lenition makes it far from harsh!
>
> I like both Welsh and Gaelic, and do not understand
> Tolkien in this point.
Nor I. There is IMO a certain 'ruggedness' about Welsh,
especially in the pronunciation in north Wales; to me it
seems to reflect the rugged grandeur of Snowdonia.
Whereas the palatalization characteristic of Scots Gaelic
and its peculiar brand of lenition seem to give the language
a softness and 'liquidity' which recall the mild, wet
climate of the Western Isles.
But maybe I'm over-romanticizing things and reading in more
than the sounds per_se suggest - just like those for whom
French still conjures up pictures of the Belle Époque.
It is very difficult to dissociate language from other
non-linguistic perceptions. Is the 'spiciness' of Spanish
do do with subconscious clicking of castanets and the
stomping of flamenco served up with a dash of cante jondo? :)
=========================================================
On 25/08/2013 13:13, Padraic Brown wrote:
> First, welcome back!
Thanks - tho I have been lurking for a couple of weeks ;)
[snip]
>> The main problem, of course, is that we do not know
>> how Middle English was actually pronounced; we can get
>> only an approximation.
>
> Of course. But when we get down to it, *all*
> pronunciations are "approximations" of toward or away
> from some standard.
But with languages that are spoken or have been audibly
recorded, we do know what these approximations actually
sound like. But 'tis true: they are variations on a nominal
standard (tho quite what the standard is in English has been
argued over ad_nauseam on this list). I could come up with
a sentence which I regard as very mellifluous in English;
but I know quite well that in some varieties of UK English
the same sentence would sound unpleasant to me.
> But I certainly understand your point. I do think the
> approximation is probably close enough to an educated
> reality on sufficiently many sounds that anyone who does
> read ME using that approximation will probably be
> getting it close to right.
It would be an approximation, none the less. Almost
certainly if a modern ME scholar were transported back in
time s/he would have to make some adjustments if s/he was to
be readily understood.
> And I dó happen to like the sound of it. Vowel shifts
> hadn't yet happened, all the consonants are still in
> place, final -e are still (more or less) present and
> accounted for.
True - but we still don't know the phones. Was, e.g. ME
/a:/ realized as [ɑ:], [a:] or [æ:] - we simply do not know.
--
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 (17)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:08 am ((PDT))
I agree with everything Ray says. I also find that Bah.Indonesia, and some of
the languages I researched in South Sulawesi (ex Celebes) and elsewhere, quite
mellifluous. Especially Hawaiian, despite its limited phonology and lotsa
glo'al stops. No examples handy at the mo, however, Sorry.
Well, here are some random BI phrases:
dimana kebelakang? [di'manak@'blakaN] 'where's the toilet?'
tambah lagi! ['tamba'lagi] 'Have some more!' (that final -h is heard only in
very careful speech or in the derivative-- tabahan lagi ['tambahanlagi]
'another helping'
mangga mana lagi ['maNga,mana'lagi] (lit., mango where's more?) name of a
particular very tasty variety of mango.
maybe?: kuku kaki kekekku ['kuku'kakikE'kEk:u]'my grandfather's toenail'
or how about: siapa mengarang buku itu? [si'(j)apam@'NaraN'buku'itu] who wrote
that book?
The Psalms are quite nice in Sa'dan Toraja (better known as Tae') since that
language also makes use of parallelism. Many of their ritual chants make use of
it too.
AFMCL I think Kash can be pretty melliflous (but of course it's a semi-clone of
Indonesian), but not Gwr (tonal--- though Gwr people think it's beautiful), and
I don't know about Prevli.:-(
________________________________
From: R A Brown <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
On 24/08/2013 22:51, Padraic Brown wrote:
>> --Vòglio lavoràre a oràrio ridòtto coll’ànatra che
>> nuòta nell’acquàio
>
>> otturàto.--
>>
>> Translation: “I want to word part-time with the duck
>> swimming in the stopped-up washbasin.”
>
> Me, I don't find Italian particularly mellifluous (nor
> Quenya really).
Standard Italian is IMO one of the most mellifluous
languages of the western world. When I first came upon
Galadriel's song (Ai! laurië lantar lassi súrinen...) more
than 50 years ago the very hairs on my neck stood on end -
that is SO beautiful, I thought.
> Maybe too many vowels.
For me it is vowels and unblocked syllables that add to the
mellifluousness of a language.
> Hawai'ian, I can't imagine a LESS mellifluous tongue! Too
> many glottal stops! And too many vowels to boot!
I don't find anything either mellifluous or unmellifluous
about the glottal plosive per_se (maybe I'm to used to
hearing it on the lips of my fellow countrymen) - but all
those vowels and open syllables - lovely. I've always liked
the Polynesian languages for that reason.
> French is too short and choppy,
I don't understand this. Sure, the written words themselves
are short (especially compared to other Romancelangs). But
French isn't spoken in single lexical words; whole clauses
form _single phonological words_ which are not particularly
short IMO. I don't understand what "choppy" means in this
context.
[snip]
I think this all goes to show that just as visual beauty is
in the eye of the beholder, so mellifluousness is in the ear
of the ear of the listener.
Tolkien thought Welsh a beautiful language; some people find
it ugly, guttural and harsh. On the other hand Tolkien
considered Gaelic to be ugly and harsh; I find Gaelic with
its fondness for palatalization and for lenition makes it
far from harsh!
As I say, mellifluousness is in the ear of the ear of the
listener. So IMO looking for the most phonetically
beautiful sentence in a natlang is such a subjective thing
that we're never going to agree it's been found :)
>
> So, I guess I'll go with Middle English: a nice lilt and
> rhythm, just enough vowels but not too harsh:
>
> And whan that ducke doth his shoure sote, the moke of
> Marche he kiked with his bote.
The main problem, of course, is that we do not know how
Middle English was actually pronounced; we can get only an
approximation. This applies to all languages that ceased to
be spoken before the advent of any means of recording
speech. I _think_ I would have found ancient (*not*
Byzantine or modern) Greek more mellifluous than Classical
Latin. But if time-travel enabled me to go back and
actually listen I might well be surprised.
[snip]
> Anyway, you didn't specify 21st century natlangs!
No, but unless we actually know what the language really
sounded like, we can't tell how it sounded _phonetically_.
Even if we are able to reconstruct its phonology (i.e. its
phonemes) with some certainty, how the phonemes were
realized phonetically is more problematic.
--
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 (17)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:14 am ((PDT))
From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[email protected]>
(Ray Brown:)
> Tolkien thought Welsh a beautiful language; some people find
> it ugly, guttural and harsh. On the other hand Tolkien
> considered Gaelic to be ugly and harsh; I find Gaelic with
> its fondness for palatalization and for lenition makes it
> far from harsh!
I like both Welsh and Gaelic, and do not understand Tolkien
in this point.
RM maybe he was of the same thought as James Joyce, who is said to have said of
Irish (I paraphrase) "any language in which the word for "love" is _graw_ is
not a language I wish to have anything to do with."
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:49 am ((PDT))
Said Ray Brown:
>>> The main problem, of course, is that we do not know
>>> how Middle English was actually pronounced; we can get
>>> only an approximation.
>>
>> Of course. But when we get down to it, *all*
>> pronunciations are "approximations" of toward or away
>> from some standard.
>
> But with languages that are spoken or have been audibly
> recorded, we do know what these approximations actually
> sound like.
I understand this. Perhaps too much is being read into all of this!
Sheesh. Maybe I just like the sound of what scholars thìnk it
sounded like!
> But 'tis true: they are variations on a nominal
> standard (tho quite what the standard is in English has been
> argued over ad_nauseam on this list). I could come up with
> a sentence which I regard as very mellifluous in English;
> but I know quite well that in some varieties of UK English
> the same sentence would sound unpleasant to me.
And many Americans would absolutely drool over that same!
I don't know what there is about British English accents that
so many Americans find so appealing, so intelligent (and dare
I say it, so sexy!).
[snip]
The rest of this is rather moot.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:22 am ((PDT))
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 02:51:22PM -0700, Padraic Brown wrote:
> > --Vòglio lavoràre a oràrio ridòtto coll’ànatra che nuòta nell’acquàio
>
> > otturàto.--
> >
> > Translation: “I want to word part-time with the duck swimming in
> > the stopped-up washbasin.”
>
> Me, I don't find Italian particularly mellifluous (nor Quenya really).
> Maybe too many vowels. Hawai'ian, I can't imagine a LESS mellifluous
> tongue! Too many glottal stops! And too many vowels to boot! French is
> too short and choppy, German too harsh, Asian languages (Chinese,
> Vietnamese, etc) too jarring and tonal. English, too irregular
> sounding and too shifted. Spanish, same as Italian (when spoken well)
> and too choppy (when spoken poorly). I guess, leastways for me, no
> language is particularly mellifluous...
[...]
Hmm. It seems that my sense of aesthetics greatly differs from other
listmembers. I don't find any of the Romance languages very mellifluous
at all. Not English, nor French, not Spanish nor Italian, neither German
nor Portuguese -- none of them appeal to me at all. Neither do I find
any of the Chinese languages particularly appealing, despite being an L1
Chinese speaker. On the contrary, I find Russian absolutely beautiful.
The quaint prosodic inflections are especially beautiful, and I just
love the nonchalant way all those crazy consonant clusters roll off
native speakers' tongues. Trilled consonants are an added bonus.
The only worthy challenger to Russian is Classical Greek, especially the
poems, with their rhythm *and* pitch accent (though I grant that the
pitch accent people imitate today probably has nothing to do with the
actual pitch accent in use at the time :-P). Now, if only Greek had
longer consonant clusters like Russian, it would be the undisputed
winner. :)
P.S. I would add that *real* spoken Russian is rather different from the
demeaning caricature thereof portrayed in movies -- the latter has
projected quite a wrong, distorted image of how it actually sounds in
real-life.
T
--
It's bad luck to be superstitious. -- YHL
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
Posted by: "John Q" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:05 pm ((PDT))
H. S. Teoh wrote:
>. . . I find Russian absolutely beautiful.
>The quaint prosodic inflections are especially beautiful, and I just
>love the nonchalant way all those crazy consonant clusters roll off
>native speakers' tongues. Trilled consonants are an added bonus.
>
>P.S. I would add that *real* spoken Russian is rather different from the
>demeaning caricature thereof portrayed in movies -- the latter has
>projected quite a wrong, distorted image of how it actually sounds in
>real-life.
______________________________________________________
I would have to agree. During the week I spent in Russia and the five days
spent in Kiev (which is a Russian-speaking city), I found the constant sound of
Russian being spoken around me to be quite beautiful, and, with the exception
of the constant velarized lateral, it seemed to bear little sonic relation to
the caricatured sound of Russian heard in spy movies.
--John Q.
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
Posted by: "C. Brickner" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:55 pm ((PDT))
----- Original Message -----
H. S. Teoh wrote:
>. . . I find Russian absolutely beautiful.
>The quaint prosodic inflections are especially beautiful, and I just
>love the nonchalant way all those crazy consonant clusters roll off
>native speakers' tongues. Trilled consonants are an added bonus.
>
>P.S. I would add that *real* spoken Russian is rather different from the
>demeaning caricature thereof portrayed in movies -- the latter has
>projected quite a wrong, distorted image of how it actually sounds in
>real-life.
______________________________________________________
I would have to agree. During the week I spent in Russia and the five days
spent in Kiev (which is a Russian-speaking city), I found the constant sound of
Russian being spoken around me to be quite beautiful, and, with the exception
of the constant velarized lateral, it seemed to bear little sonic relation to
the caricatured sound of Russian heard in spy movies.
--John Q.
______________________________________________________
My problem with discerning mellifluousness is that I can't get beyond the
fascination of simply hearing another language, especially when there are
sounds that don't exist in my brand of English.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 25, 2013 5:59 pm ((PDT))
Although I find Italian beautiful sounding, I feel the adjective
"mellifluous" (flowing like honey) as somewhat uncomfortable to
describe it because Italian has a kind of "staccato" accent instead of
a "fluid" one.
The word "mellifluous" suggest me sentences with little or smooth
contact between tongue, lips, palate, etc. So, the most mellifluous
sentence would be something like English "Where were you wearing
gloves?".
Is "mellifluous" a perfect synonym of "beautiful" to you all?
At� mais!
Leonardo
2013/8/24 John Q <[email protected]>:
> Considering how easy it is to make phonetically mellifluous sentences in
> conlangs like Quenya and Sindarin, I was thinking of which natlangs allow one
> to easily compose phonetically beautiful sentences as well (Italian and
> Carioca Portuguese spring most readily to mind, although I�m sure Polynesian
> languages would be in the running as well).
>
> So, I decided to try to compose �the world�s most phonetically
> beautiful/mellifluous sentence� from a natlang I�m familiar with. Not being
> able to avoid my own warped sense of humor, I also decided there should be
> extra points if, ironically, the sentence is as banal (or surreal) as
> possible. Anyway, I came up with the following sentence in Italian as a
> candidate.
>
> (For those who don�t know Italian orthography/phonology, <gl[i]> is a palatal
> lateral, <r> is flapped [but trilled word-initially], <ch> is /k/, <aio> is
> /ajo/, <uo> is /wo/, <qu> is /kw/, and doubly written consonants are
> geminated. I�ve also indicated the stressed syllables with grave accents).
>
> --V�glio lavor�re a or�rio rid�tto coll��natra che nu�ta nell�acqu�io
> ottur�to.--
>
> Translation: �I want to word part-time with the duck swimming in the
> stopped-up washbasin.�
>
> My brother (who doesn�t know Italian) says the above sentence sounds to him
> like water flowing over rocks in a brook.
>
> Given the number of natlangs familiar and/or native to the Conlang List
> membership, I'd be interested to see what phonetically mellifluous sentences
> others can come up with.
>
>
> --John Q.
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Voice Mail
Posted by: "C. Brickner" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:18 am ((PDT))
I'm having trouble with the meaning of "verbal" mail. To me this means mail,
whether postal or electronic, that uses words. Is this in contradistinction to
mail using pictures or symbols such as Morse code? All the mail that *I* send
is verbal mail.
Charlie
----- Original Message -----
I think what Nicole means to ask is whether the conspeakers of your conlang in
your conworld use verbal mail.
I don't really have any properly formed concultures, but if I get round to it
they will all be pre-modern and so not have access to things such as voice-mail
and audio-recording.
James
On 25/08/2013, at 7:39 PM, Ben Felix <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am slightly too. Are you meaning that I could communicate by sending
> voice messages to other people? If so, then if I wanted to keep it a secret
> from the rest of the world (as no-one else knows it) then it would be more
> effective than a code. I am currently the only one who knows my languages,
> apart from a few who know how to say "Hello", so the only one I would give
> voice messages to would be myself. Therefore, excellent secret code
> material.
> If you aren't talking about this, then I am sorry, but could you explain
> what you mean?
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Secret? I'm confused.
>>
>> If you sent an audio letter, it wouldn't be secret unless it was in code.
>>
>> Mellissa Green
>>
>>
>> @GreenNovelist
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
>> Behalf Of Ben Felix
>> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 3:30 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: Voice Mail
>>
>> Well, considering I am the only one who can speak the languages in any
>> capacity, and it is verbal, I suppose yes, if I really wanted to keep
>> something a secret, then I could.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, and can yur peoples' send verbal mail?
>>>
>>> Mellissa Green
>>>
>>>
>>> @GreenNovelist
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
>>> Behalf Of Ben Felix
>>> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 2:53 AM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: Voice Mail
>>>
>>> So, basically you are asking whether our languages are written, verbal,
>>> both or otherwise. For all of my conlangs, they are both, although some
>>> have been harder to pronounce than others.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The recent post we had on voicing program creation made me wonder if
>> your
>>>> peoples' have voice mail?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can they speak their letters, or do they need to write letters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yemorans have that option. Useful for those who can't type, and useful
>>> for
>>>> the blind who don't want to learn Prailea, the writing system Yemorans
>>> use.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If this is possible in your world, do the evelopes or transportation
>>> tubes
>>>> have a color-specific tone to the letter?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For example, what color would a red tube mean?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mellissa Green
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> @GreenNovelist
>>
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Voice Mail
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:45 am ((PDT))
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <[email protected]>
Yes, and can yur peoples' send verbal mail?
============================================
RM Assuming, correctly I gather, that you're referring to modern voice mail a
la computer, here's the situation on my planet Cindu, where the Kash and the
Gwr live.
They have had computers for several hundred years, and have pretty much gotten
tired of the whole thing (same with TV, BTW). There is email of a sort, but
they prefer to use the regular stuff offered by the Post Office. They probably
tried voice mail at some point, but decided "how is that different from the
telephone?' and gave up on it. Also, because electricity tends to be rather
expensive, their computers tend to be little used for fripperies :-( I mean,
why email someone who lives next door to you, or a few blocks away? Get off
your duff and go talk to them!!! Or pick up the @#$ phone!!
Most computers are now used by governments, and commercially, for record
keeping etc. PCs exist but are a little expensive; community centers will have
two or three for public use, but if you hog a computer for too long you'll
start getting nasty telepathic messages from those waiting to use it.......
The resident Aliens,of course, make much use of computer-like things for
communication and research, and have even brought in audio and dvd-type
recordings of things from other planets, e.g. Russian chanting, or "The
Marriage of Figaro" which everyone finds enchanting, but they have to be
re-formatted for TV, movie, or broadcast.
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Voice Mail
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:10 am ((PDT))
>The recent post we had on voicing program creation made me wonder if your
> peoples' have voice mail?
In the World, the answer is "no ... but". In other words, the thaumology is
there,
but no one has made the leap, and quite possibly no one has even perceived the
need. There's also no guarantee that if the gap is perceived, it will be
understood
as something that requires a solution.
In some parts of the World, they've had a magical analog to telephony for some
time, and they have also had a magical analog to sound / voice recording. You
might think the two would be an obvious marriage — but this is the World, and
obvious marriages are not often the ones the arrive at the altars.
The theoretical groundwork is also in place for something akin to Arpanet (an
early iteration of what we now know as the Internet), which would allow users
to send a kind of visual message by magical means over a network of what
are essentially standard crystal balls. This thaumology has never been
implemented,
and the plans for it seem to have been lost in the mail...
> Can they speak their letters, or do they need to write letters.
Indeed, letters are regularly spoken. In Westmarche, for example, if a letter
needs
to be sent from one of the local rulers to the great queen, she will send it by
means
of a messenger whose skill is the verbatim memorisation and recitation of the
spoken
word.
These, of course, aren't "letters" as we know them. They aren't written
documents
but are in stead spoken documents. It is certainly possible for the sender or
recipient
to keep a written copy, but it's the spoken message that is the real deal. When
a
message is sent by such a repeater, it is as if the first person were talking
directly to
the second.
> If this is possible in your world, do the evelopes or transportation tubes
> have a color-specific tone to the letter?
I'm not sure what you have in mind for "transportation tube" or "color specific
tone".
Do you mean a pneumatic tube? I don't think those have been invented in the
World.
And why should they? Large markets (that *here* might use pneumatic tubes) have
other options. Papers and money could be shuttled about using one of the local
species of market larks (Alauda mercatorius). Each House has a particular song
it
teaches to its larks, by means of a very tiny pipe organ called a serinette,
and the
birds are able to find their way from merchant back to House headquarters by
means
of the constantly piping tunes. Makes the larger markets of the cities of the
Eastlands
quite the melodiously cacophonous of places!
Larger packets are usually hauled about on the backs of ghirolaunts, a kind of
diminutive
giraffe that peoples of Eosphora use as small domestic pack animals. They're
only two
or three feet tall and once trained can easily navigate narrow hallways, stairs
and all
the underwarrens one typically finds in a large market. And if anyone other
than a known
handler tries to get too close, they will kick and bite — and believe me, their
vicious
kicks and nasty bites are at just the right height that most would-be thieves
keep well
away.
> For example, what color would a red tube mean?
For sending ordinary letters, you just have to write a legible address and
affix the proper
kinds of stamps. There's no particular meaning to colored envelopes. Different
stamps
are usually different colors in order to differentiate, for example, local
versus airmail
delivery.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Voice Mail
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:37 am ((PDT))
Verbal mail would be opening an evelope and speaking into it, then sending it
to another person.
Naturally, you would have to speak the address or describe the symbol of the
recipient.
Mellissa Green
@GreenNovelist
-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of C. Brickner
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 11:19 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Voice Mail
I'm having trouble with the meaning of "verbal" mail. To me this means mail,
whether postal or electronic, that uses words. Is this in contradistinction to
mail using pictures or symbols such as Morse code? All the mail that *I* send
is verbal mail.
Charlie
----- Original Message -----
I think what Nicole means to ask is whether the conspeakers of your conlang in
your conworld use verbal mail.
I don't really have any properly formed concultures, but if I get round to it
they will all be pre-modern and so not have access to things such as voice-mail
and audio-recording.
James
On 25/08/2013, at 7:39 PM, Ben Felix <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am slightly too. Are you meaning that I could communicate by sending
> voice messages to other people? If so, then if I wanted to keep it a secret
> from the rest of the world (as no-one else knows it) then it would be more
> effective than a code. I am currently the only one who knows my languages,
> apart from a few who know how to say "Hello", so the only one I would give
> voice messages to would be myself. Therefore, excellent secret code
> material.
> If you aren't talking about this, then I am sorry, but could you explain
> what you mean?
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Secret? I'm confused.
>>
>> If you sent an audio letter, it wouldn't be secret unless it was in code.
>>
>> Mellissa Green
>>
>>
>> @GreenNovelist
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
>> Behalf Of Ben Felix
>> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 3:30 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: Voice Mail
>>
>> Well, considering I am the only one who can speak the languages in any
>> capacity, and it is verbal, I suppose yes, if I really wanted to keep
>> something a secret, then I could.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, and can yur peoples' send verbal mail?
>>>
>>> Mellissa Green
>>>
>>>
>>> @GreenNovelist
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
>>> Behalf Of Ben Felix
>>> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 2:53 AM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: Voice Mail
>>>
>>> So, basically you are asking whether our languages are written, verbal,
>>> both or otherwise. For all of my conlangs, they are both, although some
>>> have been harder to pronounce than others.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The recent post we had on voicing program creation made me wonder if
>> your
>>>> peoples' have voice mail?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can they speak their letters, or do they need to write letters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yemorans have that option. Useful for those who can't type, and useful
>>> for
>>>> the blind who don't want to learn Prailea, the writing system Yemorans
>>> use.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If this is possible in your world, do the evelopes or transportation
>>> tubes
>>>> have a color-specific tone to the letter?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For example, what color would a red tube mean?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mellissa Green
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> @GreenNovelist
>>
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: Voice Mail
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:50 am ((PDT))
Someone send her a howler while she's still at the Gryffindor table in
the Great Hall.
Adam
On 8/25/13, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
> Verbal mail would be opening an evelope and speaking into it, then sending
> it to another person.
> Naturally, you would have to speak the address or describe the symbol of the
> recipient.
>
> Mellissa Green
>
>
> @GreenNovelist
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of C. Brickner
> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 11:19 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Voice Mail
>
> I'm having trouble with the meaning of "verbal" mail. To me this means
> mail, whether postal or electronic, that uses words. Is this in
> contradistinction to mail using pictures or symbols such as Morse code? All
> the mail that *I* send is verbal mail.
> Charlie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> I think what Nicole means to ask is whether the conspeakers of your conlang
> in your conworld use verbal mail.
>
> I don't really have any properly formed concultures, but if I get round to
> it they will all be pre-modern and so not have access to things such as
> voice-mail and audio-recording.
>
>
> James
>
> On 25/08/2013, at 7:39 PM, Ben Felix <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I am slightly too. Are you meaning that I could communicate by sending
>> voice messages to other people? If so, then if I wanted to keep it a
>> secret
>> from the rest of the world (as no-one else knows it) then it would be
>> more
>> effective than a code. I am currently the only one who knows my
>> languages,
>> apart from a few who know how to say "Hello", so the only one I would
>> give
>> voice messages to would be myself. Therefore, excellent secret code
>> material.
>> If you aren't talking about this, then I am sorry, but could you explain
>> what you mean?
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Secret? I'm confused.
>>>
>>> If you sent an audio letter, it wouldn't be secret unless it was in
>>> code.
>>>
>>> Mellissa Green
>>>
>>>
>>> @GreenNovelist
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
>>> Behalf Of Ben Felix
>>> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 3:30 AM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: Re: Voice Mail
>>>
>>> Well, considering I am the only one who can speak the languages in any
>>> capacity, and it is verbal, I suppose yes, if I really wanted to keep
>>> something a secret, then I could.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, and can yur peoples' send verbal mail?
>>>>
>>>> Mellissa Green
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> @GreenNovelist
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
>>>> Behalf Of Ben Felix
>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 2:53 AM
>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>> Subject: Re: Voice Mail
>>>>
>>>> So, basically you are asking whether our languages are written, verbal,
>>>> both or otherwise. For all of my conlangs, they are both, although some
>>>> have been harder to pronounce than others.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The recent post we had on voicing program creation made me wonder if
>>> your
>>>>> peoples' have voice mail?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can they speak their letters, or do they need to write letters.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yemorans have that option. Useful for those who can't type, and useful
>>>> for
>>>>> the blind who don't want to learn Prailea, the writing system Yemorans
>>>> use.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If this is possible in your world, do the evelopes or transportation
>>>> tubes
>>>>> have a color-specific tone to the letter?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, what color would a red tube mean?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mellissa Green
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> @GreenNovelist
>>>
>
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: Voice Mail
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:12 am ((PDT))
Or Chee Poh's Stammeringly Stupendous Self-Sealing Auto-Marquing Stationary
of Literate Wonder. Looks like an ordinary sheet of No. 3 stationary, but used
in
conjunction Parker's Self-Screeving Plume of Quick and Accurate Calligraphy,
all you have to do is verbally compose your letter (please try not to cuss too
much
when you make a mistake!) and let Parker's pen do the writing! When you're done,
utter the word of Command and Chee Poh's enveloping stationary will wrap itself
up and stand ready for your wax seal and postage stamp. Sprong's Speedy Spell
of Gospel or Illspel Sending will send your letter flitting and fluttering in
the airs
above the street, all the way down to the post office. Raining out? Heavy snows
in the air? Just proof your letter against all known typhoons, tornados,
hurricanes,
firenados and willywillies with Spong's Splendid All-Weather Thaumic Rubbers.
Padraic
----- Original Message -----
> From: Adam Walker <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, 25 August 2013, 12:50
> Subject: Re: [CONLANG] Voice Mail
>
> Someone send her a howler while she's still at the Gryffindor table in
> the Great Hall.
>
> Adam
>
> On 8/25/13, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Verbal mail would be opening an evelope and speaking into it, then sending
>> it to another person.
>> Naturally, you would have to speak the address or describe the symbol of
> the
>> recipient.
>>
>> Mellissa Green
>>
>>
>> @GreenNovelist
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[email protected]] On
>> Behalf Of C. Brickner
>> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 11:19 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: Voice Mail
>>
>> I'm having trouble with the meaning of "verbal" mail. To me
> this means
>> mail, whether postal or electronic, that uses words. Is this in
>> contradistinction to mail using pictures or symbols such as Morse code?
> All
>> the mail that *I* send is verbal mail.
>> Charlie
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> I think what Nicole means to ask is whether the conspeakers of your conlang
>> in your conworld use verbal mail.
>>
>> I don't really have any properly formed concultures, but if I get round
> to
>> it they will all be pre-modern and so not have access to things such as
>> voice-mail and audio-recording.
>>
>>
>> James
>>
>> On 25/08/2013, at 7:39 PM, Ben Felix <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I am slightly too. Are you meaning that I could communicate by sending
>>> voice messages to other people? If so, then if I wanted to keep it a
>>> secret
>>> from the rest of the world (as no-one else knows it) then it would be
>>> more
>>> effective than a code. I am currently the only one who knows my
>>> languages,
>>> apart from a few who know how to say "Hello", so the only one
> I would
>>> give
>>> voice messages to would be myself. Therefore, excellent secret code
>>> material.
>>> If you aren't talking about this, then I am sorry, but could you
> explain
>>> what you mean?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Secret? I'm confused.
>>>>
>>>> If you sent an audio letter, it wouldn't be secret unless it
> was in
>>>> code.
>>>>
>>>> Mellissa Green
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> @GreenNovelist
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Constructed Languages List
> [mailto:[email protected]] On
>>>> Behalf Of Ben Felix
>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 3:30 AM
>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>> Subject: Re: Voice Mail
>>>>
>>>> Well, considering I am the only one who can speak the languages in
> any
>>>> capacity, and it is verbal, I suppose yes, if I really wanted to
> keep
>>>> something a secret, then I could.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
> <
>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, and can yur peoples' send verbal mail?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mellissa Green
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> @GreenNovelist
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Constructed Languages List
> [mailto:[email protected]] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Ben Felix
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 2:53 AM
>>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>>> Subject: Re: Voice Mail
>>>>>
>>>>> So, basically you are asking whether our languages are written,
> verbal,
>>>>> both or otherwise. For all of my conlangs, they are both,
> although some
>>>>> have been harder to pronounce than others.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Nicole Valicia
> Thompson-Andrews <
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The recent post we had on voicing program creation made me
> wonder if
>>>> your
>>>>>> peoples' have voice mail?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can they speak their letters, or do they need to write
> letters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yemorans have that option. Useful for those who can't
> type, and useful
>>>>> for
>>>>>> the blind who don't want to learn Prailea, the writing
> system Yemorans
>>>>> use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If this is possible in your world, do the evelopes or
> transportation
>>>>> tubes
>>>>>> have a color-specific tone to the letter?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, what color would a red tube mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mellissa Green
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @GreenNovelist
>>>>
>>
>
Messages in this topic (16)
________________________________________________________________________
2g. Re: Voice Mail
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" [email protected]
Date: Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:33 am ((PDT))
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 09:09:58AM -0700, Padraic Brown wrote:
[Nicole wrote:]
> >The recent post we had on voicing program creation made me wonder if
> >your peoples' have voice mail?
[...]
Ebisédian was spoken before the era of technology in the history of the
Ebisédi, so no, at the time it was spoken, there was no such thing as
voice mail.
Tatari Faran is spoken in an isolated caldera basin cut off from the
rest of the world, and the san faran haven't developed the technology to
do such things yet.
My new alienlang, OTOH... they certainly have the *technology* to do
voicemail, but whether they *actually* do it or not, is another
question. My informant hasn't given me enough information to be able to
judge whether or not they would use such archaic technology -- their
technological level has reached the point where they have
faster-than-light travel, so they probably have superior alternatives to
voicemail. But then again, these are quaint little stereotypical green
aliens we're talking about here, who, despite their technological
prowess, do exhibit rather naïve tendencies sometimes, so who knows.
Maybe they still use telegraph. :-P
T
--
Spaghetti code may be tangly, but lasagna code is just cheesy.
Messages in this topic (16)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
