------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 11 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Hi! Introduction and OSV
From: Sharon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: Language comparison
From: Aquamarine Demon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: Language comparison
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Re: my phonology
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. Re: Ygyde is fun!
From: Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. A Franco-Turkic a posteriori language
From: Geoff Horswood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: Language comparison
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Language comparison
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: OT: FontForge (was: writing system)
From: "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Chinese writing (was: Language comparison)
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: Language comparison
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 00:40:06 -0800
From: Sharon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Hi! Introduction and OSV
Hi everyone! I've been a lurker of this mailing list on and off for
the past two years or so, and I guess I've found a reason now to
delurk (although there might not be a very noticeable difference; I'm
usually several days behind posts and you all usually say everything
worth saying anyway ;).
In any case, my name's Sharon Chu, and I'm a 16 year-old living in
Southern California. My parents immigrated from Taiwan in their
college years and so I'm semi-fluent in Mandarin Chinese. Of course, I
use English as my primary language, and I've been taking Spanish
classes at school as well.
I'd like to say that I was always interested in languages, but I'm
afraid that this is only partly true. While I was probably a little
bit more, um, "linguistically aware" than an average American child,
it wasn't until two years ago that I finally started to become
fascinated by languages. A friend and I started work on a conlang,
although the interest was short-lived and it was basically a clone of
Latin (my friend's language of choice).
Later on, while re-reading my copy of the Silmarillion, I developed a
sudden interest in Sindarin--not Quenya, which, to tell the truth, I
have never been that interested in--and began feverishly taking notes
from the Ardalambion. Sooner or later my interest in Sindarin
dwindled, and I tried to construct my own conlang--which is now
discarded, since it resembled a Spanish relex too much at first and
later on because I kept changing the verb conjugations to the point
where I got extremely confused and abandoned it out of frustration.
Lately, however, I've been inspired by posts of those who are creating
languages through McGuffey's Reader, and one day I took out one of the
beginning readers I received last year in my Spanish class and
sketched out the beginnings of a language (instead of listening to my
Chemistry teacher's lecture, alas).
I'm really, really excited about this yet unnamed language, for it's
getting more and more complex as I sit through more Chemistry classes
and so far it's *not a relex*!! (--although it's one of my greatest
fears that it might eventually degenerate to that).
Well, anyway, the point of all that was (a) to be a somewhat concise
history on my linguistic background and also (b) to bring me to my
question:
When I first began writing out this language, I decided on a whim to
give it an OSV syntax, and so far, with simple sentences and such, it
hasn't given me any problems so far. However, lately I've started
realizing that I know nothing about OSV languages in general _at all_,
and this information is rather hard to come by in the library and the
last time I checked Google it wasn't very much help.
Would anyone have any general information on OSV syntax which I could
use, then? :)
Thanks a lot in advance.
Somewhat embarassedly,
Sharon.
--
Matt: But yeah, Latin would be cool. Plus, when you say to people "I
can speak Latin, pitiful worm!" they'll be like "Omfg, he be learned!"
Matt: and they will cower before you.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 02:42:12 -0800
From: Aquamarine Demon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Language comparison
>>Face-to-face communication does this always. It involves rhythm and
melody and any movements we make.
Yes, but not in ways that are taken advantage of linguistically.<<
There is more to language than what is made explicit through words. Most
of communication is nonverbal: body gestures, facial expressions, vocal
quality (how a word is said), etc. These are so integrated into everyday
conversation that most people are not actively aware of them (this is
especially true of body language). This could account for why many people
underestimate or dismiss them as being unimportant. They may not have an
explicit linguistic purpose (grammar, vocab, etc), but they certainly
serve a sociolinguistic purpose, which is just as important.
>> > That's not the aim of writing narrowly considered, but of graphics
> in general (as my art teacher was fond of saying). We do have methods
> of conveying specific meaning outside of speech; they're called icons,
> the use of many of which are just as standardized as ordinary grammar.
Then would you consider writing that only incidentally conveys speech
- like Chinese - to be "real" writing? It's not phonetic; it cannot be
said to be "writing down" speech any better than speech could be said
to be "speaking out" the writing.
- Sai<<
Actually, many Chinese characters do have phonetic value (though I'm not
sure if they convey the phonetic values of _all_ the dialects that write
them). Maybe not in a sense that most Westerners are familiar with, but it
exists nonetheless. And anyway, Chinese still represents what is being
spoken, even if it's not through a mainly phonetic means, therefore it is
real writing.
And that's all I'm really going to comment on in this topic, as your
contention that some languages are qualitatively better than others is not
worth the effort.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 07:27:05 -0500
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Language comparison
A previous resume: Among the features that you've proposed, there is none
that could distinguish the qualities of any existing human language. Of
course, the day of tomorrow might emerge one where they all apply, and of
course, they apply to other information systems (like programming so-called
"languages").
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 18:44:56 -0800, Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's not one-to-one, because there's more than one
>> language whose words you can use, but it's nevertheless the case that
>> Chinese writing is written language. Which is very different from
>> other forms of pictorial representation of meaning.
>
>How?
>
>Seems to me that the only "difference" is that it's serial, and that
>it has a known way to translate into speech. The latter is irrelevant
No it isn't. It's what writing systems are all about.
>- one can always devise one, relatively easily, for a serial code. So
>is a written form that does not yet have a manner of speech not a
>"real" form of language?
Of course not. Why should it? It's not even a writing system (I'm not
repeating again what a writing system is).
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:49:43 -0800, Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >* little effort to use
>>
>> If there were human languages that would require more effort to talk,
>> then they would have died out in the many thousands of years of language
>> evolution.
>
>Hardly. The only thing evolution produces is sufficiency, not
>efficiency. I think it's a mistake to belive that (any) evolution
>results in "the best", just probably the best amongst the local
>competitors.
(Aren't we all local competitors?) From birth, humans learn language with no
effort (with normal effort, if you will). A baby learns the language of the
people it grows with, and it doesn't depend on the language how long it takes.
>And in any case, it might well be possible to intentionally design an
>even easier language. I don't know, but I'm at least willing to give
>the idea an opportunity.
So am I, if somebody gives me a convincing example. You haven't, and I doubt
you ever will or anybody. But this believe of mine doesn't affect my
willingness.
>> "Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaus und seinen Einfluss
auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts" ('about the
heterogeneity of language construction and its influence [of language
construction] on the intellectual development of mankind'), which is said to
be one of the most interesting books on languages (and one of the first).
Maybe I should try again to read it! :)
>
>Sounds interesting; any chance of an English translation? (Ich spreche
>keine Deutsch...) ([sic], probably)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521667720/
>> However, there's no such directionality in the evolution of language.
>
>Does that mean you believe the current (~1 bit per character IIRC)
>amount of density is the maximum feasible?
Language has no characters, only written language has. And it has definitly
no bits.
>> >* as clear/ambiguous as desired
>> >* possible to carry multiple meanings (if desired)
>>
>> Unlike in computer "languages" (which is a misleading metaphora in this
>> discussion) or Logics, meaning in natural languages is always flexible.
>
>Yes, but it's not always possible to have it flexible to the exact
>degree you want. I cannot talk about "demons", for example, without
>invoking a bunch of extra meanings that I don't necessarily intend. Or
>for another, in English, it's difficult to talk about groups of people
>of a specified gender-ratio; I could add that through (cumbersome)
>explanation, but the grammar doesn't support it natively. Some do.
Maybe you're just looking for a language with a large amount of grammatical
categories. Have a look at sanskrit.
>> All writing systems can be read from any direction/inversion. We're just
>> more used to read in a specific way. If you would have learnt reading in
>> a class with a single book so that all had to sit around it in a circle,
>> then you'd be able to read equally fluent from any direction.
>
>But English, at least, is certainly "meant" to be read in a particular
>direction/inversion.
Certainly. Because our visual recognition of characters is helped a lot when
we always see them in the same orientation. We don't recognize character for
character. If you hold a book upside down, then you do.
Okay, I admit that I don't deny the mere possibility of a characters whose
recognition doesn't depend on directionality (neither do I deny the
possibility that the earth stops from turning).
>> >* writing system that fully uses its medium (e.g., non-serial use of 2d
>> >space)
>>
>> The aim of writing is not to fully use the paper, but to represent speech,
>> which is essencially bidimensional.
>
>I strongly disagree on that. The aim of writing is to convey meaning.
The difference between writing and other methods of conveying meaning is
that writing always corresponds to speech.
>If you use it merely as a code for speech, then fine, but then you
>loose most of what you might have been able to do through the
>different medium. It's like only using TVs for slideshows; the medium
>is capable of more.
This is not because of writing, but because of the frames where writing is
displayed. It's not a characteristic of the alphabet.
>> >* multimodal - maximally using whatever means of information transfer
>> >available
>>
>> Face-to-face communication does this always. It involves rhythm and
>> melody and any movements we make.
>
>Yes, but not in ways that are taken advantage of linguistically.
Well of course it does. If we were talking to each other face to face, you
would notice that I'd be getting tired and annoyed of replying at length to
your arguments.
I'd suggest you search any linguistics reader and learn about the many
meaningful dimensions that accompany speech.
>> All speech organs have a more original function that is different from
>> producing speech. When that original function is used, you can't produce
>> speech. All natural languages are either sound languages (respiratory
>> system, mouth) or sign languages (arms, hands, face, body). There are no
>> languages that use either.
>
>Fallacy of argument, there. I never asked whether there *are* any; I
>asked whether there *could be* any.
My contribution was in response to you idea that a language would be better
if it could be used in any given environment/situation. My contribution was
meant to deny this.
>> >* advanced version: carry multiple meanings, some of which are only
>> >understandable if you have a different mode of access (e.g., a more
>> >advanced version of shaking your head when you're talking, such that
>> >hearing-only listeners don't get the "this is false" message)
>>
>> Why should any language keep its speakers from showing what they think
>> about the facticity of what they're uttering? I can't imagine a language
>> where it wouldn't be possible to show through intonation (or some other
>> device) that you are ironical about what you're saying or very convinced
>> or very sceptic etc.
>
>Yes, but that wouldn't be differential. I can conceive of situations
>where this would be useful (e.g. where the message to one part of the
>audience needs to be filtered). Nevertheless, the point here is only
>that current languages are not capable of doing this (except in an ad
>hoc manner I described above, which you'll get in any movie with an
>"we've been bugged" scene)... and that it is probably possible to do
>it better.
Tell me how (I'm willing to believe in the possibility of anything).
>> I don't understand these two (they sound pretty much like computerese to
>> me).
>
>> >* corollary: not overspecified (e.g., ubiquitous gender when wasteful
>> >of space or otherwise undesired)
>
>E.g., Romance languages have ubiquitous gender. You can't *avoid*
>having to spend (some) semantic space on it, on an ongoing basis, even
>when it's already quite obvious and adds nothing to the conversation.
>I say you should only specify as much information as needed; that
>semantic "space" could be used for something more valuable.
All known languages are full of redundance (see the above mentioned
linguistic textbook) (well, I haven't mentioned any, but I don't any in
Engish and most are very useful). This is because, as I've explained,
language doesn't only develop into maximal denseness, but also into minimal
confusion.
>> >* runtime encryption (if wanted)
>
>Ability to say something so that only those who also know your "key"
>would be able to understand the content; people who don't, even if
>they're fluent and know your method of encryption, would not.
>
>It would take some work to conceive of a good way to do this that can
>be done "runtime" - i.e., while you're talking - by humans, and isn't
>as simplistic as a variant of Pig Latin (which doesn't meet the second
>criterion above). I think it's possible.
Tell me how (I'm willing to believe in the possibility of anything). How
about - another language! :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 07:52:25 -0500
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: my phonology
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 01:41:08 -0500, # 1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Henrik Theiling wrote:
>
>>Christian Thalmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >...
>> > Distinguishing /X x_- x/ in a language is probably a bit tight,
>> > but you could very plausibly get away with /X x C/.
>>
>>Haha. :-) I want to create a conlang that has
>>
>> /s_N P f T s_a s_m s` S C x X/
>>
>>Would that be feasible? Those are the only consonants in the language
>>and there is only one vowel: /@/, which is epenthetic.
>>
>>Just kidding. But a funny idea. Maybe I'll try to do that and make
>>some poems in that language.
You've forgot about /s\/! :)
>I could create one with, for only consonants:
>
>[t_d], [t], [t_-], [t_a], [t'], [t_N], all their aspirated versions, and
>[t_>]
>
>it makes 13 consonants, it's enough
You may double the number by introducing a distinction of consonant length
(or triple it with three degrees of length). :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 00:58:21 +1100
From: Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ygyde is fun!
On 8 Jan 2005, at 10.21 am, Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> Memorizing euroclone vocabulary is as much
> fun as memorizing a phone book. Only a
> masochist can enjoy learning Lojban's grammar.
> Ygyde is different! The essence of Ygyde is
> playing with words. Suppose that V = vowel and
> C = consonant. Any word having structure of
> VCVCV, CVCVCV, and VCVCVCV is a compound word
> that may have a meaning. For example:
> "ywowo" = "noun hungry disk." Does this word
For the record, in Wide/Wither, that word would probably be something
like
[2:u)], which has to be one of the niftier diphthongs I've invented.
Direct your IAL spam to [EMAIL PROTECTED], where it is
intended. This is definitely not the correct venue for it.
> make sense? Is there any thing that can be
> called "hungry disk?" Maybe Pac-Man? Your
> judgment is as good as mine. Ygyde is not
> protected by copyright laws, so you can change
> it anyway you like.
>
> Ygyde basics: http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/ygyde/ygyde.htm
> Dictionary: http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/ygyde/ygyded.htm
> Grammar: http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew/ygyde/ygydeg.htm
>
>
>
--
Tristan.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 09:46:01 -0500
From: Geoff Horswood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A Franco-Turkic a posteriori language
Browsing through my dictionary the other day, thinking about perhaps trying
to blend Kazakh and English into a workable conlang, I suddenly noticed how
many English words were Old French in derivation.
As I had no idea where in the world I could rationally place my Anglo-
Turkic speakers, this gave me something of an idea:
What if one (or more) of the crusader kingdoms somehow came to terms with
the Seljuk Turks and managed to survive? What would their language look
like today?
I admit, after all the horrible massacres of innocent civilians committed
during the First Crusade, to say nothing of all the other atrocities, the
likelihood of them surviving is pretty close to nil, but it would give some
interesting linguistic possibilities...
So I'm going to try to create an a posteriori language (something new and
different for me- all my previous languages have been a priori) which is
basically Old French with substantial Turkic influences, like vowel harmony
for a start, probably some vocabulary, and who knows?
How are the two languages likely to blend? Will the resulting mix be
mostly IE or mostly Turkic in its grammar? What about vocabulary?
I think it's easier and more common for a language to absorb vocabulary
than grammar, but would the language be the crusaders' Old French lingua
franca modified by Turkish, or the native conquered peoples' Turkic or
Arabic language modified by Old French?
Comments and ideas welcome.
Geoff
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 08:23:11 -0700
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Language comparison
Sai Emrys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's not the aim of writing narrowly considered, but of graphics
>> in general (as my art teacher was fond of saying). We do have methods
>> of conveying specific meaning outside of speech; they're called icons,
>> the use of many of which are just as standardized as ordinary grammar.
>
> Then would you consider writing that only incidentally conveys speech
> - like Chinese - to be "real" writing? It's not phonetic; it cannot be
> said to be "writing down" speech any better than speech could be said
> to be "speaking out" the writing.
Writing conveys speech. *Our* writing may do it [roughly] phonetically
or phonemically, but conveying speech at a syllabic, morphemic, or
lexical level is no less conveying speech. (Even so, Chinese writing
does have its phonetic elements; they do still manage to borrow and
spell words like "Argentina".)
Now, one might be able to depart from this by writing semantically,
as may be possible in Japanese: when a character might represent several
different morphemes with the same meaning, the reader might extract
different speech than the writer encoded -- even more to the point,
a character might be used _iconically_ by the writer for its meaning
with no preconceived speech representation at all. I don't know if
this happens, but I wouldnt be surprised if it did; however, I wouldn't
expect it to be a feature of running text, except perhaps in poetry.
*Muke!
--
website: http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt: http://kohath.deviantart.com/
FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:24:06 +0200
From: Steg Belsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Language comparison
On Jan 8, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Muke Tever wrote:
> Now, one might be able to depart from this by writing semantically,
> as may be possible in Japanese: when a character might represent
> several
> different morphemes with the same meaning, the reader might extract
> different speech than the writer encoded -- even more to the point,
> a character might be used _iconically_ by the writer for its meaning
> with no preconceived speech representation at all. I don't know if
> this happens, but I wouldnt be surprised if it did; however, I wouldn't
> expect it to be a feature of running text, except perhaps in poetry.
> *Muke!
I remember hearing about a Japanese comic book with a conlang, where
the terms written in the conlang are written in kanji, so you get the
meaning, with furigana supertitles so you know roughly how to read them
in the conlang.
-Stephen (Steg)
"the main purpose of the pyramid is to say
'my unique pyramid is sky high and made of white marble.
i do not share it with anyone'."
~ andrew nowicki
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 10:48:52 -0800
From: "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: FontForge (was: writing system)
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 03:44:23AM +0100, Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Hi!
>
> "H. S. Teoh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > It probably does this by scan-converting bitmaps produced by MetaFont
> > at various sizes. I seriously doubt it's even possible to write a
> > general-purpose convertor (esp. to TT fonts) that can losslessly
> > convert arbitrary metafonts, since MetaFont is a full-fledged
> > programming language, and this would probably amount to an undecidable
> > computation. :-)
>
> But before rendering bitmaps, Metafont converts the program to cubic
> splines, so there is another level of generic representation that
> could be converted. No idea whether it is used, but theoretically,
> it's possible to convert before bitmaps are rendered.
But that's still the easiest part of the process. The power of
Metafont is that font programs are parametrized, and the font programs
can act on the parameters in arbitrary ways. To truly capture the
entire quality of a Metafont, one would have to translate the function
of the program on its parameters into font hinting parameters. This is
the part that's probably infeasible or impossible to implement.
(NP-completeness or NP-hardness comes to mind... and likely
intractability.)
[...]
> > I'm still struggling as to whether I should do my conscript fonts in
> > MetaFont or TT. My personal tastes incline towards MetaFont,
>
> Mine, too. :-) Although Tyl Sjok was so tough that I needed a C
> program to compute glyphs in PostScript. This was since Metafont and
> LaTeX unfortunately communicate at bitmap level, using ids (i.e.,
> charcodes) for the characters, which was very restricting for Tyl
> Sjok. The theoretical total number of glyphs is enormous for Tyl
> Sjok.
Well, sanokí (Ebisédian's writing system) doesn't really have too
large a number of glyphs, but it is significant, so I wrote a program
to typeset it. :-)
> > but it is rather inaccessible by non-LaTeX crowds,
>
> More importantly, to web representation. I would not pay attention to
> other OSes than the ones I use, because I doubt people want to learn
> my conlangs. If there are requests, I will rethink my strategy. :-)
I'm generally willing to learn conlangs, if I get the chance to use it
reasonably often. :-)
> However, web representation is now much more important to me than a
> LaTeX document of my grammar, so Metafont is not my first choice
> anymore for that reason. I usually use PostScript and render the font
> as graphics.
[...]
Nice. I can see how PS lends itself to this kind of thing. For
Ebisédian, though, I've no choice but to render it in LaTeX, 'cos no
other tool I know of can handle its painfully complex diacritic
composition rules (even just in the orthography alone, not even actual
sanokí).
P.S. OK, I regret responding to Andrew's post... of all people, I
should be much better clued to the fact that parody does not transmit
very well over the 'Net. I didn't intend for it to be auxlang bashing
any more than it is a caricature of, shall we say, the rather
advocative tone of the original post. I should've just hit the delete
button and let it be, like I usually do.
T
--
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will
eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
Internet, we know this is not true. -- Robert Wilensk
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:55:37 +0000
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Chinese writing (was: Language comparison)
On Saturday, January 8, 2005, at 02:28 , Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 05:44:40PM -0800, Sai Emrys wrote:
>>> That's not the aim of writing narrowly considered, but of graphics
>>> in general (as my art teacher was fond of saying). We do have methods
>>> of conveying specific meaning outside of speech; they're called icons,
>>> the use of many of which are just as standardized as ordinary grammar.
>>
>> Then would you consider writing that only incidentally conveys speech
>> - like Chinese - to be "real" writing? It's not phonetic; it cannot be
>> said to be "writing down" speech any better than speech could be said
>> to be "speaking out" the writing.
{Sigh} - how many times on this list have we discussed urban myths
surrounding Chinese writing!
> What does phoneticity have to do with it? One Chinese character = one
> word of the spoken languages. The order of the characters is determined
> by the order in which you say the words. There's an exact
> correspondence.
More precisely, it is one character = one morpheme - tho there are a few
exceptions, with the handful of ancient borrowing of monomorphemic
disyllabic words (see my recent email in the 'tonal languages' thread)*.
The reason is simply that for the most part in Chinese one morpheme = one
syllable; so it was easier to treat these disyllabic words as consisting
of two pseudo-morphemes.
*as well as some modern borrowings - but they are special caesa.
It is simply mistaken to say that "Chinese writing only incidentally
conveys speech". Speech can be symbolized at the phonemic level (alphabet
- at least in theory, but not in English!), syllable level (syllabaries),
or at the morphemic level (Chinese). Let me quote yet again (for the
umpteenth time) what the Chinese linguist, Yuen Ren Chao, wrote:
"It is making a false dichotomy to say that Chinese writing represents
meaning and that syllabic and alphabetic writing represents sound. The
written symbol ⼈ represents as much the word _jén_ as the meaning 'man';
the written form _man_ represents as much the meaning 'human being' as the
sound [mæn]. The important difference is that of size and variety of the
units."
Y.R. Chao "Language and Symbolic Systems" (A book I thoroughly recommend).
Note: Y.R. Chao wrote this before the Pinyin transcription became general.
His _jén_ is written _rén_ in Pinyin (or _ren2_ in 'ASCII Pinyin').
But what does an L1 Chinese speaking linguist know about it? {irony}
It is also mistaken to say that "it is not phonetic". In fact by far the
most common type of Chinese character are those known as 'phonetic
compounds'. Each character consists of two parts, a _signific_ ( or
_radical_ or _determiner_) and a _phonetic_. The former gives a very
general clue to the meaning of the character and the latter suggests the
pronunciation.
> It's not one-to-one, because there's more than one
> language whose words you can use, but it's nevertheless the case that
> Chinese writing is written language.
It is one-to-one within a given "dialect" of Chinese - and it most
certainly is a written form of the language. As Mark observes, the order
in which the characters are written is the exact same order in which the
morphemes (and pseudo-morphemes) are written.
> Which is very different from other forms of pictorial representation of
> meaning.
..like the Bliss Symbolics. Yes, it most certainly is. Chinese writing is
real writing, so is the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic system. Neither
'incidentally' represent speech - they both actually do write down the
spoken language.
==============================================
> On Saturday, January 8, 2005, at 02:44 , Sai Emrys wrote:
>
>> It's not one-to-one, because there's more than one
>> language whose words you can use, but it's nevertheless the case that
>> Chinese writing is written language. Which is very different from
>> other forms of pictorial representation of meaning.
>
> How?
See above.
> Seems to me that the only "difference" is that it's serial, and that
> it has a known way to translate into speech. The latter is irrelevant
Sorry, but that is nonsense. It is _extremely_ relevant. It will be be
found, if you investigate its development, that Chinese writing, like all
other known human writing, developed as a _method of encoding speech_.
Chinese speech is known to translate into written characters and
vice-versa the characters translate into speech.
> - one can always devise one, relatively easily, for a serial code.
Of course - but in the case of Chinese one did not have to *devise* one!!!
> So
> is a written form that does not yet have a manner of speech not a
> "real" form of language? How about one that is hard to code into
> speech, like a thoughtweb-style branching design?
It may possibly represent a 'formal language', that is one generated by a
'formal grammar', which is a grammar that specifies, for a given set of
elements (the 'vocabulary' or the 'alphabet') the complete set of strings
of those elements which are in the 'language' defined by the grammar.
Computer 'languages' are examples of such formal language.
But such a written form is certainly not a 'natural language'. A natural
language is quite simply one that either is or once was the mother tongue
of a group of human beings.
(IMO much of the confusion in the 'language comparison' thread derives
from failing to distinguish between formal language and natural language.)
Chinese writing is real writing and is the secondary representation of a
natural language.
PS - Sorry, Maxime, I have a reply to your 'rare sounds', but I have used
up my Conlang mail quota for today :=(
I will mail it tomorrow.
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:48:51 +0000
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Language comparison
On Friday, January 7, 2005, at 08:23 , Sai Emrys wrote:
> For everyone who jumped at me for mentioning "primitive": it was in
> quotes. It was intended as an ironic use - as in, these are languages
> that some people have considered *quote-unquote* "primitive", and
> hence the overcompensative backlash in the direction of considering
> *all* languages (even ones as yet unmade) equal.
Eh? But the myth of "primitive" African languages was exploded over a
century ago. What is this "overcompensative backlash"? When is it supposed
to have occurred?
You said in the mail that prompted this thread (which I am not enjoying):
"My hypothesis: some human languages are better than others."
I assumed, as it seems others did, that by 'human language', you meant the
natural languages that humans speak (and write) or have spoken in the past
(e.g. Latin, Etruscan, Sumerian etc). But such languages are not _made_ -
they evolve and, indeed, those currently being used on our planet are
evolving & changing all the time.
If however you mean all languages of human origin, whether naturally
evolved or made as the result of deliberate creation (e.g. computer
'languages', conlangs) then I do not think anyone would disagree with your
hypothesis.
Also I naively assumed you meant 'better linguistically'. It has become
apparent during this thread that your criteria are not all linguistic. Of
course if we take other factors into account we can say that one natural
language is better for certain purposes than another. For example, English
is much better than Basque if we wish to reach an international audience.
But that is to do with political & economic factors - it has nothing to do
with language per_se.
[snip]
> Oy. I'm getting the impression that before posting anything here, I
> should make sure that any subtleties are very, very clearly specified,
I have found bt experience that subtleties do not carry at all well in
emails - we cannot see the body language or hear changes in tone of voice,
both of which help in direct communication. Also there are bound to be
cultural differences in a list where people from the whole planet
contribute. IMO it is better to be over-specific rather than
under-specific.
> along with tags to indicate where I'm being ironic.
Smileys are what we tend to use :)
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> 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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
