There are 12 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Jameld Dictionary, 2013 edition
From: George Corley
1b. Re: Jameld Dictionary, 2013 edition
From: James Campbell
2.1. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
From: Leonardo Castro
2.2. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
From: Leonardo Castro
2.3. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
From: Padraic Brown
2.4. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
From: H. S. Teoh
2.5. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
From: Douglas Koller
2.6. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
From: Leonardo Castro
3.1. Euphonu (was: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang)
From: R A Brown
3.2. Euphony (was: Euphonu ( (was: Most phonetically beautiful sentence i
From: R A Brown
3.3. Re: Euphonu (was: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang)
From: Padraic Brown
4. OT: A memory, 50 years ago
From: Roger Mills
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Jameld Dictionary, 2013 edition
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:33 am ((PDT))
I noticed that the word for conlang breaks down as "art language". Good to
see people avoid relexing even in specialized conlanging jargon, even
creating a false friend in the process.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 5:34 AM, James Campbell <ja...@zolid.com> wrote:
> Delurking to announce:
> The new 2013 edition of the Jameld Dictionary is now complete and is
> available from http://www.zolid.com/zm/dict.htm in PDF format. This is
> the first new edition since 2005 (although an early draft of the
> English-Jameld side was made available in 2011), and it contains, as you
> would expect, a somewhat increased and revised vocabulary. I'm now working
> on the accompanying appendices and grammar. The intention is to produce a
> printed version in due course once the appendices are complete.
>
> Conlinguistic greetings to all
>
> James
>
> [Jameld is a mutant West Germanic conlang that has been in ongoing
> development since 1982. It was featured in Conlangery episode 4. The
> website http://www.zolid.com/zm provides further information and samples.]
>
> ___________________
> James Campbell
> ja...@zolid.com
> www.zolid.com Boring, but a cool boring.
> www.insertcrisps.com Insert crisps to continue
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Jameld Dictionary, 2013 edition
Posted by: "James Campbell" ja...@zolid.com
Date: Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:12 am ((PDT))
George writes (apropos the Jameld dictionary):
>>
I noticed that the word for conlang breaks down as "art language". Good to
see people avoid relexing even in specialized conlanging jargon, even
creating a false friend in the process.
<<
Thanks for noticing :-) Although arguably it is a relex of
Kunstsprache/kunstspråk/artlang... no credit to me there. Ive tried
to be more imaginative elsewhere with the idioms and so on.
James
___________________
James Campbell
<mailto:ja...@zolid.com> ja...@zolid.com
<http://www.zolid.com/> www.zolid.com Boring, but a cool boring.
<http://www.insertcrisps.com/> www.insertcrisps.com Insert crisps to
continue
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" leolucas1...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:10 pm ((PDT))
2013/8/26 R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com>:
> On 26/08/2013 01:59, Leonardo Castro wrote:
>>
>> Although I find Italian beautiful sounding, I feel the
>> Is "mellifluous" a perfect synonym of "beautiful" to you
>> all?
>
>
> No, it is not.
>
> Thank you for drawing our attention to our rather loose use
> of the word.
You're welcome! As I'm not a native anglophone, I searched for the
definition of this word that I have never heard/seen before.
But being not a native is probably no excuse, because I see now that
the equivalent word occurs in Portuguese as well: "melÃfluo".
Maybe some people use "mellifluous" as simply "pleasant" because honey
is pleasant.
> The subject line refers to to phonetic
> _beauty_, not specifically to smoothness or fluidity. So
> what adjective should we be using?
Is there a problem with "beautiful"? I guess that, as "beautiful" is
rarely used to refer to men, it's somewhat related to the idea of
"femininity", and then to smoothness. Is that right?
Me, I tend to perceive too types of "beauty" in languages. I'm going
to call them "staccato beauty" and "mellifluous beauty" from now.
I like American English and French because they sound "mellifluous":
the words link to each other and, if two phones are harsh together,
one of them is omitted or changed to another that match the other
better. In AmE, for instance, stops change into flaps, loose
aspiration or have their release replaced by a glottal co-stop.
OTOH, I like Italian, Japanese and Swahili because they sound
"staccato", that is, each syllable is highlighted, each sound is
carefully pronounced. And that's what I like in German as well.
Mandarin sounds as something in between to me...
Interstingly, Brazilian Portuguese lost most of the "uncomfortable"
consonant clusters still present in European Portuguese ("obje(c)to",
"ó(p)timo", "fa(c)to", etc.) and is also much more syllable-rhythm
than EP. So, I guess that BP sounds more "staccato" and resembles CV
languages. As a BP native, I naturally don't know what BP "sounds
like".
>
> I thought of _euphonic_ or _euphonious_; but those synonyms
> merely mean "agreeable in sound." This does not necessarily
> imply beauty.
>
> I looked for "calliphony" in my dictionary, but could not
> find it. However, the term καλλιÏÏνία (kalliphÅnÃa) is
> attested in ancient Greek; and a quick google revealed that
> the noun _calliphony_ and the adjectives _calliphonic_ and
> _calliphonious_ do have a marginal existence :)
>
> Therefore, in my previous emails on this thread please read
> _calliphonic_ where I wrote _mellifluous_ ;)
:-)
>
>
> --
> 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 (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.2. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" leolucas1...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:54 pm ((PDT))
2013/8/27 Leonardo Castro <leolucas1...@gmail.com>:
>
> I like American English and French because they sound "mellifluous":
> the words link to each other and, if two phones are harsh together,
> one of them is omitted or changed to another that match the other
[...]
> Interstingly, Brazilian Portuguese lost most of the "uncomfortable"
> consonant clusters still present in European Portuguese ("obje(c)to",
> "ó(p)timo", "fa(c)to", etc.)
[...]
> than EP. So, I guess that BP sounds more "staccato" and resembles CV
Apparently, I contradicted myself by saying that BP omitted
uncomfortable phones and is a "staccato" language. The difference is
that BP didn't omit phones that were inconvenient to the process of
linking words together. It rather omitted those that were inconvenient
to easily pronounce the syllable per se. In mellifluous languages, the
omission of phones is frequently determined by the environment. In
staccato languages, changes happen as if there was a court making
decisions like "the cluster ct is too difficult to pronounce, let's
abolish all the c's in that situation and carefully pronounce the
t's". Some Italian court might have decided that changes like "fluxus
-> flusso" and "admirare -> ammirare" should happen.
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.3. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:37 pm ((PDT))
>>> Although I find Italian beautiful sounding, I feel the
>>> Is "mellifluous" a perfect synonym of "beautiful" to you
>>> all?
>
>> No, it is not.
>
>> Thank you for drawing our attention to our rather loose use of the word.
>
> Maybe some people use "mellifluous" as simply "pleasant"
> because honey is pleasant.
This is entirely possible. The dictionary is never the last word on usage or
meaning! It is a good guide, but never a perfect one.
>> Â The subject line refers to to phonetic
>> _beauty_, not specifically to smoothness or fluidity. So
>> what adjective should we be using?
>
> Is there a problem with "beautiful"?
For my part, I didn't have have a problem with either mellifluous or beautiful.
The OP used both words: "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."
Depending on
how you read this, it could mean he intends "phonetically mellifluous" and
"phonetically
beautiful" as (near) synonyms; or it could also mean that Q and S are both
mellifluous but
not necessarily beautiful. These two concepts are not, as has been pointed out,
simple equivalents. They are orthogonal to one another.
> I guess that, as "beautiful" is rarely used to refer to men, it's somewhat
> related to the idea of
> "femininity", and then to smoothness. Is that right?
Wow. That came out of left field. I am curious: what does femininity have to do
with this?
Sure, the adjective "beautiful" is not often applied to men (and rightfully so
â very few males
are actually béautiful!), but what does that have to do with the price of rice
in Timbuktu?
> Me, I tend to perceive t[w]o types of "beauty" in languages. I'm going
> to call them "staccato beauty" and "mellifluous beauty" from now.
>
> I like American English and French because they sound "mellifluous":
> the words link to each other and, if two phones are harsh together,
> one of them is omitted or changed to another that match the other
> better. In AmE, for instance, stops change into flaps, loose
> aspiration or have their release replaced by a glottal co-stop.
I still find French terribly choppy and unmellifluous. (Pace Dma. Brown et
familia!) But I do like the sound of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahIuHzpeV_E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mPoMQe_Oqg
Staccatoey to my ear. Beautiful, yes. Mellifluous, I think not so much.
Â
> OTOH, I like Italian, Japanese and Swahili because they sound
> "staccato", that is, each syllable is highlighted, each sound is
> carefully pronounced. And that's what I like in German as well.
Indeed!
Each language has its particular character. For example, only in the
Philippines could the news announcer make world financial crises
and earthquakes sound exciting!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXdEIUwTXlg
Like Japanese, Tagalog can be quite staccatoey! Much more than French.
Other languages, perhaps not so much. Waray-Waray:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teLRJJZetDc
>
> Mandarin sounds as something in between to me...
>
> Interstingly, Brazilian Portuguese lost most of the "uncomfortable"
> consonant clusters still present in European Portuguese ("obje(c)to",
> "ó(p)timo", "fa(c)to", etc.) and is also much more
> syllable-rhythm
> than EP. So, I guess that BP sounds more "staccato" and resembles CV
> languages. As a BP native, I naturally don't know what BP "sounds
> like".
I think there is some element of mellifluosity there â a lilting rhythm, not
as choppy as French. Didn't understand a word of what I was hearing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obKW6S6duOE
I didn't find it quite as lovely as French (whose phonology I think I
like better), though.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.4. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
Posted by: "H. S. Teoh" hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
Date: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:28 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 07:53:45PM -0300, Leonardo Castro wrote:
[...]
> Apparently, I contradicted myself by saying that BP omitted
> uncomfortable phones and is a "staccato" language. The difference is
> that BP didn't omit phones that were inconvenient to the process of
> linking words together. It rather omitted those that were inconvenient
> to easily pronounce the syllable per se. In mellifluous languages, the
> omission of phones is frequently determined by the environment. In
> staccato languages, changes happen as if there was a court making
> decisions like "the cluster ct is too difficult to pronounce, let's
> abolish all the c's in that situation and carefully pronounce the
> t's". Some Italian court might have decided that changes like "fluxus
> -> flusso" and "admirare -> ammirare" should happen.
ObConlang: do your conlang(s) have court-dictated (i.e., rigid) euphony
rules, or do they have more mellifluous euphony rules? (Or do they have
no euphony rules? Or no euphony whatsoever? :-P)
AFMCL, Ebisédian doesn't really have very much phonology to speak of; I
made it when I was young and inexperienced, and basically didn't put
very much thought into its phonological aspects. :) So there aren't any
euphony rules to speak of, though I did have somebody comment that the
proliferation of glottal stops, caused by the lack of any vowel glides,
makes it good for singing.
Tatari Faran has quite a number of phonological mutations to preserve
euphony. Euphony, however, is in the ear of the native speakers; it may
not correspond with *our* sense of aesthetics. :) Nevertheless, I think
TF does have some nice mutation rules, e.g.:
huna + na -> hunan da (vs. *huna na)
asusu + sei -> asusei (vs. *asusu sei)
panis + -is -> panitis (vs. *panisis)
pasanan + -an -> pasanaran (vs. *pasananan)
My new alienlang also has some mutation rules, but since it's still very
incomplete, I can't really say very much about its overall phonological
characteristics. One of its most prominent features is the
fricativisation of clusters of stops:
ehrlutek /'ExR\_0lUtEk/ -> ehrlutekmi /,ExR\_0lUtEx'mi/ (/k/ -> /x/)
apfat /'apfVt/ -> apfattek /'apfVTtEk/ (/t/ -> /T/)
gorl /'gOrl/ -> gorltai /'gOrKtaj/ (/l/ -> /K/)
This fricativisation may appear word-internally as well:
glett [glETt] (vs. *[glEt:])
Another feature is the lenition of /tu/ after /n/ or /N/:
bufen + -tu -> bufendu (vs. *bufentu)
cheÅ + -tu -> cheÅdu (vs. *cheÅtu)
I'd say both Tatari Faran and the alienlang have mellifluous mutation
rules, but "mellifluous" isn't exactly how I'd describe the alienlang,
what with its [r] / [xR\_0] contrast. :) That's a voiced alveolar trill
vs. a pre-fricativised voiceless uvular trill -- the latter imparts
quite a harsh feel to the language due to its frequent occurrence (e.g.,
in _ehrlu_ "tongue/speak", _ahr-_ "two-/double-", _hreis_ "three",
_shtehr_ "four", _hrvat_ "five" -- it's written as <hr>).
T
--
"No, John. I want formats that are actually useful, rather than over-featured
megaliths that address all questions by piling on ridiculous internal links in
forms which are hideously over-complex." -- Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.5. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
Posted by: "Douglas Koller" douglaskol...@hotmail.com
Date: Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:01 pm ((PDT))
> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:09:53 -0300
> From: leolucas1...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> 2013/8/26 R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com>:
> > On 26/08/2013 01:59, Leonardo Castro wrote:
> >> Is "mellifluous" a perfect synonym of "beautiful" to you
> >> all?
> > No, it is not.
> > Thank you for drawing our attention to our rather loose use
> > of the word.
> You're welcome! As I'm not a native anglophone, I searched for the
> definition of this word that I have never heard/seen before.
> But being not a native is probably no excuse, because I see now that
> the equivalent word occurs in Portuguese as well: "melÃfluo".
> Maybe some people use "mellifluous" as simply "pleasant" because honey
> is pleasant.
It is not simply "pleasant", it is "pleasant to the ear" or "beautiful
sounding". As such, it is not a *perfect* synonym for "beautiful" because
"beautiful" can refer to visual and/or aural stimuli while "mellifluous" cannot
-- however, as relates to sound, "beautiful" and "mellifluous" are, for my
money, broadly synonymous. The derivation may hearken back to the flow of
honey, but I would not describe languid portions of the Mississippi, Amazon, or
Nile as "mellifluous" unless they actually sounded gurglingly nice (for oozy
slowness, the metaphor is molasses, not honey). We happen to live in a world of
synaesthetic metaphor. If you want to tap into honey's smooth, flowy texture
for sound, then I guess the opposite of "mellifluous" is "grating" (and we're
not literally taking a rasp to your tympanum). If it's the sweetness, then I
would point out that the English word "dulcet", a cognate of Portuguese "doce",
is a *sound* word, too. The sounds of a well-played cello are dulcet and
mellifluous; those of a pile-driver are not -- and I'm not talking about sugar
content. In my experience, "mellifluous" is used generically for any warm-fuzzy
aural (albeit usually vocal/musical) experience, but as this discussion is now
zeroing in on more specific types of aesthetic appreciation, your distinction
of staccato/mellifluous beauty below is a useful one for the nonce (Dueling
Banjoes).
As an aside, does the Portuguese "melÃfluo" pack the same aural connotative
wallop? Or are we just dealing with the flow of honey? I ask because I am
reminded of a moment in, yet again, my salad days. I was talking with someone
and mentioned that someone else we both knew had an 'effervescent' personality.
A native Spanish speaker was listening to the conversation, got kind of an
"Eh?" expression on his face, and said, "We have this word, 'efervescente', in
Spanish, but we use it to talk about...well, stuff like soda." Whence ensued a
brief discussion about how, yes, soda and champagne effervesce, "bubbly", and
bubbles and sparkle as metaphors of perkiness and animation, which he
understood in fairly short order. From this, I infer that either a) the Spanish
word is not used this way (I forget which South American country he hailed
from; it's been a while), b) the Spanish word *was* not used that way at that
time, or c) that particular Spanish speaker had not experienced the Spanish
word used that way before. Anyway, my *point* is (oh, there's a point?): if I
describe the sounds of a cello as 'melÃfluos' in Portuguese, am I in
blank-stare, false friend territory?
> > The subject line refers to to phonetic
> > _beauty_, not specifically to smoothness or fluidity. So
> > what adjective should we be using?
> Me, I tend to perceive too [sic] types of "beauty" in languages. I'm going
> to call them "staccato beauty" and "mellifluous beauty" from now.
> > I looked for "calliphony" in my dictionary, but could not
> > find it. However, the term καλλιÏÏνία (kalliphÅnÃa) is
> > attested in ancient Greek; and a quick google revealed that
> > the noun _calliphony_ and the adjectives _calliphonic_ and
> > _calliphonious_ do have a marginal existence :)
Hmm, I'd've thought "calliphonious" meant "pertaining to the Golden State" ;)
Kou
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
2.6. Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" leolucas1...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:55 am ((PDT))
2013/8/28 Douglas Koller <douglaskol...@hotmail.com>:
>> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:09:53 -0300
>> From: leolucas1...@gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang
>> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
[...]
>> Maybe some people use "mellifluous" as simply "pleasant" because honey
>> is pleasant.
>
> It is not simply "pleasant", it is "pleasant to the ear" or "beautiful
> sounding". As such, it is not a *perfect* synonym for "beautiful" because
> "beautiful" can refer to visual and/or aural stimuli while "mellifluous"
> cannot -- however, as relates to sound, "beautiful" and "mellifluous" are,
> for my money, broadly synonymous. The derivation may hearken back to the flow
> of honey, but I would not describe languid portions of the Mississippi,
> Amazon, or Nile as "mellifluous" unless they actually sounded gurglingly nice
> (for oozy slowness, the metaphor is molasses, not honey). We happen to live
> in a world of synaesthetic metaphor. If you want to tap into honey's smooth,
> flowy texture for sound, then I guess the opposite of "mellifluous" is
> "grating" (and we're not literally taking a rasp to your tympanum). If it's
> the sweetness, then I would point out that the English word "dulcet", a
> cognate of Portuguese "doce", is a *sound* word, too. The sounds of a
> well-played cello are dulcet and mellifluous; those of a pile-driver are not
> -- and I'm not talking about sugar content. In my experience, "mellifluous"
> is used generically for any warm-fuzzy aural (albeit usually vocal/musical)
> experience, but as this discussion is now zeroing in on more specific types
> of aesthetic appreciation, your distinction of staccato/mellifluous beauty
> below is a useful one for the nonce (Dueling Banjoes).
>
> As an aside, does the Portuguese "melÃfluo" pack the same aural connotative
> wallop?
I have no idea because I don't remember having ever heard/read this word before.
> Or are we just dealing with the flow of honey?
According to these dictionaries' definitions, it has the figurative
meaning of pleasant, harmonious, sweet, smooth, tender, etc.:
http://www.dicionariodoaurelio.com/Melifluo.html
http://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/mel%C3%ADfluo
http://www.priberam.pt/dlpo/default.aspx?pal=mel%C3%ADfluo
> I ask because I am reminded of a moment in, yet again, my salad days. I was
> talking with someone and mentioned that someone else we both knew had an
> 'effervescent' personality. A native Spanish speaker was listening to the
> conversation, got kind of an "Eh?" expression on his face, and said, "We have
> this word, 'efervescente', in Spanish, but we use it to talk about...well,
> stuff like soda." Whence ensued a brief discussion about how, yes, soda and
> champagne effervesce, "bubbly", and bubbles and sparkle as metaphors of
> perkiness and animation, which he understood in fairly short order. From
> this, I infer that either a) the Spanish word is not used this way (I forget
> which South American country he hailed from; it's been a while), b) the
> Spanish word *was* not used that way at that time, or c) that particular
> Spanish speaker had not experienced the Spanish word used that way before.
I thought that the meaning of "efervescente" you meant should be
obvious in any language even if this figurative meaning wasn't in that
language dictionaries. But, although I found this definition of
"efervescente" in all Portuguese dictionaries I found in the Internet,
most Spanish dictionaries I found actually cite only the most literal
definition related to liquids. The only definition I found that
matches your usage is the following one:
"Que presenta agitación o excitación grandes."
http://es.thefreedictionary.com/efervescente
Maybe it sounds to Hispanophones just like a "fluorescent personality"
would sound to me: I would probably get the intented meaning from the
context but I would think that is a kind of poetic license.
> Anyway, my *point* is (oh, there's a point?): if I describe the sounds of a
> cello as 'melÃfluos' in Portuguese, am I in blank-stare, false friend
> territory?
I think this meaning is quite adequate in pt too, but people would
probably think that you want to impress them by using clever words.
>
>> > The subject line refers to to phonetic
>> > _beauty_, not specifically to smoothness or fluidity. So
>> > what adjective should we be using?
>
>> Me, I tend to perceive too [sic] types of "beauty" in languages. I'm going
>> to call them "staccato beauty" and "mellifluous beauty" from now.
>
>> > I looked for "calliphony" in my dictionary, but could not
>> > find it. However, the term καλλιÏÏνία (kalliphÅnÃa) is
>> > attested in ancient Greek; and a quick google revealed that
>> > the noun _calliphony_ and the adjectives _calliphonic_ and
>> > _calliphonious_ do have a marginal existence :)
>
> Hmm, I'd've thought "calliphonious" meant "pertaining to the Golden State" ;)
>
> Kou
>
>
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Euphonu (was: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang)
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:06 am ((PDT))
On 27/08/2013 09:31, Douglas Koller wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:13:42 +0100 From:
>> ray@CAROLANDRAY
[snip]
>> "When lilacs last in the doorway bloomed" is, I agree,
>> a beautiful sentence - but the _most_ beautiful?
>
>> Probably not.
>
> Just saying I like it.
I went further and said I thought it beautiful :)
> I suspect, as with the World's Funniest Joke, that should
> we happen to stumble on *the most* phonetically beautiful
> sentence in a natlang, we shall all instantly drop dead
> from the aesthetic rapture.
A joke is funny only if you 'get it' (almost) immediately.
Once a joke has to be explained, its humor becomes very
diminished and may disappear. Also I've often noticed that
a joke appearing in writing can seem very tame - but when
heard in the original telling, it is funny. A lot has to do
with the way it is told and the timing of the comedian.
Likewise, I think, if we have to explain why a particular
sentence produces this or that reaction, we kill off
appreciation of the reaction. Also the written form, as
some have observed, often gives a poor indication of the
delivery of the sentence. For examples of both points, cf.
BPJ's Icelandic and Latin examples in his email of 25th August:
(quote}
Does "Vitið þér það en hitt vissi eg að atgeir hans var
heima." sound/look exciting if you don't know what it means
and the context where it was said? Or "Tune homo audes
occidere Caium Marium?"
{unquote}
As for all instantly dropping dead from aesthetic rapture,
there are less pleasant ways of quitting this life :)
======================================
On 28/08/2013 00:37, Padraic Brown wrote:
[snip]
>
> For my part, I didn't have have a problem with either
> mellifluous or beautiful.
I don't have a problem with either word. But IMO
_mellifluous_ and _phonetically beautiful_ are not synonyms.
[snip]
>
> I still find French terribly choppy and unmellifluous.
> (Pace Dma. Brown et familia!) But I do like the sound of
> it.
Still don't understand what you mean by choppiness in this
context. But whether French is choppy or not, it does not
per_se IMO prevent there being among the millions of
_sentences_ spoken in the language at least one that is
phonetically very beautiful - which is what the subject line
was about.
==========================================
On 27/08/2013 23:53, Leonardo Castro wrote:
[snip]
> In staccato languages, changes happen as if there was a
> court making decisions like "the cluster ct is too
> difficult to pronounce, let's abolish all the c's in that
> situation and carefully pronounce the t's". Some Italian
> court might have decided that changes like "fluxus ->
> flusso" and "admirare -> ammirare" should happen.
>
That's total regressive assimilation. It is not a
peculiarly Italian phenomenon. It occurred, for example, in
ancient Cretan Greek, e.g. νÏ
ÏÏá¼° (nuttÃ) = νÏ
κÏá¼° (nuktÃ) "by
night", and á¼ÏÏά (ettá) = á¼ÏÏά (heptá) "seven" - Cretan was
also psilotic (i.e. they "dropped their aitches").
Assimilation is an extremely common feature in natlangs, tho
total assimilation admittedly is less common.
============================================
On 28/08/2013 01:27, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[snip]
>
> ObConlang: do your conlang(s) have court-dictated (i.e.,
> rigid) euphony rules, or do they have more mellifluous
> euphony rules? (Or do they have no euphony rules? Or no
> euphony whatsoever? :-P)
Darn it - there's always someone who wants to turn a thread
into a conlang one! ;)
But we seem to have given up sometime back on identifying
the _most phonetically beautiful sentence_ in a natlang, and
spent most of time arguing about whether this or that
natlang itself is mellifluous, 'choppy', staccato,
phone*ically beautiful etc.
At least Teoh's question is to do with conlangs and IMO is a
tad more interesting. This reply is getting long, so I'll
address this point in a separate email later.
--
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 (32)
________________________________________________________________________
3.2. Euphony (was: Euphonu ( (was: Most phonetically beautiful sentence i
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:37 am ((PDT))
OOPS!
Made a mess of the subject line there :(
--
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 (32)
________________________________________________________________________
3.3. Re: Euphonu (was: Most phonetically beautiful sentence in a natlang)
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:54 am ((PDT))
>> I suspect, as with the World's Funniest Joke, that should
>> we happen to stumble on *the most* phonetically beautiful
>> sentence in a natlang, we shall all instantly drop dead
>> from the aesthetic rapture.
>
> Once a joke has to be explained, its humor becomes very
> diminished and may disappear. ...
>
> Likewise, I think, if we have to explain why a particular
> sentence produces this or that reaction, we kill off
> appreciation of the reaction.
Indeed. But this is where we move from the immediacy of the experience
itself and into a more formal criticism of the experience's surrounds.
Nothing wrong with that at all.
>> For my part, I didn't have have a problem with either
>> mellifluous or beautiful.
>
> I don't have a problem with either word. But IMO
> _mellifluous_ and _phonetically beautiful_ are not synonyms.
Indeed.
>> I still find French terribly choppy and unmellifluous.
>> (Pace Dma. Brown et familia!) But I do like the sound of
>> it.
>
> Still don't understand what you mean by choppiness in this
> context.
As I said before, de gustibus. It's short little bits. Listen to this (get up
to the five or six minute mark):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs
This (an example of English, preacher's cadence) strikes me as rolling,
and indeed a mellifluous confluence of diction, wordchoice, rhythm,
accent and so forth.
Or here, again, there is a cadence that flows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTw3_PmKtc
Now, again, listen to these gentle folk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahIuHzpeV_E
This (mid-centruty French) strikes me as staccatoish. Very short,
highly accented, separated, sliced, diced and julienned little bits
of talk. There is a very rapid alternation between accented and
unaccented, and the amplitude of those "waves" of accent is very
great indeed. This is not mellifluous to me at all.
And, here again, the choppiness and rapid vacillation of accented /
unaccented, etc:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM1-tVPOPHE
For me, these Frenches are just a little less choppy, but still not what
I'd think of as flowing like sweet honey:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kux1FuRYUg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw5Re7k1KBA
Now, thìs French flows more smoothly for me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvPqifZqjM4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ5yV34QmFM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVnobajUHlI
Plus, they've got some good music going on down there!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjWZ9OyYdj4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSdB74zl4cE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91vBzCaNTQ0
> But whether French is choppy or not, it does not
> per_se IMO prevent there being among the millions of
> _sentences_ spoken in the language at least one that is
> phonetically very beautiful - which is what the subject line
> was about.
Oh, sure! Just have to dig through squillions of others to find that
diamond in the rough!
> But we seem to have given up sometime back on identifying
> the _most phonetically beautiful sentence_ in a natlang, and
> spent most of time arguing about whether this or that
> natlang itself is mellifluous, 'choppy', staccato,
> phone*ically beautiful etc.
Perhaps I missed the overtly argumentative parts of the discussion?...
I suppose one person's argument is another's discussion! Anyway,
I think I've well enough answered all the points you've brought up,
and will leave it at this.
> Ray
Padraic
Messages in this topic (32)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. OT: A memory, 50 years ago
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:07 am ((PDT))
50 years ago I was finishing up, very belatedly, my Bachelor's degree at NYU.
This morning I must have had a 9 o'clock class, and at 10 was having coffee in
the Chock Full O'Nuts across the street from the main building on West 4th. At
some point I heard people outside shouting, "Come on, the buses are here, let's
go to the march on Washington!" I had certainly heard about the March, and was
in sympathy with Dr. M.L.King's goals-- but something held me back. Did I have
a class at 11 I shouldn't miss? Was my wallet almost empty? Was I dressed like
(as usual in those days) a slob? Was I afraid there might be violence? Did I
really care _that much_? In any case I elected not to go; I easily could have,
but didn't. Not sure I owned a TV in those days,so didn't even see whatever
snippets the nightly news might have shown that evening. Didn't hear Dr King's
beautiful speech until years later. And so it was that I missed one of the
major events of 20th C. US
history.
I was absent from history, to my everlasting regret... and shame.
Ho, finally got this off my chest... Roger.
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:
conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com
conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
