There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Help, I can't Word doing this anymore!!
From: David J. Peterson
1b. Re: Help, I can't Word doing this anymore!!
From: ROGER MILLS
1c. Re: Help, I can't Word doing this anymore!!
From: Michael Poxon
2a. Basque verbs with synthetic conjugation
From: Alex Fink
2b. Re: Basque verbs with synthetic conjugation
From: taliesin the storyteller
2c. Re: Basque verbs with synthetic conjugation
From: Alex Fink
2d. Re: Basque verbs with synthetic conjugation
From: Eldin Raigmore
3a. palindrome to pluralize
From: Vincent Pistelli
3b. Re: palindrome to pluralize
From: Alex Fink
3c. Re: palindrome to pluralize
From: Jim Henry
3d. Re: palindrome to pluralize
From: Mark J. Reed
3e. Re: palindrome to pluralize
From: Eldin Raigmore
3f. Re: palindrome to pluralize
From: caeruleancentaur
3g. Re: palindrome to pluralize
From: Mark J. Reed
3h. Re: palindrome to pluralize
From: ROGER MILLS
4a. Naisek Pages Updated
From: Jeffrey Jones
4b. Re: Naisek Pages Updated
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
4c. Re: Naisek Pages Updated
From: Eldin Raigmore
4d. Re: Naisek Pages Updated
From: caeruleancentaur
5a. Re: YAEST (was: Germanic vowel correspondences (was: Scots.))
From: John Vertical
5b. Re: YAEST (was: Germanic vowel correspondences (was: Scots.))
From: Tristan McLeay
6a. Re: Beekes.
From: Henrik Theiling
7.1. Re: Georgian road signs (Re: OT: Dvorak)
From: Henrik Theiling
7.2. Re: Georgian road signs (Re: OT: Dvorak)
From: Mark J. Reed
7.3. Re: Georgian road signs (Re: OT: Dvorak)
From: Henrik Theiling
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Help, I can't Word doing this anymore!!
Posted by: "David J. Peterson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:55 pm ((PDT))
Ph.D.:
<<
You can selectively delete certain corrections
such as the one you're having problems with, or
turn them all off. I sometimes use fonts for other
scripts (non-Unicode), so I turned off all auto-
correction just in case.
>>
On this topic, can you teach Word new rules?
For example, if I were writing in my Zhyler
font, the last letter of every sentence is capitalized.
Could I teach it to capitalize the last letter of a
word if hit the space bar twice after typing it?
Or any other crazy rules I might think of, for
that matter?
-David
*******************************************************************
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
-Jim Morrison
http://dedalvs.free.fr/
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Help, I can't Word doing this anymore!!
Posted by: "ROGER MILLS" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:31 pm ((PDT))
Larry Sulky wrote:
>
>Pull down the Tools menu and select AutoCorrect Options. Deselect the
>tick-box for "Replace text as you type".
>
As Ph.D pointed out, that's true of older Word, like my (quirky) Word 2000.
I encountered this same problem with I vs. i, and changed the auto-correct
stuff. Now if I _want_ to type "I", it changes it to "i". AAAArgh.
One obvious yet cumbersome way round is simply to let it capitalize (or not)
i, then after you've typed on a ways, move the cursor back and correct it.
Keeps one on one's toes, proof-reading-wise, at least ;-)))
>I don't like MS Word telling me how to spell or type.
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Help, I can't Word doing this anymore!!
Posted by: "Michael Poxon" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:56 pm ((PDT))
You can probably write a macro or module to do this using VBA, which I think
is part of word.
Mike
>
> On this topic, can you teach Word new rules?
> For example, if I were writing in my Zhyler
> font, the last letter of every sentence is capitalized.
> Could I teach it to capitalize the last letter of a
> word if hit the space bar twice after typing it?
> Or any other crazy rules I might think of, for
> that matter?
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Basque verbs with synthetic conjugation
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:47 pm ((PDT))
Does anyone have to hand a list of the Basque verbs that allow
synthetic conjugation (/ possess finite forms)? I thought I had one
bookmarked but the page has gone or been modified or some such.
Thanks.
and, OT: I would have put a subject tag on this but I forget what tags
there are and couldn't find a list of them. Might someone remind me?
Does anyone still care?
Alex
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Basque verbs with synthetic conjugation
Posted by: "taliesin the storyteller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:20 am ((PDT))
* Alex Fink said on 2008-07-28 04:46:38 +0200
> Does anyone have to hand a list of the Basque verbs that allow
> synthetic conjugation (/ possess finite forms)? I thought I had one
> bookmarked but the page has gone or been modified or some such.
> Thanks.
Five minutes with google yielded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_verbs
http://www.buber.net/Basque/Euskara/tense.html
http://www.ehu.es/grammar/gram4.htm#2.2.%20Synthetic%20and%20periphrastic.%20The%20d
Is your missing link (pun intended) any of these?
t.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Basque verbs with synthetic conjugation
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:34 am ((PDT))
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:18:00 +0200, taliesin the storyteller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Five minutes with google yielded:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_verbs
>http://www.buber.net/Basque/Euskara/tense.html
>http://www.ehu.es/grammar/gram4.htm#2.2.%20Synthetic%20and%20periphrastic.%20The%20d
>
>Is your missing link (pun intended) any of these?
Huh, my google-fu was weak there. I had Wikipedia, but it appeared not to
be comprehensive; I think I may have been after one of the other two.
Thanks again.
It weakens my confidence a little bit that none of the lists is quite a
superset of all the others...
Alex
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Basque verbs with synthetic conjugation
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:33 am ((PDT))
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:18:00 +0200, taliesin the storyteller <taliesin-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_verbs>
<http://www.buber.net/Basque/Euskara/tense.html>
<http://www.ehu.es/grammar/gram4.htm#2.2.%20Synthetic%20and%
20periphrastic.%20The%20d>
Thank you very much for those links! They are interesting.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. palindrome to pluralize
Posted by: "Vincent Pistelli" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:54 pm ((PDT))
I just came up with an idea for a language I have been working on
that I thought everyone would like. The idea is that if the nouns in your
language are single syllables you can just turn the word into a palindrme to
make it plural.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: palindrome to pluralize
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:56 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 22:44:40 -0400, Vincent Pistelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I just came up with an idea for a language I have been working on
>that I thought everyone would like. The idea is that if the nouns in your
>language are single syllables you can just turn the word into a palindrme to
>make it plural.
Turn the word into? You mean, by appending it to its reverse on one or the
other side, with or without duplication of the sound at the juncture? by
changing the extant sounds so it becomes a palindrome? somehow else?
Alex
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: palindrome to pluralize
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:32 am ((PDT))
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Vincent Pistelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just came up with an idea for a language I have been working on
> that I thought everyone would like. The idea is that if the nouns in your
> language are single syllables you can just turn the word into a palindrme to
> make it plural.
I don't see why it wouldn't work with words longer than one syllable;
though the longer the root words are, the longer the pluralized
forms will be, assuming I am reading you correctly (do an inverse
reduplication of all or part of the root to pluralize).
E.g., with monosyllables you might do,
tas > tasat / tassat
kin > kinik / kinnik
but it could work as well with disyllables etc,
funim > funiminuf / funimminuf
rasipo > rasipopisar
Or maybe your reduplication process never adds more
than one syllable; with monosyllables it forms a palindrome,
with longer words it does not. So
funim > funimuf
rasipo > rasipo(a)r
There are various other things you could do with a more or
less palindromic reduplicative affix like this; I think some time
ago someone posted here a link to a study showing the most
common uses of reduplication cross-linguistically. I vaguely
recall augmentatiion, diminution, and iterative aspect
as being among the common uses.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang/fluency-survey.html
Conlang fluency survey -- there's still time to participate before
I analyze the results and write the article
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: palindrome to pluralize
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:52 am ((PDT))
Inverted reduplication is a nifty idea. Feels very artificial and
unlikely to me, though if history is any guide that means ANADEW...
On 7/28/08, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Vincent Pistelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I just came up with an idea for a language I have been working on
>> that I thought everyone would like. The idea is that if the nouns in your
>> language are single syllables you can just turn the word into a palindrme
>> to
>> make it plural.
>
> I don't see why it wouldn't work with words longer than one syllable;
> though the longer the root words are, the longer the pluralized
> forms will be, assuming I am reading you correctly (do an inverse
> reduplication of all or part of the root to pluralize).
>
> E.g., with monosyllables you might do,
>
> tas > tasat / tassat
> kin > kinik / kinnik
>
> but it could work as well with disyllables etc,
>
> funim > funiminuf / funimminuf
> rasipo > rasipopisar
>
> Or maybe your reduplication process never adds more
> than one syllable; with monosyllables it forms a palindrome,
> with longer words it does not. So
>
> funim > funimuf
> rasipo > rasipo(a)r
>
> There are various other things you could do with a more or
> less palindromic reduplicative affix like this; I think some time
> ago someone posted here a link to a study showing the most
> common uses of reduplication cross-linguistically. I vaguely
> recall augmentatiion, diminution, and iterative aspect
> as being among the common uses.
>
> --
> Jim Henry
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang/fluency-survey.html
> Conlang fluency survey -- there's still time to participate before
> I analyze the results and write the article
>
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: palindrome to pluralize
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:28 am ((PDT))
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:52:09 -0400, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>On 7/28/08, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Vincent Pistelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>wrote:
>>>if the nouns in your language are single syllables you can just turn the
>>>word into a palindrome to make it plural.
>>[maybe it would also] work with words longer than one syllable; though the
>>longer the root words are, the longer the pluralized forms will be, assuming
>>I
>>am reading you correctly (do an inverse reduplication of all or part of the
>>root to pluralize).
I agree with Jim here. The longer the singular form of the noun, the fewer of
its syllables you'll want to invert-redouble.
Also; Have you considered how this would interact with other inflections of the
nouns, such as case?
>>[snipped stuff Jim said that was good but I don't need to say again]
>>... maybe your reduplication process never adds more than one syllable;
>>with monosyllables it forms a palindrome, with longer words it does not.
>>...
>>There are various other things you could do with a more or less palindromic
>>reduplicative affix like this; I think some time ago someone posted here a
>>link to a study showing the most common uses of reduplication
>>cross-linguistically. I vaguely recall augmentation, diminution, and iterative
>>aspect as being among the common uses.
I seem to recall that too. If anyone finds the actual link could you re-post
it?
Message:
151407 THEORY: Uses of reduplication (Eric Christopherson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mar
2,
2008 2:26am)
and its sequelae look promising.
Message:
151434 linguistlist Summary on reduplication (Benct Philip Jonsson [EMAIL
PROTECTED] Mar
3, 2008 4:25 am)
and its reply also look promising.
They reference these links:
<http://linguistlist.org/issues/6/6-52.html>
<http://tinyurl.com/2sha4a>
<http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9501C&L=linguist&P=R4785>
Finally, for more recent particular examples, look at the following threads:
151983 Reduplication in Indonesian (Kelly Drinkwater [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apr 6,
2008
4:24 am)
153007 Ainu day counting (was: Re: THEORY: Relation between counting, trial,
and plural) (Alex Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] May 21, 2008 5:22 am)
154194 Re: Beekes. (Edgard Bikelis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jul 27, 2008 2:25 pm)
Does anyone have anything else?
>Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Inverted reduplication is a nifty idea.
I agree with Mark. I don't see it as any more difficult than ordinary
reduplication, which does indeed indicate plural in many natlangs.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
3f. Re: palindrome to pluralize
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:36 am ((PDT))
> Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Vincent Pistelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> > I just came up with an idea for a language I have been working on
> > that I thought everyone would like. The idea is that if the nouns
> > in your language are single syllables you can just turn the word
> > into a palindrme to make it plural.
>
> I don't see why it wouldn't work with words longer than one
> syllable; though the longer the root words are, the longer the
> pluralized forms will be, assuming I am reading you correctly (do
> an inverse reduplication of all or part of the root to pluralize).
>
> E.g., with monosyllables you might do,
>
> tas > tasat / tassat
> kin > kinik / kinnik
I understoodd the original idea not to include reduplication, simply
palindrome. Thus:
tas > sat
kin > nik
I guess it would work as long as there was no homophone sat > tas.
But then there's always context.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
3g. Re: palindrome to pluralize
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:58 am ((PDT))
Tas -> sat does not form a palindrome anywhere. That's just reversal.
Tas -> tassat forms a palindrome. Duplication is just the mechanism
ised to get a palindrome result. Other mechanisms are possible but
less general.
On 7/28/08, caeruleancentaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Vincent Pistelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > wrote:
>> > I just came up with an idea for a language I have been working on
>> > that I thought everyone would like. The idea is that if the nouns
>> > in your language are single syllables you can just turn the word
>> > into a palindrme to make it plural.
>>
>> I don't see why it wouldn't work with words longer than one
>> syllable; though the longer the root words are, the longer the
>> pluralized forms will be, assuming I am reading you correctly (do
>> an inverse reduplication of all or part of the root to pluralize).
>>
>> E.g., with monosyllables you might do,
>>
>> tas > tasat / tassat
>> kin > kinik / kinnik
>
> I understoodd the original idea not to include reduplication, simply
> palindrome. Thus:
>
> tas > sat
> kin > nik
>
> I guess it would work as long as there was no homophone sat > tas.
> But then there's always context.
>
> Charlie
>
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
3h. Re: palindrome to pluralize
Posted by: "ROGER MILLS" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:59 am ((PDT))
Charlie wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Vincent Pistelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> > > I just came up with an idea for a language I have been working on
> > > that I thought everyone would like. The idea is that if the nouns
> > > in your language are single syllables you can just turn the word
> > > into a palindrme to make it plural.
> >
>I understoodd the original idea not to include reduplication, simply
>palindrome. Thus:
>
>tas > sat
>kin > nik
>
>I guess it would work as long as there was no homophone sat > tas.
>But then there's always context.
>
That was my understanding too. It would require very strict rules of
morpheme structure (so that you couldn't have words like mom, nun, sis, tat,
cock (just to use some Engl. exs.), and as you point out, you might not be
able to have both sat and tas, unless they were distinct parts of speech
(Engl. gets along OK with "read" /rEd/ past tense and /rEd/ color) and it
might also require a rather large phonology to provide enough distinctive
CVC forms.
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Naisek Pages Updated
Posted by: "Jeffrey Jones" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:32 pm ((PDT))
I've updated the Naisek grammar pages and uploaded them to
http://qiihoskeh.googlepages.com/Ntoc.htm
There's a lot more work to do -- some of the material isn't quite correct --
but
I don't know when I'll be able to do it, if ever. Similarly, I don't think I'll
be able
to get the 'Yemls and Vallese grammars in sufficient shape.
I don't think very many are interested, but if somebody here wants to save a
copy, archive, or mirror the pages, it's OK with me.
Jeff
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Naisek Pages Updated
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:48 am ((PDT))
Hallo!
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:32:43 -0400, Jeffrey Jones wrote:
> I've updated the Naisek grammar pages and uploaded them to
> http://qiihoskeh.googlepages.com/Ntoc.htm
>
> There's a lot more work to do -- some of the material isn't quite correct --
> but
> I don't know when I'll be able to do it, if ever. Similarly, I don't think
> I'll be able
> to get the 'Yemls and Vallese grammars in sufficient shape.
>
> I don't think very many are interested, but if somebody here wants to save a
> copy, archive, or mirror the pages, it's OK with me.
I would lie if I said that I was hotly interested in Naisek
(there are simply too many conlangs around to follow them
all with great interest), but I find it at least much more
interesting than English pronunciation threads or threads
about alternative keyboard layouts. This is CONLANG, after
all - a place to discuss constructed languages. Naisek,
while not being very spectacular, is in my opinion well-
designed and also well-presented.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: Naisek Pages Updated
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:31 am ((PDT))
I remember being very very interested in Yemls, and feeling withdrawal
symptoms when your computer crashed during a hurricane (if I remember
correctly) and I couldn't see anything new by you for a while.
So I anticipate that I probably may be equally interested in Naisek.
However my real life is taking my time, like Joerg's is taking his. So it may
be a
while -- probably one week, maybe five or six weeks -- before I can do as
much as I want.
But thanks for the good work, and keep it up!
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: Naisek Pages Updated
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:40 am ((PDT))
> Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would lie if I said that I was hotly interested in Naisek
> (there are simply too many conlangs around to follow them
> all with great interest), but I find it at least much more
> interesting than English pronunciation threads or threads
> about alternative keyboard layouts. This is CONLANG, after
> all - a place to discuss constructed languages. Naisek,
> while not being very spectacular, is in my opinion well-
> designed and also well-presented.
Agreed. "Georgian Road Signs" et al. are OT and should have been
labeled as such.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: YAEST (was: Germanic vowel correspondences (was: Scots.))
Posted by: "John Vertical" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 1:18 am ((PDT))
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:54:25 +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
>> <ear> = /Er/ is a different case tho
>
>I don't think that's a pronunciation I've ever come across. (Were you
>thinking of "ere", which I've heard pronounced both /Er/ and /Ir/? Or
><ear> = /Ir/? Or something else?)
The trigraph <ear> as found in eg. "bear", not the word "ear".
---
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:09:25 +1000, Tristan McLeay wrote:
>I don't think being accurate from a phonetic viewpoint is nearly as
>important as being consistent. Everyone knows that "ai" spells your
>/eI/. No-one really knows what "ei" spells and in general whatever the
>guess is, it turns out wrong.
OTOH ea > ei only changes one letter, so it's a better visual match. Also /stik
brik/ nor /staIk braIk graIt/ are not even words (there is "greet", but that's
a
verb).
>Also, given the relationships between words like nation:national it's clear
>that
>a long a is a variety of a, and that's how everyone I know thinks of it.
Are you now arguing for some sort of Chomskyan underlying representation of
[eI] as /a:/? Is there some reason other than the current orthography to
regard /eI/ ~ /&/ alternations as more fundamental than, say, /aU/ ~ /V/
(pronounce:pronunciation), /Q/ ~ /E/ (strong:strength), etc?
>> <ear> = /Er/ is a different case tho; here the status quo looks the
>> least ugly to my eyes.
>
>I suspect you're influenced too much by your native language and/or the
>phonetic transcription. "-ear" is obviously ambiguous to the reader
>when they can't tell which pronunciation of "tear" is intended, but not
>that obviously ambiguous to the writer so they'll forget to clarify in
>advance.
Well, for the record, if there eventually IS an English spelling reform, I
would
value both internal *and* international consistency. So I'm not too hot for
standardizing <ea> = /i/, <a> = /eI/ or the like in the first place. This means
some things just have to be left in creativ anarky for now (wel, shúr, ai kud
jast stárt raiting laik thiz, bat samhau ai dón't sí thät geting a betar
risepshan).
>>Okay, I can think of one argument for that; when there are
>> back and front open vowels recognized, it will be possible to hear a
>> backness difference in [au ai] (or [6u 6i], or whatever) that would not be
>> there for [Au &i]... so they're prone to get interpreted as /&/+/u/
>> and /A/+/i/, rather than vice versa. Sound good so far? Examples of /au ai/
>> > /o: e:/ seem to be found mostly in languages with only /a/.
>>
>> So we have a hypothesis, but now, where else do they have languages
>> distinguishing /& A/ (vowel harmony langs aside)? At least Persia and
>> Tibet, I think... neither seems to have been home to any shifts of this sort
>> recently, however.
>
>Well, we need non-front/back harmonic languages with /& A/ independent
>of length and have at least one diphthong someone like /ai au/
>(including high-assimilated varients like /&A/).
>
>Incidentally, by "Tibet" what language do you mean? According to
>Wikipedia Lhasa Tibetan has [i y u e 2 o E a] with [a] considered front
>but possessing a significant allophone [V] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Tristan.
That seems to be the case. I have a distinct memory of some larger language
in that region which has an /a A/ contrast, but can't even recall if it was
Tibeto-Burman or Indo-Aryan. WP finds something called Nar Phu but that's
not what I was thinking of. PTB _is_ reconstructed with */ai au/ so I should
probably check on that pdf about the development of Tibeto-Burman I have
around somewhere.
John Vertical
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: YAEST (was: Germanic vowel correspondences (was: Scots.))
Posted by: "Tristan McLeay" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:39 am ((PDT))
On 28/07/08 18:17:23, John Vertical wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:54:25 +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> >> <ear> = /Er/ is a different case tho
> >
> >I don't think that's a pronunciation I've ever come across. (Were
> you
> >thinking of "ere", which I've heard pronounced both /Er/ and /Ir/?
> Or
> ><ear> = /Ir/? Or something else?)
>
> The trigraph <ear> as found in eg. "bear", not the word "ear".
>
> ---
>
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:09:25 +1000, Tristan McLeay wrote:
> >I don't think being accurate from a phonetic viewpoint is nearly as
> >important as being consistent. Everyone knows that "ai" spells your
> >/eI/. No-one really knows what "ei" spells and in general whatever
> the
> >guess is, it turns out wrong.
>
> OTOH ea > ei only changes one letter, so it's a better visual match.
I think if the visuals make a difference, it's of the all-or-nothing
variety. "ei" might spell /ei/ in some words, but it's certainly not
it's normal value, so it's hard to find. On the other hand it's easy to
find /ei/ in "ai", so "staik" is a better match; you merely see
"unrecognised word ... how's it pronounced?" instead of "unrecognised
word ... how's it pronounced ... fail; what's it look similar to?".
Well, obviously context probly means neither happens, but if for some
reason context doesn't help.
> Also /stik
> brik/ nor /staIk braIk graIt/ are not even words (there is "greet",
> but that's a
> verb).
(I misread /stik brik/ as /stIk brIk/ at first which was obviously a
little confusing. I think if you're going to try and be dialect-
neutral, which I think you should be in this sort of a discussion, the
length-marks should be added for redundancy.)
> >Also, given the relationships between words like nation:national
> it's
> clear that
> >a long a is a variety of a, and that's how everyone I know thinks of
> it.
>
> Are you now arguing for some sort of Chomskyan underlying
> representation of
> [eI] as /a:/?
Not at all. I'm saying that people think of --- well, I'll use
Australian English IPA here because that's what these people speak ---
[& &i] (hat hate) and [O Ou\] (hop hope) as related sounds. I don't
know if this is a consequence of the Australian values for these
sounds, but I don't think so --- at least, the even more similar
[& &O] isn't considered related in the same way.
On the other hand, I don't think people think of [a a:] as representing
a pair of vowels that are somehow related, although it has been known
to allow for deliberate misunderstandings of the word "can't" of an
unrepeatable nature. Orthographically, "u" never represents /a:/ and
there's no patterns involving it, and "a" only represents /a/ in well
predominately foreign names or words still perceived as foreign. (And
even then, once you learn the spelling the tendency is to want to use
/a:/.)
>Is there some reason other than the current orthography
> to
> regard /eI/ ~ /&/ alternations as more fundamental than, say, /aU/ ~
> /V/
> (pronounce:pronunciation), /Q/ ~ /E/ (strong:strength), etc?
I don't know.
> >> <ear> = /Er/ is a different case tho; here the status quo looks
> the
> >> least ugly to my eyes.
> >
> >I suspect you're influenced too much by your native language and/or
> the
> >phonetic transcription. "-ear" is obviously ambiguous to the reader
> >when they can't tell which pronunciation of "tear" is intended, but
> not
> >that obviously ambiguous to the writer so they'll forget to clarify
> in
> >advance.
>
> Well, for the record, if there eventually IS an English spelling
> reform, I would
> value both internal *and* international consistency. So I'm not too
> hot for
> standardizing <ea> = /i/, <a> = /eI/ or the like in the first place.
> This means
> some things just have to be left in creativ anarky for now (wel,
> shúr,
By the time a reform happens, I doubt anyone will pronounce it like
that. Most Australians and English use "shaw" and I think most
Americans who don't say "shore" say "sher". Dunno about other places...
Of course, some people will say this is precisely why any spelling
reform is a bad idea; I say if we can cope with "mum" vs "mom" or
"color" vs "colour", why can't we cope with "shor" vs "sher" ?
> ai kud
> jast stárt raiting laik thiz, bat samhau ai dón't sí thät geting a
> betar risepshan).
ae doynt reily think iaksent's wil eva by aksept'd in inglysj, soy ae
prafeo suamthing laek this peosonal (iand haely daelekt spasifyk)
oothografy, witj oolsoy moystly yncoyd's stres.
...
> That seems to be the case. I have a distinct memory of some larger
> language
> in that region which has an /a A/ contrast, but can't even recall if
> it was
> Tibeto-Burman or Indo-Aryan. WP finds something called Nar Phu but
> that's
> not what I was thinking of. PTB _is_ reconstructed with */ai au/ so I
> should
> probably check on that pdf about the development of Tibeto-Burman I
> have
> around somewhere.
Lemme know if you come up with something, if you could.
--
Tristan.
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Re: Beekes.
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:30 am ((PDT))
Hi!
Tristan McLeay writes:
>...
> Hence the Hungarian <sz> is essentially the same thing as the German ß.
>
> I hope that's clear, or that someone can clarify --- it's a bit hard to
> discuss this sort of thing when you can't remember the actual nature of
> the sounds.
Probably apical s vs. laminal s. Apical tends to sound like /S/ for
speakes of languages with only laminal s.
It was discussed here a while ago, even with reference to Hungarian:
http://archives.conlang.info/bhau/julqae/dhaelchoelchoen.html
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7.1. Re: Georgian road signs (Re: OT: Dvorak)
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:36 am ((PDT))
Hi!
Philip Newton writes:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:09, Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My understanding is that in German at least the distinction between
>> long and short s isn't algorithmic, because an s before morpheme
>> boundaries etc is short. So --- although a word-processor equipped with
>> a dictionary could be able to do it for you, a font can't.
>
> That's my understanding, too.
>
> A minimal pair is WachStube (Wach-stube: guard room) vs Wachstube
> (Wachs-tube: tube of wax).
Still, if fonts to ligatures automatically, then they may also do long
s automatically, because the problem is exactly the same: no fi
ligature (and any other) in German between morphemes. In unicode,
you'd insert a zero-width non-breakable space, which you could also
do in words with round s.
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (44)
________________________________________________________________________
7.2. Re: Georgian road signs (Re: OT: Dvorak)
Posted by: "Mark J. Reed" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:56 am ((PDT))
Huh? In a font with an fi ligature, every instance of f followed by i
is ligatured, regardless of morpheme boundaries. I don't see the
similarity.
On 7/28/08, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Philip Newton writes:
>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:09, Tristan McLeay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> My understanding is that in German at least the distinction between
>>> long and short s isn't algorithmic, because an s before morpheme
>>> boundaries etc is short. So --- although a word-processor equipped with
>>> a dictionary could be able to do it for you, a font can't.
>>
>> That's my understanding, too.
>>
>> A minimal pair is WachStube (Wach-stube: guard room) vs Wachstube
>> (Wachs-tube: tube of wax).
>
> Still, if fonts to ligatures automatically, then they may also do long
> s automatically, because the problem is exactly the same: no fi
> ligature (and any other) in German between morphemes. In unicode,
> you'd insert a zero-width non-breakable space, which you could also
> do in words with round s.
>
> **Henrik
>
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Messages in this topic (44)
________________________________________________________________________
7.3. Re: Georgian road signs (Re: OT: Dvorak)
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:54 am ((PDT))
Hi!
Mark J. Reed writes:
> Huh? In a font with an fi ligature, every instance of f followed by i
> is ligatured, regardless of morpheme boundaries.
Not by German typesetting rules, that's the point.
> I don't see the similarity.
The similarity is that the rule you just states is not good for
German. In German, ligatures are placed depending on the morphemic
structure or a word. Just like long s.
BTW, 'morpheme boundary' was not the right thing. Round s is placed
at ends of each part of a compounds, but not before inflectional
morpheme boundaries. At the same locations, ligatures are not used in
German.
**Henrik
Messages in this topic (44)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
