There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: skyrim's dragon language
From: Ben Scerri
1b. Re: skyrim's dragon language
From: Patrick Dunn
1c. Re: skyrim's dragon language
From: Padraic Brown
1d. Re: skyrim's dragon language
From: Nikolay Ivankov
1e. Re: skyrim's dragon language
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
1f. Re: skyrim's dragon language
From: Michael Everson
2.1. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: And Rosta
2.2. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: Matthew DeBlock
2.3. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
2.4. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
2.5. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: Michael Everson
2.6. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: R A Brown
3a. Re: 3rd person pronouns
From: neo gu
4.1. Re: Return to FairyLang (was: copula) - Longish
From: John Erickson
5. Leviathan Wakes' Belter Patoi
From: George Corley
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: skyrim's dragon language
Posted by: "Ben Scerri" psykieki...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:30 pm ((PDT))
Is that seriously Esperanto? Please excuse my own ignorance, but it leaves
a simple question: Why the hell, then, did they claim it was gibberish?
That is really weird. I need to find that interview where they said it was
gibberish. This may take some time.
Do you mind translating to English, please?
On 24 July 2012 09:27, Patrick Dunn <pwd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Madeline Palmer <mad9l...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hey guys,
> > This is my first reply to this list although I've been reading your
> > discussions for some time.
> > I don't know anything about video games in general or Skyrim in
> > particular but I am aware of the existence of the Skyrim dragon language.
> > I'm not going to bash it or make fun of it, I think that (from what
> little
> > I know of it) is a perfectly fine conlang for the purposes which it is
> used
> > for, i.e. for a video game. It needs to be relatively simple and
> > understandable for the average person if they're interested and was
> > probably not designed by a linguist.
> > The only problem I have with it is the phonetic system is basically a *
> > human* one. It includes /b/, /d/ and /f/ as well as other bilabial and
> > dental sounds which the articulatory system of another species (for
> > instance one with a forked tongue or no lips to speak of) might not be
> able
> > to create such as in words as *denek *'soil,' *brod *'clan' and
> > *tafiir *'thief' (examples
> > are from http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Dragon_Language).
> > This isn't really a "problem," as I said before it's perfectly fine for
> > what it was meant for and for the average person wanting to learn a
> conlang
> > it is usually better not to include a large array of strange, rare or
> > "inhuman" sounds. It isn't bad, it's just designed for a limited
> > application and yes, is definitely a work in progress.
> > I have thought a great deal about draconic languages over the years so
> > the moment I found out about the Skyrim language, these thoughts popped
> > into my head. Currently www.Fiatlingua.org <http://www.fiatlingua.org/>
> > is
> > publishing a dragon language I have been working on for a while which is
> a
> > little bit more developed and which--I feel--might be a little bit more
> > representative of what a draconic language would sound like but also has
> > some interesting grammatical concepts and worldviews which an extremely
> > long-lived, predatory species might function in. Its being published in
> > sections beginning with last February's posting under the name
> *Srínawésin:
> > The Language of the Kindred* and you're more then welcome to check it
> out.
> > I'd love to hear what you might think about it!
> >
>
> What I think of it is that it is awesome beyond belief. One of my top all
> time favorite conlangs, up there with Teonaht for coolness.
>
> Thanks for working on it.
>
> --Patrick
>
>
> --
> Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
> order from Finishing Line
> Press<
> http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
> and
> Amazon<
> http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2
> >.
>
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: skyrim's dragon language
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" pwd...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:03 pm ((PDT))
My Esperanto isn't good enough to do the translation, but you can find it
here:
http://www.imperial-library.info/content/mystery-ngasta-kvata-kvakis
(The Bible of the Deep Ones is an excerpt of Ngasta Kvata Kvakis, which is
why it mentions that book)
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Ben Scerri <psykieki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is that seriously Esperanto? Please excuse my own ignorance, but it leaves
> a simple question: Why the hell, then, did they claim it was gibberish?
> That is really weird. I need to find that interview where they said it was
> gibberish. This may take some time.
>
> Do you mind translating to English, please?
>
> On 24 July 2012 09:27, Patrick Dunn <pwd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Madeline Palmer <mad9l...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hey guys,
> > > This is my first reply to this list although I've been reading your
> > > discussions for some time.
> > > I don't know anything about video games in general or Skyrim in
> > > particular but I am aware of the existence of the Skyrim dragon
> language.
> > > I'm not going to bash it or make fun of it, I think that (from what
> > little
> > > I know of it) is a perfectly fine conlang for the purposes which it is
> > used
> > > for, i.e. for a video game. It needs to be relatively simple and
> > > understandable for the average person if they're interested and was
> > > probably not designed by a linguist.
> > > The only problem I have with it is the phonetic system is basically
> a *
> > > human* one. It includes /b/, /d/ and /f/ as well as other bilabial and
> > > dental sounds which the articulatory system of another species (for
> > > instance one with a forked tongue or no lips to speak of) might not be
> > able
> > > to create such as in words as *denek *'soil,' *brod *'clan' and
> > > *tafiir *'thief' (examples
> > > are from http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Dragon_Language).
> > > This isn't really a "problem," as I said before it's perfectly fine
> for
> > > what it was meant for and for the average person wanting to learn a
> > conlang
> > > it is usually better not to include a large array of strange, rare or
> > > "inhuman" sounds. It isn't bad, it's just designed for a limited
> > > application and yes, is definitely a work in progress.
> > > I have thought a great deal about draconic languages over the years
> so
> > > the moment I found out about the Skyrim language, these thoughts popped
> > > into my head. Currently www.Fiatlingua.org <
> http://www.fiatlingua.org/>
> > > is
> > > publishing a dragon language I have been working on for a while which
> is
> > a
> > > little bit more developed and which--I feel--might be a little bit more
> > > representative of what a draconic language would sound like but also
> has
> > > some interesting grammatical concepts and worldviews which an extremely
> > > long-lived, predatory species might function in. Its being published
> in
> > > sections beginning with last February's posting under the name
> > *Srínawésin:
> > > The Language of the Kindred* and you're more then welcome to check it
> > out.
> > > I'd love to hear what you might think about it!
> > >
> >
> > What I think of it is that it is awesome beyond belief. One of my top
> all
> > time favorite conlangs, up there with Teonaht for coolness.
> >
> > Thanks for working on it.
> >
> > --Patrick
> >
> >
> > --
> > Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
> > order from Finishing Line
> > Press<
> > http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
> > and
> > Amazon<
> >
> http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2
> > >.
> >
>
--
Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
order from Finishing Line
Press<http://www.finishinglinepress.com/NewReleasesandForthcomingTitles.htm>
and
Amazon<http://www.amazon.com/Second-Person-Patrick-Dunn/dp/1599249065/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1324342341&sr=8-2>.
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: skyrim's dragon language
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:33 pm ((PDT))
--- On Mon, 7/23/12, Madeline Palmer <mad9l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The only problem I have with it is the phonetic
> system is basically a *
> human* one. It includes /b/, /d/ and /f/ as well as
> other bilabial and
> dental sounds which the articulatory system of another
> species (for
> instance one with a forked tongue or no lips to speak of)
> might not be able
> to create such as in words as *denek *'soil,' *brod *'clan'
> and *tafiir *'thief'
Perhaps dragons, like your average budgerigar, are able to utilize parts
of their body other than the non-existent lips (e.g.) to speak. In other
words, many kinds of birds are able to emulate perfectly understandable
human speech sounds, including sounds that you might intuitively think
they oughtn't be able to even say, cos they don't share our vocal tract
anatomy, and indeed have a quite different anatomy. (We had a nice long
thread on bird speech some months ago -- if you take as true that
birds and ancient reptiles (dinosaurs) are related, and that dragons are
some sort of reptile, then it might not be a great leap to posit that
dragons have vocal tracts not unlike those of birds. Syrinxes and so forth.
Perhaps this is the language they use when talking to those funny (but
rather tasty) clever apes, while their own far nobler tongue is reserved
for those refined beings who are not only capable of biphonation, but also
of the more erudite and deeper thoughts that, as you say, only a very
long lived species is capable of? I.e., other dragons!
Padraic
> (examples
> are from http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Dragon_Language).
> This isn't really a "problem," as I said before it's
> perfectly fine for
> what it was meant for and for the average person wanting to
> learn a conlang
> it is usually better not to include a large array of
> strange, rare or
> "inhuman" sounds. It isn't bad, it's just designed for
> a limited
> application and yes, is definitely a work in progress.
> I have thought a great deal about draconic languages
> over the years so
> the moment I found out about the Skyrim language, these
> thoughts popped
> into my head. Currently www.Fiatlingua.org <http://www.fiatlingua.org/> is
> publishing a dragon language I have been working on for a
> while which is a
> little bit more developed and which--I feel--might be a
> little bit more
> representative of what a draconic language would sound like
> but also has
> some interesting grammatical concepts and worldviews which
> an extremely
> long-lived, predatory species might function in. Its
> being published in
> sections beginning with last February's posting under the
> name *Srínawésin:
> The Language of the Kindred* and you're more then welcome to
> check it out.
> I'd love to hear what you might think about it!
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: skyrim's dragon language
Posted by: "Nikolay Ivankov" lukevil...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:12 pm ((PDT))
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Ben Scerri <psykieki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That was indeed the case, however that book, _Bible of the Deep Ones_, is
> gibberish in English, and was said by Bethesda to be random gibberish made
> to look good. The transcription is below, if anyone wants to attempt to
> find some reason to it :P
>
> so cxiumonataj kunvenauw, sed nature ankoix pri aliaj aktuasoj aktivecauw
> so societo. Ne malofte enahkstas krome plej diversaspekta materialo eduka
> oix distra.
>
> So interreta Kvako (retletera kaj verjheauw) ahkstas unufsonke alternativaj
> kanasouw por distribui so enhavon so papera Kva! Kvak!. Sed alifsonke so
> enhavauw so diversaj verjheauw antoixvible ne povas kaj ecx ne vus cxiam
> ahksti centprocente so sama. En malvaste cirkusonta paperfolio ekzemple
> ebsos publikigi ilustrajxauwn, kiuj pro kopirajtaj kiasouw ne ahkstas
> uzebsoj en so interreto. Alifsonke so masoltaj kostauw reta distribuo
> forigas so spacajn limigauwn kaj permahksas pli ampleksan enhavon, por ne
> paroli pri gxishora aktualeco.
>
> Tiuj cirkonstancauw rahkspeguligxos en so aspekto so Kvakoa, kiu ja cetere
> servos ankoix kiel gxeneraso retejo so ranetauw.
>
> On 24 July 2012 00:25, Nikolay Ivankov <lukevil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Ok, I was not that interested in this artifact at that time to look what it
really was %B
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Nikolay Ivankov <lukevil...@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:02:41 -0400, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >My understanding is that the Dragon language is largely a relex of
> > >> English
> > >> >-- and intentionally so in order to allow players to easily decipher
> > it.
> > >>
> > >> It looks to me like the "Song of the Dragonborn" will have been first
> > >> composed in English and then this Dragon language constructed so that
> no
> > >> changes to the metrical / musical / ... arrangement were necessary.
> So
> > not
> > >> only is it a relex, but with only one pair of exceptions in line 2
> every
> > >> word has the same _syllable count_ as its English equivalent, and the
> > >> line-final rhymes (and their absence at "kings" / "unbound"!) were
> > >> preserved as well.
> > >>
> > >> Alex
> > >>
> > >
> > > But really, this is STILL BETTER then, say, Oblivion, with daedric
> > > alphabet being just English with "whimsicated" characters, and the
> > language
> > > was just plain English. I'm not that pretty sure in that, but it may be
> > > easily proven: in one of the villages (a tavern right in the middle of
> > the
> > > forest somewhere no the Nord-East from the capital, led by a
> middle-aged
> > > redguard couple) there was a whole book written in Daedric, and I'm
> > pretty
> > > sure it was just plain English. So the current stage in Skyrim is
> > > definitely a progress.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, North-West, AFAIR.
> >
>
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: skyrim's dragon language
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" tsela...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:31 pm ((PDT))
On 24 July 2012 01:30, Ben Scerri <psykieki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is that seriously Esperanto?
Yes, but
> Please excuse my own ignorance, but it leaves
> a simple question: Why the hell, then, did they claim it was gibberish?
> That is really weird. I need to find that interview where they said it was
> gibberish. This may take some time.
>
>
I can't check Patrick's link (the firewall here at work blocks it), but I
agree it's Esperanto (although a bit mangled, maybe to make it less
recognisable).
As for why they claimed it was gibberish, maybe they just don't have that
high an opinion of Esperanto...
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: skyrim's dragon language
Posted by: "Michael Everson" ever...@evertype.com
Date: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:56 am ((PDT))
On 24 Jul 2012, at 00:30, Ben Scerri wrote:
> Is that seriously Esperanto? Please excuse my own ignorance, but it leaves a
> simple question: Why the hell, then, did they claim it was gibberish?
Perhaps for the same reason the Esperantists call nonsense 'volapukaĵo".
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:32 pm ((PDT))
Michael Everson, On 23/07/2012 15:36:
> On 23 Jul 2012, at 15:08, And Rosta wrote:
>
>> Like most handwriters, I find that the requirement to lift the pen
>> is one of the greatest impediments to speed of writing.
>
> If this overgeneralization were true (that "most" handwriters found
> this to be problematic) then we might expect to see a lot more
> examples of this in the writing systems of the world. We don't,
> though. Separated strokes, in fact, add to distinctiveness and
> legibility.
My generalization is true: as evidence I adduce cursive scripts, and the way
the letters in all-majuscule text tend to be formed when handwritten quickly.
But your logic is strange. Writing systems of the world evolve under more
selectional pressures than just speed of writing; distinctiveness and
legibility are very important.
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets, On 23/07/2012 15:50:
> In my experience, it's not lifting the pen that is the greatest impediment
> to the speed of writing: it's loops and backtracking for things like the
> dot on the i (basically anything that forces you to change direction
> significantly). Lifting the pen doesn't impede speed of writing *at all*,
> as long as you can keep the general movement going (so putting spaces
> between words doesn't impede speed of writing).
I think one does see in handwriting that the more hastily it is written the
less the pen tends to be lifted, but when I spoke of pen-lifting, I was really
thinking of dotting i's and crossing t's and putting crossbars on E and F and
writing X and so forth, i.e. where the pen-lift is accompanied by a change of
direction and spatial jump (either within a letter or between letters).
BPJ, On 23/07/2012 16:00:
> In fact was empirically shown in the second to last
> century that the greatest impediment to speed in
> handwriting is redundancy in the shapes of the symbols.
For writing roman quicker, this may well be true; and redundancylessness was
one of the criteria I listed for the Livagian design.
But I don't believe it's true in general that redundancy in shape is the
biggest impediment to speed. Imagine on the one hand a system with some
redundancy but with characters designed to minimize number of strokes and
travel distancebetween letters, and on the other hand a system with no
redundancy but with no attempt to minimize number of strokes and inter-letter
travel distance. I'd predict the former would be easier to write.
> To a very limited degree penlifts are avoided compared to longhand,
> e.g. prepositions or auxiliaries may be joined to the
> following/preceding word, but in general word space fulfills the same
> useful purpose as in longhand: to separate words. If the movement you
> make with the pen lifted stays in flow and rythm with the preceding
> and following movements with the pen lowered the time and effort
> spent in lifting/lowering the pen a millimeter or so is negligible.
I was thinking more of within-character or between-character penlifts than of
between-word penlifts. I.e. not so much the simple act of lifting the pen (tho
see what I said to Christophe) but rather the graphical pattern that
necessitates the penlift.
Livagian can be written with white-space between words, but isn't, partly for
compactness, partly to reflect speech, and partly because the basic linguistic
unit is the sentence, and dividing the sentence up into words is not
necessarily analytically warranted.
>> In an earlier version, the end of one character could overlap with the
>> start of the next, but I abandoned that for reasons that I forget, but
>> which were connected to making character boundaries unambiguous.
>
> I would argue this is a mistake, you should take that route i think
>
> In my opinion the characters you have laid out are ather ambiguos
> granted I am an "untrained eye", so im likely missing some simple visual
> motor skills that could help, but i find them very hard to disguish.
I agree; I suspect the script is comparatively low on legibility. I'm not sure,
though, how to increase legibility while still maintaining other requirements
like speed of writing and compactness.
> the characters are all derrived from the "same set of few simple principles"
>
> there is very little "uniquess" between them... if you made a huge
> alphabet form those, it would require a whole new set of principles and
> "occular motor skills"(suck at biology hehe).
I agree, especially because the script is not only cursive but also
omnidirectional.
> Basically, please dont take offence, but i think if you go down this road
> the way you are talking you will completly abandon all of the current
> "visual recogniction skill", "physical eye motor control", etc.
>
> I dont think thats bad, I love the idea.. but I meyself ended at the
> conclusion that...
>
> you cant re-invent it from scratch, it takes too long to learn, assimalte,
> and propagate.
>
> You have to at bare minimum "piggy back" on something.
>
> I'm not referring to the language, just to the base "physical" skills of
> your audience..
Your advice is sensible, and I can see why it's applicable to Dscript, but tho
Livagian is intended to be perfect for what it's designed for, it isn't
designed to be easily and readily learnt and adopted.
> back to the original point, dont make a "huge alphabet" i think, go down
> the "letting them overlap" road.. i see some real potential there
Is that just a gut feeling, or can you explain why?
--And.
Messages in this topic (27)
________________________________________________________________________
2.2. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "Matthew DeBlock" vas...@dscript.ca
Date: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:08 pm ((PDT))
> Michael Everson, On 23/07/2012 15:36:
>> On 23 Jul 2012, at 15:08, And Rosta wrote:
>>
>>> Like most handwriters, I find that the requirement to lift the pen
>>> is one of the greatest impediments to speed of writing.
>>
>> If this overgeneralization were true (that "most" handwriters found
>> this to be problematic) then we might expect to see a lot more
>> examples of this in the writing systems of the world. We don't,
>> though. Separated strokes, in fact, add to distinctiveness and
>> legibility.
>
> My generalization is true: as evidence I adduce cursive scripts, and the
> way the letters in all-majuscule text tend to be formed when handwritten
> quickly. But your logic is strange. Writing systems of the world evolve
> under more selectional pressures than just speed of writing;
> distinctiveness and legibility are very important.
>
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets, On 23/07/2012 15:50:
>> In my experience, it's not lifting the pen that is the greatest
>> impediment
>> to the speed of writing: it's loops and backtracking for things like the
>> dot on the i (basically anything that forces you to change direction
>> significantly). Lifting the pen doesn't impede speed of writing *at
>> all*,
>> as long as you can keep the general movement going (so putting spaces
>> between words doesn't impede speed of writing).
>
> I think one does see in handwriting that the more hastily it is written
> the less the pen tends to be lifted, but when I spoke of pen-lifting, I
> was really thinking of dotting i's and crossing t's and putting crossbars
> on E and F and writing X and so forth, i.e. where the pen-lift is
> accompanied by a change of direction and spatial jump (either within a
> letter or between letters).
>
> BPJ, On 23/07/2012 16:00:
>> In fact was empirically shown in the second to last
>> century that the greatest impediment to speed in
>> handwriting is redundancy in the shapes of the symbols.
>
> For writing roman quicker, this may well be true; and redundancylessness
> was one of the criteria I listed for the Livagian design.
>
> But I don't believe it's true in general that redundancy in shape is the
> biggest impediment to speed. Imagine on the one hand a system with some
> redundancy but with characters designed to minimize number of strokes and
> travel distancebetween letters, and on the other hand a system with no
> redundancy but with no attempt to minimize number of strokes and
> inter-letter travel distance. I'd predict the former would be easier to
> write.
>
>> To a very limited degree penlifts are avoided compared to longhand,
>> e.g. prepositions or auxiliaries may be joined to the
>> following/preceding word, but in general word space fulfills the same
>> useful purpose as in longhand: to separate words. If the movement you
>> make with the pen lifted stays in flow and rythm with the preceding
>> and following movements with the pen lowered the time and effort
>> spent in lifting/lowering the pen a millimeter or so is negligible.
>
> I was thinking more of within-character or between-character penlifts than
> of between-word penlifts. I.e. not so much the simple act of lifting the
> pen (tho see what I said to Christophe) but rather the graphical pattern
> that necessitates the penlift.
>
> Livagian can be written with white-space between words, but isn't, partly
> for compactness, partly to reflect speech, and partly because the basic
> linguistic unit is the sentence, and dividing the sentence up into words
> is not necessarily analytically warranted.
>
>>> In an earlier version, the end of one character could overlap with the
>>> start of the next, but I abandoned that for reasons that I forget, but
>>> which were connected to making character boundaries unambiguous.
>>
>> I would argue this is a mistake, you should take that route i think
>>
>> In my opinion the characters you have laid out are ather ambiguos
>> granted I am an "untrained eye", so im likely missing some simple visual
>> motor skills that could help, but i find them very hard to disguish.
>
> I agree; I suspect the script is comparatively low on legibility. I'm not
> sure, though, how to increase legibility while still maintaining other
> requirements like speed of writing and compactness.
>
>> the characters are all derrived from the "same set of few simple
>> principles"
>>
>> there is very little "uniquess" between them... if you made a huge
>> alphabet form those, it would require a whole new set of principles and
>> "occular motor skills"(suck at biology hehe).
>
> I agree, especially because the script is not only cursive but also
> omnidirectional.
>
>> Basically, please dont take offence, but i think if you go down this
>> road
>> the way you are talking you will completly abandon all of the current
>> "visual recogniction skill", "physical eye motor control", etc.
>>
>> I dont think thats bad, I love the idea.. but I meyself ended at the
>> conclusion that...
>>
>> you cant re-invent it from scratch, it takes too long to learn,
>> assimalte,
>> and propagate.
>>
>> You have to at bare minimum "piggy back" on something.
>>
>> I'm not referring to the language, just to the base "physical" skills of
>> your audience..
>
> Your advice is sensible, and I can see why it's applicable to Dscript, but
> tho Livagian is intended to be perfect for what it's designed for, it
> isn't designed to be easily and readily learnt and adopted.
>
>> back to the original point, dont make a "huge alphabet" i think, go down
>> the "letting them overlap" road.. i see some real potential there
>
> Is that just a gut feeling, or can you explain why?
>
> --And.
>
you are right, it is more or less intuition
to elaborate, in looking at the simpler forms
at first glance it seems(or at least my assumption was) that was already
the principle (the more complex letters could easily be several simpler
ones overlayed)
I think it all boils down to the simple fact that by eliminating so many
other variable used for uniquiness, you have restricted the diversity of
possible characters.
This is just a preliminary impression, but it looks like there is some
potential for the types of curves/corners you overlap without ambiguity,
assuming of course the alphabet is small
if there is no "dream of broader adoption" then i retract the points
regarding this issue.
but I can imagine some interesting reading rules where letters have the
option of overlapping with each other..
exaclty what this "extra dimension" can add would require alot of
investigation and research.. but just to throw out a couple ideas..
the overlapping could cause the elements to merge somehow. this could be
really cool if they represented phonetics, this could produce a written
language that is far more clear on pronouciation. ie. the overlapping, and
maybe even the degree of overlapping, indicate the transtion, timing,
slurring, etc.., or lack thereof, between sounds.
if you went down a notation route, the overlapping could indicate some
aspect of relationship, compounding, etc..
I realize the current version is essentially a "1d script" like most forms
of writting, but I see potential to become a script focused more on
"relating elements to one another" via overlapping. perhaps they could
arrange in a 2d layout, allowing mnay elements to interlock into a web of
relationships
allowing the overlapping could in essence compensate, and justify, your
"never lift the pen" rule
the new shapes and forms of overlayed letters would produce circles,
ovals, odd shapes etc.. but because the reader would know those could only
have been produced by certain types of overlapping, the inability to
produce many shapes and forms actually becomes an "advantage" as ooposed
to a "restiction without just cause"... sorry if that sounds bad.. i just
mean i dont see what "not lifting the pen" actually adds from the readers
perspective, this would grant cause.
just a couple ideas, i could probbaly rant for a while, but im at work and
behind on some projects.. hehe ;)
Messages in this topic (27)
________________________________________________________________________
2.3. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" tsela...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:16 pm ((PDT))
On 23 July 2012 21:44, Shreyas Sampat <ssam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I did it try for a while when I was learning calligraphy (well, not
> writing
> > vertically, but at an angle of at least 45 degrees), but it never felt
> > natural, and somehow I got both neck and wrist pain doing it. It's one of
> > the reasons I stopped learning calligraphy altogether. I just never could
> > find a natural position where I could write naturally without smearing
> the
> > ink with my hand.
>
> It took a long time for me, but eventually I found that smearing
> wasn't a problem for me if I simply extended the pen/cil a little
> farther forward rather than holding it choked up close to the tip, the
> way I was taught. It naturally keeps my hand about an inch away from
> whatever I'm writing, so it's easier to see and write cleanly, without
> having to rotate the paper or anything.
>
>
I actually write with the tip quite far from my hand already. It doesn't
help, though, because the way I'm writing my hand isn't either above nor
below the written line: it's *on* the written line (I write with my pen
horizontal, parallel to the written line). With pencils and ballpoint pens
it's not a problem: the distance between my hand and the tip is just enough
to allow the ink to dry enough not to cause any smearing. It doesn't work
with fountain pens (unless I write very slowly), and in any case it's a
very unnatural position to write in when using a fountain pen tip.
> I haven't come up with a lefty solution for angled-nib calligraphy, though.
>
As BPJ mentioned, there are calligraphic pens with an obliquely cut nib for
left-handed people. I have a set as well, but it ended up being a waste of
money. Those forced me to put my hand in a *very* unnatural position to me,
even worse than straight cut nibs.
I have a light form of RSI, which I usually have well in control, but doing
calligraphy was just very painful to me. So I had to stop, as unfortunate
as I felt it was :( .
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (27)
________________________________________________________________________
2.4. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" tsela...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:23 pm ((PDT))
On 24 July 2012 04:32, And Rosta <and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My generalization is true: as evidence I adduce cursive scripts,
I'm not quite sure cursive scripts evolved only for speed. I'm pretty sure
the evolution of the writing tools and media had more influence on that
than the need for speed.
> and the way the letters in all-majuscule text tend to be formed when
> handwritten quickly. But your logic is strange. Writing systems of the
> world evolve under more selectional pressures than just speed of writing;
> distinctiveness and legibility are very important.
>
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets, On 23/07/2012 15:50:
>
>> In my experience, it's not lifting the pen that is the greatest impediment
>> to the speed of writing: it's loops and backtracking for things like the
>> dot on the i (basically anything that forces you to change direction
>> significantly). Lifting the pen doesn't impede speed of writing *at all*,
>> as long as you can keep the general movement going (so putting spaces
>> between words doesn't impede speed of writing).
>>
>
> I think one does see in handwriting that the more hastily it is written
> the less the pen tends to be lifted,
Not true at least in my case: the faster I write, the less I connect my
letters. I think moving my pen without touching the paper is just faster
than keeping it on the paper (what with the friction and so on). It's not
as if the lift is that high (probably a fraction of a millimetre for me :)
).
> but when I spoke of pen-lifting, I was really thinking of dotting i's and
> crossing t's and putting crossbars on E and F and writing X and so forth,
> i.e. where the pen-lift is accompanied by a change of direction and spatial
> jump (either within a letter or between letters).
>
>
Yes, I agree that it's definitely a strong source of delays in writing. I
myself tend to forget to cross my t's and to dot my i's if I'm writing very
fast.
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (27)
________________________________________________________________________
2.5. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "Michael Everson" ever...@evertype.com
Date: Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:12 am ((PDT))
On 24 Jul 2012, at 03:32, And Rosta wrote:
>> If this overgeneralization were true (that "most" handwriters found
>> this to be problematic) then we might expect to see a lot more
>> examples of this in the writing systems of the world. We don't,
>> though. Separated strokes, in fact, add to distinctiveness and
>> legibility.
>
> My generalization is true: as evidence I adduce cursive scripts, and the way
> the letters in all-majuscule text tend to be formed when handwritten quickly.
Adduce what you like. Present actual evidence if you want to make a case.
> But your logic is strange. Writing systems of the world evolve under more
> selectional pressures than just speed of writing; distinctiveness and
> legibility are very important.
One would think that a successful conscript would do the same. Unless you just
want your script to be a Gedankenexperiment. If so, well, grand, but I don't
think that the result would be useful, which would make it less than admirable.
> I think one does see in handwriting that the more hastily it is written the
> less the pen tends to be lifted, but when I spoke of pen-lifting, I was
> really thinking of dotting i's and crossing t's and putting crossbars on E
> and F and writing X and so forth, i.e. where the pen-lift is accompanied by a
> change of direction and spatial jump (either within a letter or between
> letters).
Is there any evidence that writing is seriously "slowed" by such things?
Studies, for instance? Is the writing measured in milliseconds?
> BPJ, On 23/07/2012 16:00:
>> In fact was empirically shown in the second to last century that the
>> greatest impediment to speed in handwriting is redundancy in the shapes of
>> the symbols.
>
> For writing roman quicker, this may well be true; and redundancylessness was
> one of the criteria I listed for the Livagian design.
By the way "Livagian writing" doesn't yield any hits on Google.
> But I don't believe it's true in general that redundancy in shape is the
> biggest impediment to speed. Imagine on the one hand a system with some
> redundancy but with characters designed to minimize number of strokes and
> travel distancebetween letters, and on the other hand a system with no
> redundancy but with no attempt to minimize number of strokes and inter-letter
> travel distance. I'd predict the former would be easier to write.
In terms of milliseconds? Legibility? Refrigerator notes or historical codices?
>> there is very little "uniquess" between them... if you made a huge alphabet
>> form those, it would require a whole new set of principles and "occular
>> motor skills"(suck at biology hehe).
>
> I agree, especially because the script is not only cursive but also
> omnidirectional.
Do you mean "polydirectional"? I would take "omnidirectional" to indicate
radiation of 360° in three dimensions.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Messages in this topic (27)
________________________________________________________________________
2.6. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:31 am ((PDT))
On 24/07/2012 11:12, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2012, at 03:32, And Rosta wrote:
>
[snip]
>>
>> For writing roman quicker, this may well be true; and
>> redundancylessness was one of the criteria I listed
>> for the Livagian design.
>
> By the way "Livagian writing" doesn't yield any hits on
> Google.
Yet according to Arika Okrent in her "In the Land of
Invented Languages" Livagian has been around since 1991.
http://inthelandofinventedlanguages.com/index.php?page=languages&id=469
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]
Messages in this topic (27)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: 3rd person pronouns
Posted by: "neo gu" qiihos...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:56 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:00:52 -0400, Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:33:14 -0400, neo gu <qiihos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In my latest sketch, I'm using index pronouns/determiners. The way they work
>>is they're first used as determiners modifying specific indefinite phrases,
>>then as pronouns referring to the same entity. Example:
>>
>>cu vida bo doagu. ba blanka. "I saw a dog. It was white."
>>
>>The index b- is assigned to the dog. So far so good.
>>
>>The problem is that sometimes definite references to entities occur without a
>>preceding indefinite introduction, so there's no way to refer to them using
>>indexes. Example:
>>
>>"I went to a restaurant. The waiter didn't speak English. / What did he
>>speak?"
>>
>>Do I need to have conventional 3rd person pronouns as well, or is there some
>>other solution? I thought of one but it's sort of clumsy.
>
>What shape does a definite noun phrase have?
The same, but without the index/determiner.
>When do definite noun phrases come up?
... also proper names such as Leporello T. Thistlefield. It's desirable to use
a pronoun after the first mention.
>Does it make sense to give definiteness markers the same index-defining
>behaviour as indefiniteness markers?
It makes sense to me; the clumsy solution I came up with was to insert an
already-definite suffix -uz before the final vowel:
buzo servilu ... bu "the waiter ... he"
>UNLWS has a similar feature: the preferred coreference strategy is to draw a
>line connecting to the place of first mention of the referent; there _are_
>pronouns but the choice of one over these lines is motivated by layout as
>opposed to syntax proper. But UNLWS has no definite category. For these
>definite referents without an earlier coreferring phrase, UNLWS will
>- use no article (for globally unique things, or near enough: "the sun", "the
>president", ...)
>- use a deictic expression (for things foregrounded by extra-conversational
>happenings)
>- make a relation explicit (for cases like yours)
It occurs to me that, in some cases, the definite article is substituting for a
possessive pronoun. E.g. "my waiter" rather than some other waiter at the
restaurant.
>Your example in UNLWS would probably be "I went to a restaurant. [A] waiter
>_at it_ didn't speak English."; or, if it was written with forethought, just
>"I was served at a restaurant by a waiter who ..."
>
>Alex
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4.1. Re: Return to FairyLang (was: copula) - Longish
Posted by: "John Erickson" john.erickson.so...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:35 pm ((PDT))
First of all, thank you very much for taking the time to write such an
informative reply! I'll respond to/clarify a couple points, but mostly, you've
given me a lot to think about.
>Right - not sure if I recall mood marking.
I hadn't mentioned it because I didn't think it was important to topic at hand.
But mood on verbs usually relates to intention. The unmarked form is
intentional, and there are markers for accidental and attempted. (I think that
falls under the category of mood, but correct me if there's a better term)
>I think the main problem is that we're not really dealing
>with _aspect_ in its strict sense in FairyLang, but rather
>with _relative time reference_ which often gets confused
>with aspect.
Including by me. :-)
>I notice that in:
>http://fairylang.livejournal.com/42276.html
>you state "Tense marking on direct objects is relative to
>the subject and indicates aspect (perfect, imperfect,
>predictive/intentional)."
[...]
>I think I would reword it thus:
>"Tense marking on direct objects indicates time reference
>relative to the subject. This allows for aspectual concepts
>such perfect, progressive and prospective to be expressed."
That does make more sense.
>I don't like that. One reason has already been discussed.
>The other is that I think you are confusing _participle_ and
>_gerund_. The both end in -ing in modern English; in Old
>English they were distinct, but have now become confused.
>In the sentence "John is smoking", "smoking" is a a
>participle; it works rather like an adjective and describes
>John. In the sentence "Smoking is bad for you", "smoking"
>is a gerund; it is a noun denoting the act of smoking and is
>the subject of the sentence.
>[...] I think we will get a more
>satisfactory solution if the same sort of thing were adopted
>in the FairyLang, e.g. (I'll use English)
>eat mouse.PRES
>the mouse eats
>do mouse.PRES eating.PAST
>The mouse has eaten [and is now full]
>do mouse.PAST eating.PRES
>The mouse was eating
>(In the past the mouse was present in the act of eating)
>"To do" is a transitive verb and the gerunds really are
>direct objects.
That's what I was going for. I think I may have originally defined "ni" as "to
be/do."
>There seem to be two weakness here. In the first sentence
>it is necessary to have a special marker for the
>direct-object (accepting, for the sake of argument) that it
>is) so that it is not mistaken for the subject. In the
>second, "cheese" is of course the direct object of the
>gerund "eating".
You're right that a(n) is a direct object marker. It's dropped when standard
word order makes it redundant. Does that seem awkward or unnatural though?
>With what information I have at the moment, I think I'd be
>tempted to ditch _ni_ and just have, e.g.
>mouse.PRES fat
>The mouse is fat
I agree, at least in examples like that one.
>Last, but by no means least, I note you wrote: "I'm
>relatively new to conlanging and I'm still learning the
>terminology." I must say that I admire your enterprise in
>branching into new territory. I find what you are doing
>quite interesting, and I like your web pages.
>Keep at it ;)
Thanks again! This is a fun experiment/learning experience.
Messages in this topic (34)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5. Leviathan Wakes' Belter Patoi
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:06 am ((PDT))
Only a little bit into the book, but I thought I'd share a little bit of
the "Belter patoi" shown in Leviathan Wakes. Not sure exactly how
realistic it is. The conceit is that during the colonization of the
Asteroid Belt, a number of Earth cultures contribute to the colonizers, so
less educated people end up speaking a sort of creole of several different
langauges. This is the first conversation you see in it:
A-- And then it was all pow! Room full of bladeboys howling and humping
shank. Look like a dance number, 'cept that Bomie's got this look he
didn't know nothing never and ever amen. You know, que?
B-- I totally. Bomie, he didn't see. Forgotten arm.
A-- Forgotten fucking arm, yeah.
B-- Follow que?
A-- Bomie vacuate like losing air. Bang-head hops, kennis tu?
B-- Ken
A-- Now, all new bladeboys. Overhead. I'm out.
B-- And Bomie?
<skip>
B-- He shows, and I asked, que si?
A-- Como no? [translated in the text as "Why not?"]
Seems like mostly a mix of English and Spanish. I would expect some
Russian or Chinese in the mix. Of course, this is one conversation which
takes place on the asteroid Ceres. As I read through the book I'll see
what other languages are in the mix -- I hear there's some more significant
German influence at some point.
Messages in this topic (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com
conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
