There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Hello, and a question
From: Padraic Brown
1.2. Re: Hello, and a question
From: Irina Rempt
2a. Heading/going X (was: Hello and a question)
From: Roger Mills
2b. Re: Heading/going X (was: Hello and a question)
From: Padraic Brown
3a. pronoun
From: Patrick Dunn
3b. Re: pronoun
From: Tony Harris
3c. Re: pronoun
From: Gabriel Winnberg
3d. Re: pronoun
From: Adam Walker
3e. Re: pronoun
From: Daniel Burgener
3f. Re: pronoun
From: Logan Kearsley
3g. Re: pronoun
From: Adam Walker
3h. Re: pronoun
From: Irina Rempt
3i. Re: pronoun
From: Mechthild Czapp
3j. Re: pronoun
From: Roman Rausch
4a. Re: PAL design goals (HALP! Trapped in a box!)
From: Logan Kearsley
5a. Re: Font creation software?
From: Calculator Ftvb
5b. Re: Font creation software?
From: yuri
5c. Re: Font creation software?
From: Michael Everson
5d. Re: Font creation software?
From: yuri
5e. Re: Font creation software?
From: Calculator Ftvb
5f. Re: Font creation software?
From: yuri
5g. Re: Font creation software?
From: yuri
5h. Re: Font creation software?
From: Michael Everson
5i. Re: Font creation software?
From: Michael Everson
5j. Re: Font creation software?
From: Calculator Ftvb
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Hello, and a question
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:41 am ((PDT))
--- On Sun, 6/26/11, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I no longer have the original msg.
> (And's I think) where the Australian phrase "...went bush"
> was cited. But I began to wonder this evening if _perhaps_
> it's their way of saying someone "went native"? Or did it in
> fact mean that someone "went (to/into) the bush"?
My Actual Australian Informant (TM) informs me that, whatever else it
might mean and however it might apply to chicks, it generally means "going
incommunicado", "going away where you can't contact me". In Australia
this generally implies actually going into the wilderness. I didn't catch
any sense of this being a permanent state, but I could be missing something
there.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: Hello, and a question
Posted by: "Irina Rempt" ir...@valdyas.org
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 6:23 am ((PDT))
On Monday 27 Jun 2011 14:41:40 Padraic wrote:
> --- On Sun, 6/26/11, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I no longer have the original msg.
> > (And's I think) where the Australian phrase "...went bush"
> > was cited. But I began to wonder this evening if _perhaps_
> > it's their way of saying someone "went native"? Or did it in
> > fact mean that someone "went (to/into) the bush"?
>
> My Actual Australian Informant (TM) informs me that, whatever else it
> might mean and however it might apply to chicks, it generally means "going
> incommunicado", "going away where you can't contact me". In Australia
> this generally implies actually going into the wilderness. I didn't catch
> any sense of this being a permanent state, but I could be missing something
> there.
Perhaps "went AWOL"?
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin.
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
New blog: http://valdyas.org/fo3
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Heading/going X (was: Hello and a question)
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:59 am ((PDT))
An interesting set of replies. Thanks to all.
Moi...
> I no longer have the original msg. (And's I think) where the Australian
> phrase "...went bush" was cited. But I began to wonder this evening if
> _perhaps_ it's their way of saying someone "went native"? Or did it in fact
> mean that someone "went (to/into) the bush"?
Yuri wrote:
"To go bush" means to leave civilization and live in the wilderness
(in parts of the world where that is still possible, eg West Coast of
the South Island of New Zealand).
A person with good survival skills can live off the land indefinitely.
Going on a hiking or camping trip is not included in the phrase "going bush".
It only applies to long term residence in the wild.
Padraic Brown wrote:
My Actual Australian Informant (TM) informs me that, whatever else it
might mean and however it might apply to chicks, it generally means "going
incommunicado", "going away where you can't contact me". In Australia
this generally implies actually going into the wilderness. I didn't catch
any sense of this being a permanent state, but I could be missing something
there.
Philip Newton wrote:
NB in the case discussed, the word was referring to scrub turkey
chicks - see the transcript
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/ling/stories/lf981212.htm . (The sign
that caught Pullum's attention said, "On hatching, the chicks scramble
to the surface and head bush on their own.")
RM: Certainly with ref. to the chicks, "head bush" seems definitely to mean
they "headed into the bush". Whereas "going bush" isn't quite "going native"
(though in a sense it would be, implying that you're going to live off the land
without mod cons as the aborigines do/did-- but not necessarily allying onself
with an aboriginal tribe and adopting their customs, which IME "going native"
does).
Would you be able to say that a person "headed bush" in that sense, or would
that only mean "headed into the bush" (for some reason or other).
The closest Amer.Engl. expression I can come up with (equiv. to Yuri's and
Padraic's) is 'to go off the grid'. While there are wilderness areas in the US
where one can go and live off the land (the Olympic Bomber who fled into the
relative wilds of N.Carolina comes to mind, but even he had help from
sympathizers), I don't think we have an idiom to express that idea. "Going
mountain/forest/desert"...noooo. "Going _into the_ mountains/etc.... yes. We do
have the idea of "mountain man", which is similar, but no "go..." expression
for that.
As to the larger question: what is the status of the noun/adjective in "going
X" or "heading X" expressions, to me it's clear that at least with some verbs
of motion which ordinarily take a prep.phrase indicating the direction (hence,
adverbial), in some cases the prep. can be deleted, leaving the noun (hence it
becomes "adverbial"). And it seems to me that you can't put just any noun in
the frame "go..." or "head..."
Note that one can make the noun more definitely adverbial by adding on
-ward(s), like the guy in Waugh's _Scoop_, who to minimize the word count in
his cables to London wrote things like "going Nairobiwards tomorrow"
I can't think of any "head X"'s that don't imply a direction; "go X" is another
matter, it can be directional (go east/home/downtown/)-- "go dancing/shopping"
are borderline. But we also have a number of expressions where "go" means
something more like "become", as in "go wild/crazy/ballistic/AWOL/missing".
Again I suspect there's a limited number of adjectives that can be used there.
In languages I'm familiar with, you can't do anything like this-- you need the
preposition: (Span.) ir a casa/al este/al centro; nor Ital. Fr. Germ., except
maybe in very colloquial/non-standard registers? Certainly not in Indonesian--
pergi ke rumah, ke timur etc.
Although when our group of students from Java went on a field trip to Bali, as
we were leaving, the director had the bus stop near the main street of Denpasar
and he called out "Siapa mau shopping lagi?" = who wants (to do,go) shopping
some more?, and everyone decamped from the bus ;-)))) But everyone was fluent
in English, and I don't think he could have used the Indo. word 'belanja' for
'shopping'.........
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Heading/going X (was: Hello and a question)
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:37 pm ((PDT))
--- On Mon, 6/27/11, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> An interesting set of replies. Thanks to all.
I think it's an interesting topic -- even Pullman's take on the matter is
an interesting read, though I disagree with a lot of his opinions on how
certain words can and can not be used.
> The closest Amer.Engl. expression I can come up with
> (equiv. to Yuri's and Padraic's) is 'to go off the grid'.
Indeed, though I at least wouldn't quite equate that disappearing into
the woods. To me, that just means disconnecting from an increasingly
e-connected culture. It implies things like snipping the cable tv (but
not giving up tv altogether) and terminating cell phone service (but
being quite happy with a landline). It might involve cutting up credit
cards and paying with cash and living a simpler life right in downtown
America.
> While there are wilderness areas in the US where one can go
> and live off the land (the Olympic Bomber who fled into the
> relative wilds of N.Carolina comes to mind, but even he had
> help from sympathizers), I don't think we have an idiom to
> express that idea. "Going mountain/forest/desert"...noooo.
> "Going _into the_ mountains/etc.... yes. We do have the idea
> of "mountain man", which is similar, but no "go..."
> expression for that.
Well, there's a blog for that:
http://www.myspace.com/mysillydrama/blog/441720822
> As to the larger question: what is the status of the
> noun/adjective in "going X" or "heading X" expressions, to
> me it's clear that at least with some verbs of motion which
> ordinarily take a prep.phrase indicating the direction
> (hence, adverbial), in some cases the prep. can be deleted,
> leaving the noun (hence it becomes "adverbial"). And it
> seems to me that you can't put just any noun in the frame
> "go..." or "head..."
Me I'm perfectly happy with calling them adverbs. They do what other
well known adverbs do in the same position. It all comes down to English's
ability to adverb nouns and adjectives without much ado. I know -- a
prescriptivist's nightmare! So I have no problem with calling it a straight
up adverb, or even wishywashying a little and calling it an adverbial
something or other.
Whatever we call it, it acts like other words we call adverbs.
Perhaps we "can't" put just any noun in there cos we haven't tried to?
If Aussie chicks can go bush and we can go mountain man, perhaps it's just
a matter of trying out some other way to head?
> Note that one can make the noun more definitely adverbial
> by adding on -ward(s), like the guy in Waugh's _Scoop_, who
> to minimize the word count in his cables to London wrote
> things like "going Nairobiwards tomorrow"
Right. This simply makes explicit the directionality of the phrase by
making a noun into an adverb.
> I can't think of any "head X"'s that don't imply a
> direction;
Well, "go native" doesn't, and "go mountainman" doesn't seem to. Those are
more states of being than directions of place.
> "go X" is another matter, it can be directional
> (go east/home/downtown/)-- "go dancing/shopping" are
> borderline.
Yeah. Some of these I think are simply phasal verbs. My interpretation of
"go shopping" doesn't really have anything to do with "go"ing somewhere
so much as "experiencing the activity of shopping", usually in company.
So for me, that's a phrasal verb.
> But we also have a number of expressions where
> "go" means something more like "become", as in "go
> wild/crazy/ballistic/AWOL/missing". Again I suspect there's
> a limited number of adjectives that can be used there.
Possibly. Though again, is this because of some sensible limitation or
simply because no one's thought of using a different adjective there?
Before WWII or thereabouts, "going stateside" wasn't part of the vernacular
and now it is. Someone had to start it.
> In languages I'm familiar with, you can't do anything like
> this-- you need the preposition: (Span.) ir a casa/al
> este/al centro; nor Ital. Fr. Germ., except maybe in very
> colloquial/non-standard registers? Certainly not in
> Indonesian-- pergi ke rumah, ke timur etc.
A wonderful property of English!
> Although when our group of students from Java went on a
> field trip to Bali, as we were leaving, the director had the
> bus stop near the main street of Denpasar and he called out
> "Siapa mau shopping lagi?" = who wants (to do,go) shopping
> some more?, and everyone decamped from the bus
> ;-)))) But everyone was fluent in English,
> and I don't think he could have used the Indo. word
> 'belanja' for 'shopping'.........
Is this related to Indonesian at all? I'm afraid I don't much at all about
languages of that area of the world :( except that whenever I look in an
Indonesian dictionary, I find all kinds of words I know simply because of
their relationship to Philippine languages.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. pronoun
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" pwd...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:32 am ((PDT))
Did I just invent a new first person plural pronoun?
We've got:
Inclusive We == you and I are going to . . .
Exclusive We == he and I but not you are going to . . .
Do we have an autoexclusive we?
The group to which I belong or identify but not necessarily I are going to .
. .
So: "We (the Oa) went to the moon, but not me personally"
"We (the team with which I identify) won the big game."
I was thinking I might add this to the slowly sprawling chart of Oasa
pronouns. Any Natlangs do this already? And better?
--Patrick
--
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 (10)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: pronoun
Posted by: "Tony Harris" t...@alurhsa.org
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 10:38 am ((PDT))
So, "the broader collective we that I belong to but personified in this
instance by someone other than me"?
Neat. Don't think I've ever heard of it before, but it makes sense.
On 06/27/2011 01:32 PM, Patrick Dunn wrote:
> Did I just invent a new first person plural pronoun?
>
> We've got:
> Inclusive We == you and I are going to . . .
> Exclusive We == he and I but not you are going to . . .
>
> Do we have an autoexclusive we?
> The group to which I belong or identify but not necessarily I are going to .
> . .
> So: "We (the Oa) went to the moon, but not me personally"
> "We (the team with which I identify) won the big game."
>
> I was thinking I might add this to the slowly sprawling chart of Oasa
> pronouns. Any Natlangs do this already? And better?
>
> --Patrick
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: pronoun
Posted by: "Gabriel Winnberg" g...@gabrielwinnberg.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:04 am ((PDT))
Two constructs come to mind that work that way and could with a little
will be seen as a form of extended pronouns.
1. In Spanish one can say 'nosotros dos' meaning we two, for example
as opposed to all of us including 'you'.
2. In English one says 'we the people' not necessarily including me.
I know it's not what you ask for but perhaps it can serve as inspiration.
Ciao,
Gabriel
Le 27 jun 2011 à 19:40, Tony Harris <t...@alurhsa.org> a écrit :
> So, "the broader collective we that I belong to but personified in this
> instance by someone other than me"?
>
> Neat. Don't think I've ever heard of it before, but it makes sense.
>
> On 06/27/2011 01:32 PM, Patrick Dunn wrote:
>> Did I just invent a new first person plural pronoun?
>>
>> We've got:
>> Inclusive We == you and I are going to . . .
>> Exclusive We == he and I but not you are going to . . .
>>
>> Do we have an autoexclusive we?
>> The group to which I belong or identify but not necessarily I are going to .
>> . .
>> So: "We (the Oa) went to the moon, but not me personally"
>> "We (the team with which I identify) won the big game."
>>
>> I was thinking I might add this to the slowly sprawling chart of Oasa
>> pronouns. Any Natlangs do this already? And better?
>>
>> --Patrick
>>
>>
>>
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: pronoun
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:35 am ((PDT))
Nice. I like this pronoun -- a lot. I feels very Lrahran. It that
language I had rediculous pronouns like the fourth person (used for
addressing an individual as a member of a group the actions of which they
may not be responsible for) and first person SINGULAR exclusive (the I which
is not I).
Adam
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Patrick Dunn <pwd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did I just invent a new first person plural pronoun?
>
> We've got:
> Inclusive We == you and I are going to . . .
> Exclusive We == he and I but not you are going to . . .
>
> Do we have an autoexclusive we?
> The group to which I belong or identify but not necessarily I are going to
> .
> . .
> So: "We (the Oa) went to the moon, but not me personally"
> "We (the team with which I identify) won the big game."
>
> I was thinking I might add this to the slowly sprawling chart of Oasa
> pronouns. Any Natlangs do this already? And better?
>
> --Patrick
>
>
>
> --
> 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 (10)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: pronoun
Posted by: "Daniel Burgener" burgener.dan...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:39 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nice. I like this pronoun -- a lot. I feels very Lrahran. It that
> language I had rediculous pronouns like the fourth person (used for
> addressing an individual as a member of a group the actions of which they
> may not be responsible for) and first person SINGULAR exclusive (the I which
> is not I).
When would one ever use a first person singular exclusive? When
talking to oneself? Or when trying to avoid responsibility for ones
actions?
-Daniel
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
3f. Re: pronoun
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" chronosur...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:48 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Daniel Burgener
<burgener.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nice. I like this pronoun -- a lot. I feels very Lrahran. It that
>> language I had rediculous pronouns like the fourth person (used for
>> addressing an individual as a member of a group the actions of which they
>> may not be responsible for) and first person SINGULAR exclusive (the I which
>> is not I).
>
> When would one ever use a first person singular exclusive? When
> talking to oneself? Or when trying to avoid responsibility for ones
> actions?
I have sometimes contemplated the utility of different 1st & 2nd
person pronouns to refer to different conceptualizations of
individuality. E.g., 'I' as a single indivisible entity including
body, consciousness, memories, etc., vs. 'I' as my mind as separate
from its physical incarnation vs. 'I' as my conscious personality,
etc. It helps with things like discussing the metaphysics of
teleportation, or making sentences like "I want to but at the same
time I don't want to" seem less self-contradictory.
-l.
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
3g. Re: pronoun
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:00 pm ((PDT))
This passge from Romans chapter 9 would be a prime candidate:
*14* <http://bible.cc/romans/7-14.htm>For we know that the law is spiritual:
but I am carnal, sold under sin. *15* <http://bible.cc/romans/7-15.htm>For
that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I
hate, that do I. *16* <http://bible.cc/romans/7-16.htm>If then I do that
which I would not, I consent unto the law that *it is* good.
*17*<http://bible.cc/romans/7-17.htm>Now
then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
*18*<http://bible.cc/romans/7-18.htm>For
I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to
will is present with me; but *how* to perform that which is good I find not.
*19* <http://bible.cc/romans/7-19.htm>For the good that I would I do not:
but the evil which I would not, that I do.
*20*<http://bible.cc/romans/7-20.htm>Now
if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth
in me.
As would this one from Galationas chapter 2:
*18* <http://bible.cc/galatians/2-18.htm>For if I build again the things
which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
*19*<http://bible.cc/galatians/2-19.htm>For
I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
*20*<http://bible.cc/galatians/2-20.htm>I
am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth
in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the
Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
*21*<http://bible.cc/galatians/2-21.htm>I
do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness *come* by the law,
then Christ is dead in vain.
------------------------------
It is mainly a philosophical concept among the Lrahran. It finds most of
its usage in religion, psychology and philosophy.
Adam
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Daniel Burgener
<burgener.dan...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nice. I like this pronoun -- a lot. I feels very Lrahran. It that
> > language I had rediculous pronouns like the fourth person (used for
> > addressing an individual as a member of a group the actions of which they
> > may not be responsible for) and first person SINGULAR exclusive (the I
> which
> > is not I).
>
> When would one ever use a first person singular exclusive? When
> talking to oneself? Or when trying to avoid responsibility for ones
> actions?
>
> -Daniel
>
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
3h. Re: pronoun
Posted by: "Irina Rempt" ir...@valdyas.org
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:49 pm ((PDT))
On Monday 27 Jun 2011 20:48:08 Logan Kearsley wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Daniel Burgener
> <burgener.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When would one ever use a first person singular exclusive? When
> > talking to oneself? Or when trying to avoid responsibility for ones
> > actions?
>
> I have sometimes contemplated the utility of different 1st & 2nd
> person pronouns to refer to different conceptualizations of
> individuality. E.g., 'I' as a single indivisible entity including
> body, consciousness, memories, etc., vs. 'I' as my mind as separate
> from its physical incarnation vs. 'I' as my conscious personality,
> etc. It helps with things like discussing the metaphysics of
> teleportation, or making sentences like "I want to but at the same
> time I don't want to" seem less self-contradictory.
Role-playing games; a way to say "I, the character" rather than "I, the
player" and still keep it first-person.
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin.
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
New blog: http://valdyas.org/fo3
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
3i. Re: pronoun
Posted by: "Mechthild Czapp" rejista...@me.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 1:17 pm ((PDT))
I actually see another purpose in these days where almost noone is living
subsistentially* and almost everyone works for an organisation of some kind. In
the context of the company (fictional) Sistenha Ines, a worker might say
something like this: "We-EXCLUDING-ME get a lot of requests about this feature,
but we-EXCL are not sure whether it is feasible." (ie: I never heard never a
feature request but it most likely cannot be done).
*if that does not make any grammatical sense, I mean, does not live as
subsistence farmer or the like.
Am 27.06.2011 um 19:59 schrieb Adam Walker:
> This passge from Romans chapter 9 would be a prime candidate:
>
> *14* <http://bible.cc/romans/7-14.htm>For we know that the law is spiritual:
> but I am carnal, sold under sin. *15* <http://bible.cc/romans/7-15.htm>For
> that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I
> hate, that do I. *16* <http://bible.cc/romans/7-16.htm>If then I do that
> which I would not, I consent unto the law that *it is* good.
> *17*<http://bible.cc/romans/7-17.htm>Now
> then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
> *18*<http://bible.cc/romans/7-18.htm>For
> I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to
> will is present with me; but *how* to perform that which is good I find not.
> *19* <http://bible.cc/romans/7-19.htm>For the good that I would I do not:
> but the evil which I would not, that I do.
> *20*<http://bible.cc/romans/7-20.htm>Now
> if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth
> in me.
>
>
> As would this one from Galationas chapter 2:
>
> *18* <http://bible.cc/galatians/2-18.htm>For if I build again the things
> which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
> *19*<http://bible.cc/galatians/2-19.htm>For
> I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
> *20*<http://bible.cc/galatians/2-20.htm>I
> am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth
> in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the
> Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
> *21*<http://bible.cc/galatians/2-21.htm>I
> do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness *come* by the law,
> then Christ is dead in vain.
>
> ------------------------------
> It is mainly a philosophical concept among the Lrahran. It finds most of
> its usage in religion, psychology and philosophy.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Daniel Burgener
> <burgener.dan...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Nice. I like this pronoun -- a lot. I feels very Lrahran. It that
>>> language I had rediculous pronouns like the fourth person (used for
>>> addressing an individual as a member of a group the actions of which they
>>> may not be responsible for) and first person SINGULAR exclusive (the I
>> which
>>> is not I).
>>
>> When would one ever use a first person singular exclusive? When
>> talking to oneself? Or when trying to avoid responsibility for ones
>> actions?
>>
>> -Daniel
>>
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
3j. Re: pronoun
Posted by: "Roman Rausch" ara...@mail.ru
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 1:20 pm ((PDT))
>Do we have an autoexclusive we?
>The group to which I belong or identify but not necessarily I are going to ...
Sounds a bit like the associative plural (http://wals.info/chapter/36),
except that the latter includes the referent. In fact, if you make a plural
out of it, you'll get 'objects/persons like this one, but not necessarily
the one I'm pointing to'. It's very cool, I might actually steal it. :-)
Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: PAL design goals (HALP! Trapped in a box!)
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" chronosur...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:50 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Peter Bleackley
<peter.bleack...@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> How's about using lots and lots of syllabic consonants? I think that
> syllabic consonants in a templatic morphology could be interesting.
That is precisely what I came up with as an assistance towards
concision with my di-cluster root syste.
-l.
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Font creation software?
Posted by: "Calculator Ftvb" i...@futuramerlin.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:57 pm ((PDT))
I love FontForge. It is what I always use for creating fonts. I tried
FontStruct once but found it highly unsatisfactory (not least because of the
geometric limitations and the licensing of the resulting fonts). I know next
to nothing about creating fonts, but for the simple things I need (letters &
diacritics, but no ligation et cetera) it works fine.
âCalculator Ftvb
P. S. I'm pretty sure http://www.kreativekorp.com/ucsur/ is not the real
CSUR; I think it is an extension of the main one (at
http://www.evertype.com/standards/csur/), as is explained at the
http://www.kreativekorp.com/ucsur/ page. I'm not sure about that though so
feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
On 26 June 2011 00:06, Rebecca Bettencourt <beckie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:30 PM, yuri <yur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Conlangers,
> >
> > I'm new to the list. I started creating my own conlang about 15 years
> > ago but it got put on the backburner. I'm resuming the project.
>
> Hi Yuri!
>
> > I'm interested in what software people recommend for creating a font
> > for my script.
> >
> > I have installed fontforge and inkscape, with the idea of creating the
> > glyphs in inkscape and importing the SVG for each glyph into
> > fontforge.
>
> For the price, you can't beat FontForge. It can do everything you
> need, though it gets a bit technical. A tip if you're going to be
> importing from SVG files: put a rectangle of a constant height around
> each glyph so they remain the same size when imported, then remove the
> rectangle after importing.
>
> The only other font software I've used is something called ScanFont,
> but only just to trace outlines from a scanned image; it's pretty
> terrible at actually producing a valid font. :P
>
> > Also, I understand the unicode address space includes areas for
> > private use. Can anyone tell me more about that?
>
> Yes, code points E000 to F8FF and F0000 and above are set aside as
> private use. That means Unicode itself won't ever define what those
> code points mean; whoever is exchanging text using those code points
> has to come up with their own agreement as to what those code points
> mean.
>
> The conlang community has their own agreement about what private use
> code points mean. It's called the ConScript Unicode Registry. More
> information is here:
>
> http://www.kreativekorp.com/ucsur/
>
> If you'd like some Unicode code space, find some unassigned space in
> that list, put together a proposal including a list of all the
> character names and the code points you'd like to assign them, and
> then I can add it.
>
> > One required feature is the ability to compose any combination of base
> > letter and diacritics.
> > I'd like to avoid having to have a font full of precomposed characters
> > because the diacritics above each base letter is the vowel, and the
> > diacritic below the base letter indicates voiced/unvoiced and
> > aspirated/unaspirated, so the combinations could run into the
> > thousands.
> >
> > The base letters themselves are all consonants.
>
> If the base letters are all the same width, this is easy. The
> diacritics are just zero-width characters with the glyph to the left
> of the origin. If they're all different widths, though, you'll need to
> do a lot more work, but it can be done. Something about GPOS tables or
> something; I've actually never done it before.
>
> -- Rebecca Bettencourt
>
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: Font creation software?
Posted by: "yuri" yur...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:06 pm ((PDT))
On 28 June 2011 10:56, Calculator Ftvb wrote:
> I love FontForge. It is what I always use for creating fonts. I tried
> FontStruct once but found it highly unsatisfactory (not least because of the
> geometric limitations and the licensing of the resulting fonts). I know next
> to nothing about creating fonts, but for the simple things I need (letters &
> diacritics, but no ligation et cetera) it works fine.
Speaking of ligation, can diacritics be ligated?
In a script which uses diacritics for vowels, a simple vowel might
appear above the middle of the consonant, while a diphthong might be
two vowel diacritics side by side above the consonant. A ligature of
each diphthong might simplify typesetting.
Yuri de Groot
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. Re: Font creation software?
Posted by: "Michael Everson" ever...@evertype.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:07 pm ((PDT))
I draw with Fontographer and process with FontLab.
I started, back in the day, with Fontastic+.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
5d. Re: Font creation software?
Posted by: "yuri" yur...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:10 pm ((PDT))
On 27 June 2011 23:01, BPJ wrote:
> I, who am lousy at drawing freehand and at drawing with
> points-and-handles in a GUI due to medical reasons (I
> have cerebral palsy) do my drawing with MetaPost --
Just looked it up and it looks very useful.
Yet another programming language to learn though :-(
Mind you I had considered learning postscript to generate my font.
Postscript's RPN syntax is familiar to this old timer who still loves
his HP48 calculator.
Yuri
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
5e. Re: Font creation software?
Posted by: "Calculator Ftvb" i...@futuramerlin.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:12 pm ((PDT))
>
>
> Speaking of ligation, can diacritics be ligated?
>
I don't know from a technical standpoint, but certainly I have done it in my
conlangs ;-)
Technically it would probably need something like opentype complex text
rendering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenType#Advanced_typography) but I
don't know for sure.
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
5f. Re: Font creation software?
Posted by: "yuri" yur...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:15 pm ((PDT))
On 28 June 2011 11:07, Michael Everson wrote:
> I draw with Fontographer and process with FontLab.
Can't find Fontographer in my distro's repositories.
Ditto for FontLab.
If I ever switch to MacOS or Windows I give them a try.
Thanks
Yuri
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
5g. Re: Font creation software?
Posted by: "yuri" yur...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:21 pm ((PDT))
On 28 June 2011 11:11, Calculator Ftvb wrote:
>>
>>
>> Speaking of ligation, can diacritics be ligated?
>>
> I don't know from a technical standpoint, but certainly I have done it in my
> conlangs ;-)
> Technically it would probably need something like opentype complex text
> rendering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenType#Advanced_typography) but
> I don't know for sure.
Meh. Too much complexity to learn. I have a workaround anyway. Each
vowel diacritic will have three versions: centred, left of centre and
right of centre. It will use up 3 times as many code points, but hey,
I'm saving codepoints by not having capital letters.
Yuri de Groot.
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
5h. Re: Font creation software?
Posted by: "Michael Everson" ever...@evertype.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:23 pm ((PDT))
On 28 Jun 2011, at 00:06, yuri wrote:
> Speaking of ligation, can diacritics be ligated?
Yes. See Greek.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
5i. Re: Font creation software?
Posted by: "Michael Everson" ever...@evertype.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:25 pm ((PDT))
On 28 Jun 2011, at 00:15, yuri wrote:
> On 28 June 2011 11:07, Michael Everson wrote:
>> I draw with Fontographer and process with FontLab.
>
> Can't find Fontographer in my distro's repositories.
> Ditto for FontLab.
My condolences.
> If I ever switch to MacOS or Windows I give them a try.
The Mac OS is a joy to use. Do what you want, though. :-)
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Messages in this topic (20)
________________________________________________________________________
5j. Re: Font creation software?
Posted by: "Calculator Ftvb" i...@futuramerlin.com
Date: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:37 pm ((PDT))
Hmm, I've used Mac OS for a while but one of the key things that encouraged
me to switch to Linux is that FontForge was really hard to make work in Mac
OS but it worked out of the box in Linux. :-P
On 27 June 2011 19:25, Michael Everson <ever...@evertype.com> wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2011, at 00:15, yuri wrote:
> > On 28 June 2011 11:07, Michael Everson wrote:
> >> I draw with Fontographer and process with FontLab.
> >
> > Can't find Fontographer in my distro's repositories.
> > Ditto for FontLab.
>
> My condolences.
>
> > If I ever switch to MacOS or Windows I give them a try.
>
> The Mac OS is a joy to use. Do what you want, though. :-)
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
Messages in this topic (20)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
