There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Russian question
From: Roger Mills
1b. Re: Russian question
From: Nikolay Ivankov
1c. Re: Russian question
From: Matthew Boutilier
1d. Re: Russian question
From: Dale McCreery
1e. Re: Russian question
From: Dale McCreery
1f. Re: Russian question
From: Amanda Babcock Furrow
1g. Re: Russian question
From: Alex Fink
1h. Re: Russian question
From: Roger Mills
1i. Re: Russian question
From: Amanda Babcock Furrow
1j. Re: Russian question
From: Alex Fink
1k. Re: Russian question
From: Roger Mills
2a. Re: Development of pronouns from Indo-Uralic to Albic
From: David Peterson
2b. Re: Development of pronouns from Indo-Uralic to Albic
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
2c. Re: Development of pronouns from Indo-Uralic to Albic
From: Padraic Brown
2d. Re: Development of pronouns from Indo-Uralic to Albic
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
3a. Re: A translation exercise.
From: Roger Mills
3b. Re: A translation exercise.
From: Sylvia Sotomayor
3c. Re: A translation exercise.
From: Padraic Brown
3d. Re: A translation exercise.
From: Zach Wellstood
3e. Re: A translation exercise.
From: Daniel Bowman
4a. Re: Isolating morphology and case markings: a boundary pickle
From: And Rosta
5a. Re: Conlangs as Academic Evidence in Linguistic Studies: How Serious
From: And Rosta
6. Coping with Lojban (was: Conlangs as Academic Evidence in Linguistic
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
7a. Re: My new language
From: Patrick Dunn
7b. Re: My new language
From: Adam Walker
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Russian question
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 11:07 am ((PDT))
What is the correct transliteration of the Russian letter that looks like 61? I
think it's "y" but want to be sure
And what does the word MOCT61 (Mosty?) mean? And "Mosty kultury"? -- is that a
publisher or an institute of some sort (in Moscow)?
And is anyone familiar with "Gesharim, Jerusalem"? -- a publisher I suspect.
The reason I ask is (toot toot!) I have a small article in this festschrift--
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49379918/michael-chlenov-jubileum-volume
(how that happened is just short of miraculous, but never mind....)
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Russian question
Posted by: "Nikolay Ivankov" lukevil...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 11:16 am ((PDT))
Yes, I think "y" is a right transliteration for �, though sometrimes there
is an ambiguity. Mosty Kul'tury means "The Bridges of Culture".
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What is the correct transliteration of the Russian letter that looks like
> 61? I think it's "y" but want to be sure
>
> And what does the word MOCT61 (Mosty?) mean? And "Mosty kultury"? -- is
> that a publisher or an institute of some sort (in Moscow)?
>
> And is anyone familiar with "Gesharim, Jerusalem"? -- a publisher I
> suspect.
>
> The reason I ask is (toot toot!) I have a small article in this
> festschrift--
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/49379918/michael-chlenov-jubileum-volume
> (how that happened is just short of miraculous, but never mind....)
>
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Russian question
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" mbout...@nd.edu
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 11:18 am ((PDT))
>
> What is the correct transliteration of the Russian letter that looks like
> 61? I think it's "y" but want to be sure
>
that's correct. <ы> is almost invariably transliterated <y> (and is
historically and phonetically equivalent to polish <y> = [ɨ]; cf. Pol *
wysoki* vs. Rus *высокий*). i'm far from the CONLANG authority on slavic,
but this is right.
also, though, in many names -y can transliterate both final -ий and final
-ый, where polish uses -i.
And is anyone familiar with "Gesharim, Jerusalem"? -- a publisher I suspect.
>
no idea!
matt
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What is the correct transliteration of the Russian letter that looks like
> 61? I think it's "y" but want to be sure
>
> And what does the word MOCT61 (Mosty?) mean? And "Mosty kultury"? -- is
> that a publisher or an institute of some sort (in Moscow)?
>
> And is anyone familiar with "Gesharim, Jerusalem"? -- a publisher I
> suspect.
>
> The reason I ask is (toot toot!) I have a small article in this
> festschrift--
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/49379918/michael-chlenov-jubileum-volume
> (how that happened is just short of miraculous, but never mind....)
>
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Russian question
Posted by: "Dale McCreery" mccre...@uvic.ca
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 11:24 am ((PDT))
The easiest way to explain it is to say that all russian vowels come in
sets - you have e, ye, u, yu, o, yo, a, ya. Now think of the russian
letter i, and understand that it is something like yi. its partner in the
set is ы. Think of it as pronouncing i simultaneously with u, or
put your mouth as you would to pronounce book, and say beak instead. When
we say buoy we get a similar sound, but ы is a little further back.
> What is the correct transliteration of the Russian letter that looks like
> 61? I think it's "y" but want to be sure
>
> And what does the word MOCT61 (Mosty?) mean? And "Mosty kultury"? -- is
> that a publisher or an institute of some sort (in Moscow)?
>
> And is anyone familiar with "Gesharim, Jerusalem"? -- a publisher I
> suspect.
>
> The reason I ask is (toot toot!) I have a small article in this
> festschrift--
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/49379918/michael-chlenov-jubileum-volume
> (how that happened is just short of miraculous, but never mind....)
>
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Russian question
Posted by: "Dale McCreery" mccre...@uvic.ca
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 11:27 am ((PDT))
The easiest way to explain it is to say that all russian vowels come in
sets - you have e, ye, u, yu, o, yo, a, ya. Now think of the russian
letter i, and understand that it is something like yi. its partner in the
set is ы. Think of it as pronouncing i simultaneously with u, or
put your mouth as you would to pronounce book, and say beak instead. When
we say buoy we get a similar sound, but ы is a little further back.
When I'm writing Russian using the latin alphabet I use y, since that's
what my friends use. Not sure why though.
-muskwatch-
> What is the correct transliteration of the Russian letter that looks like
> 61? I think it's "y" but want to be sure
>
> And what does the word MOCT61 (Mosty?) mean? And "Mosty kultury"? -- is
> that a publisher or an institute of some sort (in Moscow)?
>
> And is anyone familiar with "Gesharim, Jerusalem"? -- a publisher I
> suspect.
>
> The reason I ask is (toot toot!) I have a small article in this
> festschrift--
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/49379918/michael-chlenov-jubileum-volume
> (how that happened is just short of miraculous, but never mind....)
>
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Russian question
Posted by: "Amanda Babcock Furrow" la...@quandary.org
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 11:28 am ((PDT))
I'm sure real Russian speakers will weigh in when they see this, but in
the meantime:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 11:04:10AM -0700, Roger Mills wrote:
> What is the correct transliteration of the Russian letter that looks
> like 61? I think it's "y" but want to be sure
In CXS, I would use "1". It's a high central vowel. But you are asking
about transliteration, not transcription...
Seven of the nine transliteration schemes shown in the Wikipedia article
on the subject use "y", yes.
> And what does the word MOCT61 (Mosty?) mean? And "Mosty kultury"? --
> is that a publisher or an institute of some sort (in Moscow)?
I believe "Mosty kul'tury" means "Bridges of culture".
> And is anyone familiar with "Gesharim, Jerusalem"? -- a publisher I suspect.
They have a website at gesharim.org. Its logo also features the words
"Cultural bridges", so there we go... the sidebar features (in Russian)
"printer", "books", "magazines", "events" and "forum".
> The reason I ask is (toot toot!) I have a small article in this festschrift--
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/49379918/michael-chlenov-jubileum-volume
> (how that happened is just short of miraculous, but never mind....)
Congratulations!
tylakèhlpë'fö,
Amanda
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: Russian question
Posted by: "Alex Fink" 000...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 3:31 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 11:04:10 -0700, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The reason I ask is (toot toot!) I have a small article in this festschrift--
>http://www.scribd.com/doc/49379918/michael-chlenov-jubileum-volume
>(how that happened is just short of miraculous, but never mind....)
Very neat.
You write:
| Van Engelenhoven (1995: 261, ex. 72) also cites: PMP *z(a,e)mak
| 'tasten' (touch} > PLK **ku-rama 'likken' (to lick) > Let roma, [...]
| Also, the semantic change is unconvincing.
But English "taste" displays the very same semantic shift -- note the Dutch
gloss right there! "Taste" is OF < Lat _taxita:re_ 'touch, feel, handle
(iter.)'. In the OED, which orders its senses historically (and, in
connection with the other recent thread, let me just be on the record that
this is something I find very useful), sense 1 is all variations on "touch";
"perceive the flavour of" doesn't appear till sense 4.
Alex
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: Russian question
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 4:22 pm ((PDT))
--- On Sun, 4/3/11, Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The reason I ask is (toot toot!) I have a small article
> in this festschrift--
> >http://www.scribd.com/doc/49379918/michael-chlenov-jubileum-volume
> >(how that happened is just short of miraculous, but
> never mind....)
>
> Very neat.
How did you find my article so quickly? It took me all afternoon scrolling down
page by page (with many delays) to get to it--and pausing to read a few of the
intervening papers, if they were in English :-(((. Interesting things on
Judaica, which I never knew before. Now I'm sorry I don't know any Russian
beyond the alphabet.
>
> You write:
> | Van Engelenhoven (1995: 261, ex. 72) also cites: PMP
> *z(a,e)mak
> | 'tasten' (touch} > PLK **ku-rama 'likken' (to lick)
> > Let roma, [...]
> | Also, the semantic change is unconvincing.
My main objection was to the PMP form, which AFAIK has not been proposed
elsewhere. Granting that the semantic change IS possible, the LK form could
then relate to Ml/Ind. jamah 'touch' only (PMP *zamaq, which has been
published)-- possibly a misprint in Van E's article. One could then argue
(though I didn't at the time, and it's worth looking into) that there are two
levels of Ml.(or other) loans with /j/, some with LK /d/, others with /r/.
> But English "taste" displays the very same semantic shift
> -- note the Dutch
> gloss right there! "Taste" is OF < Lat _taxita:re_
> 'touch, feel, handle
> (iter.)'. In the OED, which orders its senses historically
> (and, in
> connection with the other recent thread, let me just be on
> the record that
> this is something I find very useful), sense 1 is all
> variations on "touch";
> "perceive the flavour of" doesn't appear till sense
> 4.
>
> Alex
>
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
1i. Re: Russian question
Posted by: "Amanda Babcock Furrow" la...@quandary.org
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 6:56 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 04:19:54PM -0700, Roger Mills wrote:
> --- On Sun, 4/3/11, Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Very neat.
>
> How did you find my article so quickly? It took me all afternoon scrolling
> down page by page (with many delays) to get to it--and pausing to read a
> few of the intervening papers, if they were in English :-(((.
I'm not Alex, but I was able to find it in a minute or two by the following
procedure: 1) find you in the index, where it says your article is on page
284 of about 515. 2) move the scrollbar slider on the right to about 3/5
of the way down. 3) scroll up to top of page, see I'm 50 pages too far.
Adjust scrollbar up a smidge. 4) scroll back a few more pages till I find
the end of your article.
Stopping to read all the (English - I'm not fluent in Russian) articles
was a tempting thought, though!
tylakèhlpë'fö,
Amanda
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
1j. Re: Russian question
Posted by: "Alex Fink" 000...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 7:16 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 16:19:54 -0700, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>How did you find my article so quickly? It took me all afternoon scrolling
down page by page (with many delays) to get to it--and pausing to read a few
of the intervening papers, if they were in English :-(((. Interesting things
on Judaica, which I never knew before. Now I'm sorry I don't know any
Russian beyond the alphabet.
This is a purely technological question about Scribd, yes? The controls
which it's supposed to place in the bottom of the window provide at least
two ways to do this: for one, you can type a new page number in place of the
old one; for two, there's a thin scroll bar along the top, and if you hover
over it a little pointer will appear that you can use to scroll.
(Admittedly my Firefox didn't want to load the content of pages that I
jumped to, and I didn't bother to figure out why; it's probably some effect
of script-blocking from a non-obvious domain or something. My Safari with
no such blockers did fine.)
Alex
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
1k. Re: Russian question
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 9:03 pm ((PDT))
--- On Sun, 4/3/11, Amanda Babcock Furrow <la...@quandary.org> wrote:
> -0700, Roger Mills wrote:
> > --- On Sun, 4/3/11, Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Very neat.
> >
> > How did you find my article so quickly? It took me all
> afternoon scrolling
> > down page by page (with many delays) to get to it--and
> pausing to read a
> > few of the intervening papers, if they were in English
> :-(((.
>
> I'm not Alex, but I was able to find it in a minute or two
> by the following
> procedure: 1) find you in the index, where it says your
> article is on page
> 284 of about 515. 2) move the scrollbar slider on the
> right to about 3/5
> of the way down. 3) scroll up to top of page, see I'm
> 50 pages too far.
> Adjust scrollbar up a smidge. 4) scroll back a few
> more pages till I find
> the end of your article.
>
I tried that too, many times, and just kept getting blank pages. I was too
impatient to wait overly long. I just tried again it after reading your email,
and it worked after maybe a 30 sec. wait. It seems that the more I go to the
site, the more it cooperates :-))))
As to Alex's further reply, I tried typing in the page no. but nothing
happened; I didn't see any sort of scroll-thing at the top. Perhaps my version
of Firefox hasn't been sufficiently updated (though Lord Knows, I constantly
get "updates" that I don't know what to do with....)
Aging dog and new tricks, oy!
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Development of pronouns from Indo-Uralic to Albic
Posted by: "David Peterson" deda...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 11:28 am ((PDT))
On Apr 3, 2011, at 9◊57 AM, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> The Proto-Hesperic pronouns are similar to those of Proto-Europic.
> In West Hesperic, the syllable rimes *-Vx and *-Vs become *-u and
> *-i, repsectively, giving the paradigms:
This is quite an interesting sound change! And this happened regardless of the
vowel? And was their an intermediate step where the coda consonants were lost?
Perhaps something like:
(1) *-Vx > *-ux; *-Vs > *-is
(2) *-Vx, *-Vs > *-Vh
(3) *-Vh > -V
I guess it makes sense, since [x] is what you get if you devoice [u] and push
the tongue dorsum up towards the soft palate a bit more. *-Vs resulting in [i]
is a bit of a mystery to me, but I guess the production of [s] forces the
tongue into a shape that's conducive to the production of [i] (tongue body's
flat if the tip's at the alveolar ridge, and pushing it up a bit further could
result in a configuration much like [i]). Though I wonder: Did lip rounding
accompany the production of [x], and spread lips accompany the production of
[s]? That would make all this make a bit more sense.
Very neat series of changes, though!
David Peterson
LCS President
l...@conlang.org
www.conlang.org
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Development of pronouns from Indo-Uralic to Albic
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" joerg_rhieme...@web.de
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 1:06 pm ((PDT))
Hallo!
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 11:26:22 -0700, David Peterson wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2011, at 9◊57 AM, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>
> > The Proto-Hesperic pronouns are similar to those of Proto-Europic.
> > In West Hesperic, the syllable rimes *-Vx and *-Vs become *-u and
> > *-i, repsectively, giving the paradigms:
>
> This is quite an interesting sound change! And this happened regardless of
> the vowel?
Yes.
> And was their an intermediate step where the coda consonants were
> lost? Perhaps something like:
>
> (1) *-Vx > *-ux; *-Vs > *-is
>
> (2) *-Vx, *-Vs > *-Vh
>
> (3) *-Vh > -V
A possible pathway. I was rather thinking of the fricative becoming
an offglide, and then the resulting diphthongs monophthongized with
the offglide determining the vowel quality, but your pathway makes
just as much sense.
> I guess it makes sense, since [x] is what you get if you devoice [u] and
> push the tongue dorsum up towards the soft palate a bit more.
Yes.
> *-Vs resulting in [i] is a bit of a mystery to me, but I guess the
> production of [s] forces the tongue into a shape that's conducive to the
> production of [i] (tongue body's flat if the tip's at the alveolar ridge,
> and pushing it up a bit further could result in a configuration much like
> [i]). Though I wonder: Did lip rounding accompany the production of [x], and
> spread lips accompany the production of [s]? That would make all this make a
> bit more sense.
This may have been the case. With Vs > i, I was thinking of the
high formant of [s] being conducive to vocalization as [i].
In Uralic, there are two plural markers, *-t and *-i, of which
the latter occurs where something else follows it, and it may
be that a similar lenition process *t > *s > *i has happened
here.
> Very neat series of changes, though!
Thanks!
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Development of pronouns from Indo-Uralic to Albic
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 6:51 pm ((PDT))
--- On Sun, 4/3/11, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhieme...@web.de> wrote:
> Today I shall share with you a brief essay on Albic
> historical morphology. Enjoy!
I did indeed -- thank you! A fantastic job to take Albic back not just
to the IE level, but a whole level or two earlier.
I don't know a whole lot about what went on before I-E (I-U, Nostratic,
etc.) but as you may recall, I have a number of conlangs from the World
that are descendants of this very ancient superfamily. The underlying
fiction involves the breakup of the "Puntic" people, who were the
immediate ancestors of the I-E speakers and Semitic speakers. After a
great catastrophe destroyed their homeland, the Punt split up and the
younger languages developed. (I am aware that *here*, there is not much
currency to the "I-E-Semitic" theory, so chalk that up to artistic
license! But the two seem to be related via Nostratic.) I'd be terribly
interested if you knew of any sources, not too technical but not too
trivial either, on Nostratic or other similar proposed ancient proto-
languages. Mostly, I'm interested in reconstructed paradigms and word
lists. Though I suppose theory is not unwelcome, either!
Padraic
---
POIC icaqouis maccareire pros nesser, quois, nem uttato pethoou al jestes
avors ican, itaverver, al narsas vincere houperi al satanam.
Said Jesus: the one who prays on account of them, who, they carried out
evil deeds against him, that one indeed, the man conquers over the satan.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Development of pronouns from Indo-Uralic to Albic
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" joerg_rhieme...@web.de
Date: Mon Apr 4, 2011 8:09 am ((PDT))
Hallo!
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 18:49:35 -0700, Padraic Brown wrote:
> --- On Sun, 4/3/11, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhieme...@web.de> wrote:
>
> > Today I shall share with you a brief essay on Albic
> > historical morphology. Enjoy!
>
> I did indeed -- thank you! A fantastic job to take Albic back not just
> to the IE level, but a whole level or two earlier.
>
> I don't know a whole lot about what went on before I-E (I-U, Nostratic,
> etc.)
The consensus opinion in historical linguistics is that there is
too little evidence to tell, but I think there is some good
evidence for a relationship between Indo-European and Uralic,
and perhaps more distantly between these two and Yukaghir,
Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut (and yet more distantly
perhaps even Altaic, i.e. Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic),
and also some evidence for a sister group of Indo-European in
prehistoric western Europe. There is some work on internal
reconstruction in IE and on Indo-Uralic in circulation, such as
several articles by Jens Elmegård Rasmussen (collected in the
two-volume _Selected Papers on Historical Linguistics_) and
Frederik Kortlandt (most of which are found on his website,
www.kortlandt.nl). It cannot be said yet that the relationship
is certain, but it is hard to think of the existing similarities
as coincidence.
> but as you may recall, I have a number of conlangs from the World
> that are descendants of this very ancient superfamily. The underlying
> fiction involves the breakup of the "Puntic" people, who were the
> immediate ancestors of the I-E speakers and Semitic speakers. After a
> great catastrophe destroyed their homeland, the Punt split up and the
> younger languages developed. (I am aware that *here*, there is not much
> currency to the "I-E-Semitic" theory, so chalk that up to artistic
> license!
Sure. The hypothesis that Indo-European and Semitic were related
is quite popular, but in my opinion there is very little evidence
for it. Of course, you can do what you want in your conworld.
> But the two seem to be related via Nostratic.)
Yes. Nostratic traditionally encompasses Afro-Asiatic, Indo-
European, Uralic, Altaic, Kartvelian and Dravidian; sundry other
languages, ranging from Etruscan to Eskimo-Aleut, are also included
by some authore. There are two major and several minor attempts
at Proto-Nostratic reconstruction on the market, all of which
disagree with each other on sound correspondences and lexical
cognates. Which shows that the methods used are not all that
reliable (too many false positives!). I feel that most long-
range comparison relies too much on lexicon and pays too little
attention to morphology. Most of the IE/Semitic "cognate pairs"
I have seen are agricultural terms, and the sound correspondences
are irregular. These probably were wanderwörter in the Neolithic
Near East.
> I'd be terribly
> interested if you knew of any sources, not too technical but not too
> trivial either, on Nostratic or other similar proposed ancient proto-
> languages. Mostly, I'm interested in reconstructed paradigms and word
> lists. Though I suppose theory is not unwelcome, either!
Wikipedia has a useful list of literature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostratic_languages#References
Most of the stuff I have seen on long-range relationship is not
too technical in writing style, and easy to follow if you have
some basic understanding of historical linguistics. However,
most stuff has considerable methodological problems.
On Uralic and its eastern relationships, _Language Relations across
Bering Strait_ by Michael Fortescue is recommendable. I haven't
yet seen a satisfying comprehensive reconstruction of Indo-Uralic,
though, but some ideas are found in the articles of Rasmussen and
Kortlandt I have mentioned above.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: A translation exercise.
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 11:35 am ((PDT))
--- On Sat, 4/2/11, Sylvia Sotomayor <terje...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, I am feeling a bit poorly today
I hope our responses have brightened things up...
> and am therefore entertaining
> myself by rereading some of my favorite books.
Sounds like it might be something from Sherlock Holmes....?
> "I wish to know who it is who wishes us stopped, and
> moreover, why?"
>
> "Yes, why? For, if we do not know what we are doing, then
> it follows
> no one else does either; and, if no one knows what we are
> going to do,
> well then, why is someone so determined to prevent us from
> doing it?"
>
Kash:
mamelo makaya, kari na ya, mile yamelo yarindi, i lavi-lavini, ongar iyu?
hayi, ongar? ombi, kendi mila ta kaya kar mimepu, kendi yakaket re tapes kaç ta
kaya tatipo; i kendi tapes kaç ta kaya kar mila poro mepu, kendi ongar kaç
sambat cakavirap re yarindi re yu mimepu?
ma/melo ma/kaya, kari na ya, mile ya/melo ya/rindi, i lavi-lavi/ni, ongar iyu?
I/want I/know, who NA YA, we.DAT 3s/want 3s/stop, and REDUP.more/of.it why that?
na ya = particles that form a cleft sentence of this sort.
hayi, ongar? ombi, kendi mila ta kaya kar mi/mepu, kendi ya/kaket
yes why because, if we.emph. not know what we/do, then 3s/logically linked
re tapes kaç ta kaya tatipo; i kendi tapes kaç ta kaya kar
CONJ no person not know neither**; and if no person not know what
**whee-- a triple negative!!
mila poro mepu, kendi ongar kaç sambat caka/virap lire
we.emph. going-to do, then why person so.much ACCID/certain with.resp.that
ya/rindi re yu mi/mepu?
3s/stop CONJ it(acc) we/do?
Later I'll try to do this in Prevli, much more interesting maybe. But that will
take a while.........
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: A translation exercise.
Posted by: "Sylvia Sotomayor" terje...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 12:03 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Sat, 4/2/11, Sylvia Sotomayor <terje...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> So, I am feeling a bit poorly today
>
> I hope our responses have brightened things up...
They have!
>> and am therefore entertaining
>> myself by rereading some of my favorite books.
>
> Sounds like it might be something from Sherlock Holmes....?
Nothing so respectable, I assure you.
>> "I wish to know who it is who wishes us stopped, and
>> moreover, why?"
>>
>> "Yes, why? For, if we do not know what we are doing, then
>> it follows
>> no one else does either; and, if no one knows what we are
>> going to do,
>> well then, why is someone so determined to prevent us from
>> doing it?"
>>
> Kash:
> mamelo makaya, kari na ya, mile yamelo yarindi, i lavi-lavini, ongar iyu?
>
> hayi, ongar? ombi, kendi mila ta kaya kar mimepu, kendi yakaket re tapes kaç
> ta kaya tatipo; i kendi tapes kaç ta kaya kar mila poro mepu, kendi ongar kaç
> sambat cakavirap re yarindi re yu mimepu?
>
> ma/melo ma/kaya, kari na ya, mile ya/melo ya/rindi, i lavi-lavi/ni, ongar iyu?
> I/want I/know, who NA YA, we.DAT 3s/want 3s/stop, and REDUP.more/of.it why
> that?
> na ya = particles that form a cleft sentence of this sort.
>
> hayi, ongar? ombi, kendi mila ta kaya kar mi/mepu, kendi ya/kaket
> yes why because, if we.emph. not know what we/do, then 3s/logically linked
>
> re tapes kaç ta kaya tatipo; i kendi tapes kaç ta kaya kar
> CONJ no person not know neither**; and if no person not know what
> **whee-- a triple negative!!
Yay! You definitely get bonus points for that!
> mila poro mepu, kendi ongar kaç sambat caka/virap lire
> we.emph. going-to do, then why person so.much ACCID/certain with.resp.that
>
> ya/rindi re yu mi/mepu?
> 3s/stop CONJ it(acc) we/do?
>
> Later I'll try to do this in Prevli, much more interesting maybe. But that
> will take a while.........
>
-S
--
Sylvia Sotomayor
The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: A translation exercise.
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 2:16 pm ((PDT))
al Sylvia ziccucceto:
> > Ah, for the want of a relative system, Loucarian could be trimmed down
> > to half its verbosity!
> Ah, but there are bonus points for verbosity, too!
Oh goodie! That will come in handy when there's no simple word for
something (and one hasn't been borrowed) and a circumlocution will
have to be used!
orim pe al Cullen ziccucceto:
> In Çideaux:
Haven't heard of Çideax -- can you tell me more about it? Where it's from,
where it's spoken? It does look considerably Gallic.
Where does "sudélli" come from?
> "I wish to know who it is who wishes us stopped
> wish.1SG.PRS know.INF who.ACC wish.3SG.PRS REL
> stop.1PL.SUBJ
> "Sudélli a sapaire quique sudéllit que arrètessant
Padraic
---
eim vas v’ anaware, eim men meitas’ anaware
as you yourselves view, so indeed one-another view
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: A translation exercise.
Posted by: "Zach Wellstood" zwellst...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 5:02 pm ((PDT))
In Ḷaá Siri:
[PEJOR. - pejorative; INTERR - interrogative; PROX. - proximity marker;
EVID. - evidentiality marker; SENT. - sentient gender; LAUD. - laudative
PROG. - progressive; HAB. - habitual; HYP - hypothetical; PART - particle]
saḷaa ḷaasi'arĩ'ayií lasĩ? sasaá lĩtḷaa'iraayií rayaḷa. ri ḷaasi'araḷaayií
lasĩ? lĩtḷaa'iraayií 'i liyiyár 'i'aa sariḷaa'iri ri liyiya tḷaayaá li'iri.
'i'aa sii'ĩr sariḷaa'iri ri liyiya ri sasaá saa' ḷaasi'iralaayií lasĩ ri?
PEJOR.-INTERR. PROX.-PROX.-EVID.-would like force stop? PROX.-thing-SENT.
PROX.-PROX.-EVID.-would like know. LAUD.-INTERR. PROX.-PROX.-EVID.-would
like force stop? PROX.-PROX.-EVID.-would like know [because] if
PROG+HAB.-PROX.- know how (to be) do(ing) do, then not-no-SENT.PROX.-know
do. if {they} PROG.+HAB.-PROX.-know how (to be) do(ing) do, then
INTERR.-LAUD. thing-HYP. PART. PROX.-PROX.-EVID.-would like force stop do?
What person who is not in the vicinity would like to force us/y'all to come
to a stop? I would like to know (of) this animate thing. For what reason
would this thing (person) like to force us to stop? I would like to know
(it) because if those in my proximity don't know what to be doing, then no
one (person) can do (it). If they (no one) who are not in our vicinity don't
know how to do it, then for what reason do they (the person) really want to
force those in my vicinity to stop doing (it) ?
---
Mm, I feel like there's a lot of meaning not covered in the gloss. A lot of
those obnoxious "PROX.-" that you see have very different meanings. One
affix might mean "one in my immediate proximity," which another might mean
"hypothetical thing, thus not in anyone's proximity." I specifically
designed them to encode a lot of meaning to compensate for lack of personal
pronouns.
But if you have specific questions, I can answer those.
'Twas fun!
Xak
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Sylvia Sotomayor <terje...@gmail.com>wrote:
> So, I am feeling a bit poorly today and am therefore entertaining
> myself by rereading some of my favorite books. While doing so I came
> upon a passage that just begged to be translated. Here it is, slightly
> modified to hide who is speaking (because then you could google the
> name and know which book I'm reading, not that I'm really hiding it
> from anyone who recognizes the passage or the style anyway):
>
> "I wish to know who it is who wishes us stopped, and moreover, why?"
>
> "Yes, why? For, if we do not know what we are doing, then it follows
> no one else does either; and, if no one knows what we are going to do,
> well then, why is someone so determined to prevent us from doing it?"
>
> In Kēlen:
>
> sele jakīña ien sele jatēla ien sema jakīña ien ñi lēim mōrre mo makēñ ī
> tōkēñ;
>
> lerāe; tōkēñ; tō wā selte jatēla ien ñalta jāo tō-jāo wā sema mo mawae
> ī; tō wā sema jatēla ien rēha ñalta jāo tō sema jakesāo mo manahan ien
> ñi lēim mapāsre jē rēha ñalta jāo tōkēñ;
>
> An interlinear, more or less:
>
> to.1SG wish REL to.1SG knowledge REL to.3SG wish REL do 1PC stopped to
> who also why;
>
> yes; why; because not to.1PC knowledge REL 1PC.do that therefore not
> to.3SG to nobody also; because not to.3SG knowledge REL FUT 1PC.do
> that why to.3SG eager to someone REL do 1PC prevented from FUT 1PC.do
> that why?
>
> [SG = singular, PC = paucal, REL = relative pronoun, FUT = future tense
> marker]
>
> How would you say this in your conlang? Bonus points for convoluted
> sentence structure of course.
>
> -S
> --
> Sylvia Sotomayor
>
> The sooner I fall behind the more time I have to catch up.
>
--
<deviantART <http://sanguineepitaph.deviantart.com>> | <Say 'Yes' to
Conlanging! <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conlang>> | <Ḷaá
Siri<http://conlangers.freeforums.org/l-aa-siri-f65.html?sid=114445791ceda8891edfccc2bd24f7c0>>
| <Wexamazeovra <http://conlangers.freeforums.org/wexamazeovra-f17.html>>
"silaa’saá liya’a’i rali’a tḷasiyaá sisí saasaá ḷarralalí ḷaasi’iraa'lĩ."
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: A translation exercise.
Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" danny.c.bow...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Apr 3, 2011 7:43 pm ((PDT))
> "I wish to know who it is who wishes us stopped, and moreover, why?"
>
> "Yes, why? For, if we do not know what we are doing, then it follows
> no one else does either; and, if no one knows what we are going to do,
> well then, why is someone so determined to prevent us from doing it?"
>
I almost didn't try this challenge, for one simple reason: relative clauses
caused me years of struggling. I ran through several different structures
without finding one that fit, but over the last year I felt like I had found
a solution. Then came "I wish to know who it is who wishes us stopped..."
But the good new is, I tried it anyway, and it worked!
Isin sanaya isa al isin ama'ashtaya ishara elenra. I la?
I wish to know the one who wishes that we be stopped. Also, why?
Ay, la? Ah sene an sanaya isara elra ay anaya isara elra ay areyeth, es
ahouah an ngasanaya ava.
Yes, why? Because if you and I don't know what we are doing, then because
of this, no one else knows either.
I sene an ngasanaya ava ay anaya'au isara elra ay areyeth, sek la se sley
ngashtaya ava ay aveth sey?
Also, if others do not know what we will do, thus why is another so
insistent on stopping this thing?
Anyway, thanks for posting this, Sylvia, and I hope you feel better soon!
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Isolating morphology and case markings: a boundary pickle
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Apr 4, 2011 4:13 am ((PDT))
Andrew Mendes, On 02/04/2011 04:31:
> Wow! So I could assign one feature to phrase modifiers and another to head
> modifiers... or something like that?Haha, "macro" and "micro".
>
> Of course, cause I'd run into the same problems when it came to the relative
> clause, etc.
>
> I'd probably want to associate initial mutation (classifier awakening) with
> head modification, just cause there's (purposefully) heaps of synonyms, so
> modification would literally reduce ambiguity of the head (the more you
> describe something, the less ambiguous it becomes lexically)
>
> But then I'm left with the vowel shift for phrase modifiers. Would it have to
> run through the whole phrase... or if not, are there directionality
> implications (attempting a consistent comment-topic dynamic)?
>
> Is there a way to do this with only one "mechanism". Can it be done without
> the introduction of extra morphemes or cases... rather, can I do it without
> separating the initial mutation form the vowel shift?
>
> @dave (if they're true compounds) please elaborate :-)
>
> @and is that what you mean by singlewordhood?
"singlewordhood" = "property of being a single word". As for what counts as a
single word, in some ways that's very obvious and in some ways it's extremely
complicated (perhaps to the point of turning out to be a nonsensical, purely
folk-linguistic notion).
--And.
> On 1/04/2011, at 9:16 AM, David Peterson wrote:
>
>> On Mar 31, 2011, at 1◊11 PM, And Rosta wrote:
>>
>>> David Peterson, On 31/03/2011 20:55:
>>>> On Mar 31, 2011, at 5◊05 AM, Andrew Mendes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The problem I run into is with compounds and where/how to draw the line
>>>>> with this case usage.
>>>>
>>>> I'd think once it's a compound, the pieces are no longer accessible. Even
>>>> in English words with bizarre ordering (where we insist on putting plurals
>>>> in the "right" place) such as passerby (cf. passersby) and surgeon general
>>>> (cf. surgeons general), the genitive treats the whole thing as one word:
>>>>
>>>> 1a) The surgeon general's car.
>>>> 1b) #The surgeon's general car.
>>>>
>>>> 2a) The passerby's car.
>>>> 2b) #The passer's by car.
>>>
>>> This is not evidence for singlewordhood. 's cliticizes to the end of the
>>> phrase, not to the head word: "The person who was passing by's car".
>>
>>
>> Ack! Of course! Never mind, then. :)
>>
>> David Peterson
>> LCS President
>> l...@conlang.org
>> www.conlang.org
>
>
> On 1/04/2011, at 9:16 AM, David Peterson wrote:
>
>> On Mar 31, 2011, at 1◊11 PM, And Rosta wrote:
>>
>>> David Peterson, On 31/03/2011 20:55:
>>>> On Mar 31, 2011, at 5◊05 AM, Andrew Mendes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The problem I run into is with compounds and where/how to draw the line
>>>>> with this case usage.
>>>>
>>>> I'd think once it's a compound, the pieces are no longer accessible. Even
>>>> in English words with bizarre ordering (where we insist on putting plurals
>>>> in the "right" place) such as passerby (cf. passersby) and surgeon general
>>>> (cf. surgeons general), the genitive treats the whole thing as one word:
>>>>
>>>> 1a) The surgeon general's car.
>>>> 1b) #The surgeon's general car.
>>>>
>>>> 2a) The passerby's car.
>>>> 2b) #The passer's by car.
>>>
>>> This is not evidence for singlewordhood. 's cliticizes to the end of the
>>> phrase, not to the head word: "The person who was passing by's car".
>>
>>
>> Ack! Of course! Never mind, then. :)
>>
>> David Peterson
>> LCS President
>> l...@conlang.org
>> www.conlang.org
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Conlangs as Academic Evidence in Linguistic Studies: How Serious
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Apr 4, 2011 4:40 am ((PDT))
Jim Henry, On 28/03/2011 16:58:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Daniel Bowman<danny.c.bow...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> However, any
>> research that seeks to understand how a language might operate, or how a
>> particular system of grammar can work in practice, should be able to also
>> examine conlangs since many (I'm willing to wager the majority) of conlangs
>> are, in fact, usable.
>
> I would limit this to those conlangs for which we have a fair amount
> of evidence that the conlang is in fact usable, -- that is, conlangs
> that are or have been extensively used, if only by their creators.
> For most purposes, I'd even want to limit it to conlangs that have
> been learned fluently and used extensively by someone other than their
> creators;
These criteria aren't sufficiently stringent, for at least one major reason and
one minor one.
The major reason is that you must also ensure the users are using the language
properly (-- which requires that the language be documented with sufficient
thoroughness to determine if it is being used properly). When I was very
involved with Lojban, there was a lot of usage, but it was usage as done by
speakers with nowhere near anything resembling a command of the language. In
natlangs it can happen that speakers find that the only language they have in
common is one they each have only a rudimentary acquaintance with: these
speakers can prattle away with each other, in pidgin, oblivious to all their
mistakes, yet succeed in communicating, thanks to the power of Gricean
pragmatics. This was happening with Lojban: if you looked at what people
actually said, they hardly ever meant (or knew) what the sentences they used
meant, and their interlocutors hardly ever realized what the sentences meant
either. So really, they weren't actually speaking Lojban.
The minor reason is that some speakers can bring to bear a lot of
general-purpose brainpower in speaking, such as running in real time at a
conscious level a parse of what they are saying or hearing. This sort of
ability would correlate with some sorts of intelligence very much more strongly
than normal linguistic ability does. So although it's still interesting, and
does teach us stuff about quasilinguistic systems and about cognition, it
doesn't directly teach us about the human language faculty,
--And.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6. Coping with Lojban (was: Conlangs as Academic Evidence in Linguistic
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" joerg_rhieme...@web.de
Date: Mon Apr 4, 2011 8:34 am ((PDT))
Hallo!
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 12:37:06 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> [...] When I was very involved with Lojban, there was a lot of usage,
> but it was usage as done by speakers with nowhere near anything
> resembling a command of the language. [...]
Which doesn't really surprise me; I must say that I feel that Lojban
is one of the most difficult languages that are known to me. Its
grammar simply is unnatural - perhaps not as impossible to master
as Fith, but quite removed from human natural languages, making the
language a rather impractical juggernaut. Not that I ever was
seriously involved with Lojban, but I did try to understand how
Lojban works and what all that "logical language" fuzz is about, and
I soon ran into a barrier of alien concepts and untranslatable
terminology, and just could not get the hang of it.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. Re: My new language
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" pwd...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Apr 4, 2011 9:48 am ((PDT))
Sure.
1. ba
2. ba
3. ba
4. ba
5. ba
6. ba
7. ba
8. ba
9. ba
10. ba
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:39 AM, janko gorenc <j_gor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> Today I found on Constructed Languages List about your new conlang
> Alurastinanic.
> Please you tell me if you'll have numbers from Alurastinanic in future.
> Could you please send me numbers from 1 to 10?
>
> Thank you for your help!
>
> Janko Gorenc
> http://jankogorenc.cwnc.net/?page_id=4
> http://sites.google.com/site/jankogorenc/
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Patrick Dunn <pwd...@gmail.com>
> *To:* conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> *Sent:* Fri, April 1, 2011 7:30:42 PM
> *Subject:* My new language
>
> This language, called Alurastinanic (pronounced [ba]] is a oligofusional
> language in which all morphemes are fused into a single conjugation of the
> same syllable. The vocabulary and grammar are terms borrowed from the
> Swadesh list.
>
> I. Nouns
>
> Nouns have six genders (male, female, neuter, should be neutered, kind of
> attractive in a creepy way, and bark) and five cases (nominative,
> accusative, accusatory, accuvision, nomnominative [used only for food
> items]). They're also marked for four numbers (singular, singularity [used
> only for black holes], the number forty-two, and bark [used only for
> bark]).
>
> Each of the above morphemes is realized as a the syllable [ba], which fuses
> with the root, all of which are pronounced [ba]. Hence, a declension of
> the
> masculine noun [ba] in all its forms is as follows:
>
> [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba]
> [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba]
>
> II. Verbs
>
> Verbs conjugate for tense, mood, aspect, sleepiness, colorfulness,
> sleepiness, furiousness. Fortunately, all such morphemes are fused into
> one
> suffix: [ba], which attaches only to null roots.
>
> III. Adverbs
>
> No one likes adverbs.
>
> IV. Adjectives
>
> Adjectives usually agree with nouns, unless they've been drinking.
>
> V. Conjunctions
>
> What's your function?
>
> VI. Particles
>
> Every sentence contains a proverb particle and an antiverb particle, which
> undergo a transformation that moves them to the same syntax node, causing
> an
> explosion that converts both particles into pure meaning.
>
> VII. Conclusion
>
> I anticipate that this language will quickly supersede Klingon as a huge
> waste of dorks' time. It is perfectly regular and quite naturalistic, so I
> anticipate that the UN will adopt this as the official auxlang of the New
> World Order. Or, as we'll soon know it, [ba] (spelled
> "Polilogilogipastical").
>
--
I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window to
window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance. --Arthur Rimbaud
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
7b. Re: My new language
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Apr 4, 2011 10:00 am ((PDT))
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
This is TOO funny!
Adam
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Patrick Dunn <pwd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure.
>
> 1. ba
> 2. ba
> 3. ba
> 4. ba
> 5. ba
> 6. ba
> 7. ba
> 8. ba
> 9. ba
> 10. ba
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:39 AM, janko gorenc <j_gor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Patrick,
> >
> > Today I found on Constructed Languages List about your new conlang
> > Alurastinanic.
> > Please you tell me if you'll have numbers from Alurastinanic in future.
> > Could you please send me numbers from 1 to 10?
> >
> > Thank you for your help!
> >
> > Janko Gorenc
> > http://jankogorenc.cwnc.net/?page_id=4
> > http://sites.google.com/site/jankogorenc/
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* Patrick Dunn <pwd...@gmail.com>
> > *To:* conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> > *Sent:* Fri, April 1, 2011 7:30:42 PM
> > *Subject:* My new language
> >
> > This language, called Alurastinanic (pronounced [ba]] is a oligofusional
> > language in which all morphemes are fused into a single conjugation of
> the
> > same syllable. The vocabulary and grammar are terms borrowed from the
> > Swadesh list.
> >
> > I. Nouns
> >
> > Nouns have six genders (male, female, neuter, should be neutered, kind of
> > attractive in a creepy way, and bark) and five cases (nominative,
> > accusative, accusatory, accuvision, nomnominative [used only for food
> > items]). They're also marked for four numbers (singular, singularity
> [used
> > only for black holes], the number forty-two, and bark [used only for
> > bark]).
> >
> > Each of the above morphemes is realized as a the syllable [ba], which
> fuses
> > with the root, all of which are pronounced [ba]. Hence, a declension of
> > the
> > masculine noun [ba] in all its forms is as follows:
> >
> > [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba]
> [ba]
> > [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba] [ba]
> >
> > II. Verbs
> >
> > Verbs conjugate for tense, mood, aspect, sleepiness, colorfulness,
> > sleepiness, furiousness. Fortunately, all such morphemes are fused into
> > one
> > suffix: [ba], which attaches only to null roots.
> >
> > III. Adverbs
> >
> > No one likes adverbs.
> >
> > IV. Adjectives
> >
> > Adjectives usually agree with nouns, unless they've been drinking.
> >
> > V. Conjunctions
> >
> > What's your function?
> >
> > VI. Particles
> >
> > Every sentence contains a proverb particle and an antiverb particle,
> which
> > undergo a transformation that moves them to the same syntax node, causing
> > an
> > explosion that converts both particles into pure meaning.
> >
> > VII. Conclusion
> >
> > I anticipate that this language will quickly supersede Klingon as a huge
> > waste of dorks' time. It is perfectly regular and quite naturalistic, so
> I
> > anticipate that the UN will adopt this as the official auxlang of the New
> > World Order. Or, as we'll soon know it, [ba] (spelled
> > "Polilogilogipastical").
> >
>
>
>
> --
> I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window to
> window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance. --Arthur Rimbaud
>
Messages in this topic (19)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
