There are 13 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: Michael Everson
1.2. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: And Rosta
1.3. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: Matthew DeBlock
1.4. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: BPJ
1.5. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: And Rosta
1.6. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: Charles W Brickner
1.7. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: And Rosta
1.8. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: Michael Everson
1.9. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: Michael Everson
1.10. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: Matthew DeBlock
1.11. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: And Rosta
1.12. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: R A Brown
2a. Re: 3rd person pronouns
From: A. da Mek
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "Michael Everson" ever...@evertype.com
Date: Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:40 am ((PDT))
On 24 Jul 2012, at 13:31, R A Brown wrote:
>> 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
I was referring to the writing system.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Messages in this topic (39)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:21 am ((PDT))
Michael Everson, On 24/07/2012 11:12:
> On 24 Jul 2012, at 03:32, And Rosta wrote:
>> 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.
I infer that no evidence would be deemed actual by you that contradicts
whatever entrenched position you've taken.
>> 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.
Engelanging is still in its long infancy (and perhaps will forever remain
there), but gedankenexperiments must be the foundation of whatever it
eventually achieves (contributions to linguistics; useful languages and
scripts).
For a handwritten script in an age of print, I think the ideal is something
that can be written quickly without degrading into illegibility. For a printed
script, besiides the desideratum of compactness, I think legibility should be
paramount. But are there any studies of legibility that are independent of
script; are there findings that could equally well be applied to all scripts?
If there aren't empirical findings, do there exist lists of intuitions or
hypotheses about what makes for legibility? In posing the question, I want to
set aside considerations of the orthographic word, and consider factors as
applicable to a polysynthetic language as to an isolating one.
>> 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?
Maybe I'm conflating slowness with motor difficulty, in which case I should use
some more general term such as 'difficulty'. Evidence of difficulty is seen
from misplaced tittles and extraneous strokes and in some cases (such as X),
pure reason.
> By the way "Livagian writing" doesn't yield any hits on Google.
That's mainly because Livagia doesn't exist in our world and in public I've
only ever mentioned it in passing (and there's little to mention).
>> 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?
I was thinking something more like milliseconds. Do you think legibility has a
big effect on how easy something is to write? surely not, since we find from
handwriting that the less effort is made, the less legible it is. And wouldn't
the factors affecting ease of writing be largely similiar for refrigerator
notes and 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.
The script is linear. For every linear direction, the script can be written in
that direction.
--And.
Messages in this topic (39)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "Matthew DeBlock" vas...@dscript.ca
Date: Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:02 am ((PDT))
> Michael Everson, On 24/07/2012 11:12:
>> On 24 Jul 2012, at 03:32, And Rosta wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> I infer that no evidence would be deemed actual by you that contradicts
> whatever entrenched position you've taken.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Engelanging is still in its long infancy (and perhaps will forever remain
> there), but gedankenexperiments must be the foundation of whatever it
> eventually achieves (contributions to linguistics; useful languages and
> scripts).
>
> For a handwritten script in an age of print, I think the ideal is
> something that can be written quickly without degrading into illegibility.
> For a printed script, besiides the desideratum of compactness, I think
> legibility should be paramount. But are there any studies of legibility
> that are independent of script; are there findings that could equally well
> be applied to all scripts? If there aren't empirical findings, do there
> exist lists of intuitions or hypotheses about what makes for legibility?
> In posing the question, I want to set aside considerations of the
> orthographic word, and consider factors as applicable to a polysynthetic
> language as to an isolating one.
>
>>> 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?
>
> Maybe I'm conflating slowness with motor difficulty, in which case I
> should use some more general term such as 'difficulty'. Evidence of
> difficulty is seen from misplaced tittles and extraneous strokes and in
> some cases (such as X), pure reason.
>
>> By the way "Livagian writing" doesn't yield any hits on Google.
>
> That's mainly because Livagia doesn't exist in our world and in public
> I've only ever mentioned it in passing (and there's little to mention).
>
>>> 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?
>
> I was thinking something more like milliseconds. Do you think legibility
> has a big effect on how easy something is to write? surely not, since we
> find from handwriting that the less effort is made, the less legible it
> is. And wouldn't the factors affecting ease of writing be largely similiar
> for refrigerator notes and 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.
>
> The script is linear. For every linear direction, the script can be
> written in that direction.
>
> --And.
>
true..
but, either i am missing something... or...
i can just draw cirles or squares around the roman letters and voila..
and i will bet much more efficient by ANY standard.
did i miss something?
Messages in this topic (39)
________________________________________________________________________
1.4. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "BPJ" b...@melroch.se
Date: Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:09 am ((PDT))
On 2012-07-24 08:23, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
> 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.
Indeed. Rather there was constant compromising between
speed and the requirements of the (pointed) quill pen
or later the (pointed) steel nib and the paper, which also
wasn't always as smooth as nowadays. A small amount of
experimenting with a soft steel nib dipped in ink will
show anyone what's it about.
That's true also of modern shorthand systems, which were
developed in the era of the steel nib. Many of them make
distinctions between strokes with strong and light pressure,
but that's usually only downstrokes and horizontal strokes
since pressure on an upstroke was sure to give you an ink
blob! Those distinctions are of course hard to reproduce
with modern pens and even with pencils. Luckily the system
I use uses pressure mainly for the relatively unimportant
purpose of indicating gemination.
/bpj
Messages in this topic (39)
________________________________________________________________________
1.5. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:09 am ((PDT))
Michael Everson, On 24/07/2012 13:40:
> On 24 Jul 2012, at 13:31, R A Brown wrote:
>
>>> 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
>
> I was referring to the writing system.
Either way, the listing in Arika's site comes as quite a surprise. It is a
conlang that has been much mentioned on Conlang (almost always by me, of
course) but never publicated, and indeed it is not currently publicatable given
that it goes through cycles of being demolished and rebuilt and currently it is
demolished (and won't be rebuilt until I solve some really difficult design
problems and magic up loads of free time). The 1991 date seems odd, unless it
means the date of the first public mention of the language. I guess I started
conlanging in 1977, and the beginnings of the Livagian project would have been
in 1981. At any rate, anybody googling for info about Livagian as a language
rather than a conlang project is going to be disappointed, and I regret that
very deeply and indeed feel a tormenting sense of failure about it.
--And.
Messages in this topic (39)
________________________________________________________________________
1.6. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "Charles W Brickner" tepeyach...@embarqmail.com
Date: Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:36 am ((PDT))
-----Original Message-----
>From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On
Behalf Of Michael Everson
>By the way "Livagian writing" doesn't yield any hits on Google.
I found 978.
Charlie
Messages in this topic (39)
________________________________________________________________________
1.7. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:50 am ((PDT))
And Rosta, On 24/07/2012 15:09:
>> On 24 Jul 2012, at 13:31, R A Brown wrote:
>>> 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
>
> the listing in Arika's site comes as quite a surprise. [...]
> The 1991 date seems odd, unless it means the date of the first public
> mention of the language.
Aha, it does indeed. Arika writes: "The dating of languages in the Internet age
gets even more complicated. The years given for most of the languages I list
from 1990 on represent (approximately) the first posting about the language on
the web, in a newsgroup, or on a site dedicated to the language." So 1991 is
bang on -- impressively so, indeed.
Matthew DeBlock, On 24/07/2012 15:02:
> true..
>
> but, either i am missing something... or...
>
> i can just draw cirles or squares around the roman letters and voila..
> and i will bet much more efficient by ANY standard.
>
> did i miss something?
Matthew, you quoted my whole message and then said this, and I couldn't grasp
what you meant. If you could find the time to rewrite that message to make it
clearer, I'd be able to reply.
--And.
Messages in this topic (39)
________________________________________________________________________
1.8. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "Michael Everson" ever...@evertype.com
Date: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:00 am ((PDT))
On 24 Jul 2012, at 14:21, And Rosta wrote:
> Michael Everson, On 24/07/2012 11:12:
>> On 24 Jul 2012, at 03:32, And Rosta wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> I infer that no evidence would be deemed actual by you that contradicts
> whatever entrenched position you've taken.
Humbug. Stating that your "generalization is true" without producing a shred of
evidence certainly does not make the generalization true.
> For a handwritten script in an age of print, I think the ideal is something
> that can be written quickly without degrading into illegibility.
Perhaps, but that does not demand the structure "pen must not be lifted". I
should think that continuous pressing of a pen to parchment would cause strain
and fatigue on the writer. Quite the opposite of what you intend.
> For a printed script, besiides the desideratum of compactness, I think
> legibility should be paramount. But are there any studies of legibility that
> are independent of script; are there findings that could equally well be
> applied to all scripts? If there aren't empirical findings, do there exist
> lists of intuitions or hypotheses about what makes for legibility? In posing
> the question, I want to set aside considerations of the orthographic word,
> and consider factors as applicable to a polysynthetic language as to an
> isolating one.
The stricture you impose still places a burden on the writer which I think
would make actual writing impracticable.
> Maybe I'm conflating slowness with motor difficulty, in which case I should
> use some more general term such as 'difficulty'. Evidence of difficulty is
> seen from misplaced tittles and extraneous strokes and in some cases (such as
> X), pure reason.
Again, I think keeping the pen down on the paper is going to lead to writer's
cramp and smudging rather than speed and legibility.
(I'm not sanguine about the purity of that reason, there.)
>> By the way "Livagian writing" doesn't yield any hits on Google.
>
> That's mainly because Livagia doesn't exist in our world and in public I've
> only ever mentioned it in passing (and there's little to mention).
I thought you might have shared images of this script, is all.
>> In terms of milliseconds? Legibility? Refrigerator notes or historical
>> codices?
>
> I was thinking something more like milliseconds. Do you think legibility has
> a big effect on how easy something is to write?
If it is illegible or indecipherable it defeats the purpose of writing.
> surely not, since we find from handwriting that the less effort is made, the
> less legible it is. And wouldn't the factors affecting ease of writing be
> largely similiar for refrigerator notes and historical codices?
Time invested in the act of writing the one is different from that of the
other.
>>> 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.
>
> The script is linear. For every linear direction, the script can be written
> in that direction.
Polydirectional, I think that would be. RTL, LTR, BTT, TTB. And Phaistos of
course.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Messages in this topic (39)
________________________________________________________________________
1.9. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "Michael Everson" ever...@evertype.com
Date: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:02 am ((PDT))
On 24 Jul 2012, at 15:36, Charles W Brickner wrote:
>> By the way "Livagian writing" doesn't yield any hits on Google.
>
> I found 978.
With quotation marks I get 3, and even without, none of them are images of this
script.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Messages in this topic (39)
________________________________________________________________________
1.10. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "Matthew DeBlock" vas...@dscript.ca
Date: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:20 am ((PDT))
It was in response to you guys arguing over "poly/omni directional"
I had missed this aspect
I dont see how this writting system adds anything that coulnt be achieved
more effeciently than pre-exisitng alphabet letters encapusalted within a
"cell"
I mean it doesnt seem to provide any significant advantages
and more, your whole "never lifting the pen" principle further looses
justification..
isnt the whole point of alowing multi directional writting to use the
wrtitting space in more innovative and efficient ways?
are you going to dis-allow principles "forking", "intersections", "nodes",
etc..? is it still just purely linear?
if you are going to allow that...
then you kinda HAVE to lift the pen, and allowing exceptions will quickly
break down any rule.. especially one so "burdensome"
if you are not going to allow dimensionality..
what benefit are you going to extract from these rather demanding and
restrictive set of principles?
> And Rosta, On 24/07/2012 15:09:
>>> On 24 Jul 2012, at 13:31, R A Brown wrote:
>>>> 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
>>
>> the listing in Arika's site comes as quite a surprise. [...]
>> The 1991 date seems odd, unless it means the date of the first public
>> mention of the language.
>
> Aha, it does indeed. Arika writes: "The dating of languages in the
> Internet age gets even more complicated. The years given for most of the
> languages I list from 1990 on represent (approximately) the first posting
> about the language on the web, in a newsgroup, or on a site dedicated to
> the language." So 1991 is bang on -- impressively so, indeed.
>
> Matthew DeBlock, On 24/07/2012 15:02:
>> true..
>>
>> but, either i am missing something... or...
>>
>> i can just draw cirles or squares around the roman letters and voila..
>> and i will bet much more efficient by ANY standard.
>>
>> did i miss something?
>
> Matthew, you quoted my whole message and then said this, and I couldn't
> grasp what you meant. If you could find the time to rewrite that message
> to make it clearer, I'd be able to reply.
>
> --And.
>
Messages in this topic (39)
________________________________________________________________________
1.11. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:27 am ((PDT))
Michael Everson, On 24/07/2012 15:59:
> On 24 Jul 2012, at 14:21, And Rosta wrote:
>
>> Michael Everson, On 24/07/2012 11:12:
>>> On 24 Jul 2012, at 03:32, And Rosta wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
> Humbug. Stating that your "generalization is true" without producing
> a shred of evidence certainly does not make the generalization true.
At least you have the good grace to quote the evidence I did give, even if it
falls short of your threshold for shredhood.
>> For a handwritten script in an age of print, I think the ideal is
>> something that can be written quickly without degrading into
>> illegibility.
>
> Perhaps, but that does not demand the structure "pen must not be
> lifted". I should think that continuous pressing of a pen to
> parchment would cause strain and fatigue on the writer. Quite the
> opposite of what you intend.
I'm fairly sure I said the stricture was "pen *need* not be lifted". Indeed,
I've checked: I wrote "the pen need never be lifted". IOW, as far as the
strictures of the script go, it is not necessary that the pen be lifted. Not:
"it is necessary that the pen not be lifted".
> The stricture you impose still places a burden on the writer which I
> think would make actual writing impracticable.
[...]
> Again, I think keeping the pen down on the paper is going to lead to
> writer's cramp and smudging rather than speed and legibility.
I presume you draw these conclusions from the "must not" rather than "need not"
stricture?
>>> In terms of milliseconds? Legibility? Refrigerator notes or
>>> historical codices?
>>
>> I was thinking something more like milliseconds. Do you think
>> legibility has a big effect on how easy something is to write?
>
> If it is illegible or indecipherable it defeats the purpose of
> writing.
>
>> surely not, since we find from handwriting that the less effort is
>> made, the less legible it is. And wouldn't the factors affecting
>> ease of writing be largely similiar for refrigerator notes and
>> historical codices?
>
> Time invested in the act of writing the one is different from that of
> the other.
I'm not sure what the point at issue is. I said at the outset that the aim was
to create a script that was compact and easy to handwrite (easy to handwrite
long texts in, not necessarily easy to handwrite single letters of). and also
that I felt it wasn't easily legible; and I've since said that I do consider
legibility a prime desideratum, especially for printed script, even tho it
wasn't a goal of the Livagian script. What (if anything) do you disagree with?
To repeat my earlier question: does there exist any useful research or advice
or suggestions about what makes for legibility in scripts in general? If there
does, I'd welcome the chance to reflect on it.
--And.
Messages in this topic (39)
________________________________________________________________________
1.12. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:37 am ((PDT))
On 24/07/2012 15:09, And Rosta wrote:
> Michael Everson, On 24/07/2012 13:40:
>> On 24 Jul 2012, at 13:31, R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> I was referring to the writing system.
I'm aware of that. It's just that if a language is 21 years
old then one might have expected some evidence of the writing.
> Either way, the listing in Arika's site comes as quite a
> surprise. It is a conlang that has been much mentioned
> on Conlang (almost always by me, of course) but never
> publicated, and indeed it is not currently publicatable
> given that it goes through cycles of being demolished and
> rebuilt and currently it is demolished (and won't be
> rebuilt until I solve some really difficult design
> problems and magic up loads of free time).
Sounds like my briefscript project which, off and on, has
been ongoing since the late 1950s. Since my sixteen and a
bit years on Conlang, it's been called various Briefscript,
BrSc (with, at one time, two 'dialects', BrScA & BrScB), Bax
& Brx.
=========================================================
On 24/07/2012 15:50, And Rosta wrote:
[snip]
>
> Aha, it does indeed. Arika writes: "The dating of
> languages in the Internet age gets even more complicated.
> The years given for most of the languages I list from
> 1990 on represent (approximately) the first posting about
> the language on the web, in a newsgroup, or on a site
> dedicated to the language." So 1991 is bang on --
> impressively so, indeed.
But no mention of BrSc :(
Actually bits of BrSc, Bax and Brx had appeared on the Net
well before her book was published. Ah well, I'm in good
company - two conlangs that I like, Claudio Gnoli's "Liva"
(1997) and Maurizio Gavioli's "Kinya" (I can't find the date
for this but it was certainly before 2003) are not included
in her list. I don't mind being in their company :)
She is not consistent in her criteria; she admits that
Tolkien worked on his languages for forty years before 1955,
but gives that date for Quenya & Sindarin because that's the
date of the publication of the third part of LotR with its
appendices. Yet (some) Internet languages are given a date
when they are first mentioned on a list are still only a
germ of a language.
======================================================
n 24/07/2012 15:59, Michael Everson wrote:
[snip]
>>> On 24 Jul 2012, at 03:32, And Rosta wrote:
>>>> 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.
[snip]
> Humbug. Stating that your "generalization is true"
> without producing a shred of evidence certainly does not
> make the generalization true.
IMHO generalizations are never true; they are, er,
_generalizations_ ;)
It's the actual instances that are interesting, especially
the exceptions.
--
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 (39)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: 3rd person pronouns
Posted by: "A. da Mek" a.da_m...@ufoni.cz
Date: Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:35 am ((PDT))
> I'm using index pronouns/determiners. The way they work is thfey'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.
How many of them you have? Or maybe any one-consonat root is a
pronoun/determiner? This would be an interesting language for a race with
good memory, able to rememember a score of last used substantives.
1:1 In the beginning BO God created GO heaven and DO earth.
1:2 And DA was without form, and void; and HO darkness was upon
WO face of the deep. And the Spirit of BA moved upon WA of ZO
waters.
1:3 And BA said, Let there be KHO light: and there was KHA.
1:4 And BA saw KHA, that it was good: and BA divided KHA
from HA.
1:5 And BA called KHA TTO Day, and HA BA called JO Night.
And KO evening and LO morning were first TTA.
1:6 And BA said, Let there be MO firmament in the midst of ZA,
and let it divide ZA from ZA.
1:7 And BA made KA, and divided ZA which were
under KA from ZA which were above KA:
and it was so.
1:8 And BA called KA GA. And KA and LA were the second TTA.
1:9 And BA said, Let ZA under GA be gathered together
unto one place, and let NO dry land NE appear: and it was so.
1:10 And BA called NA DA; and the gathering together of
ZA called BA SO Seas: and BA saw that it was good.
1:11 And BA said, Let DA bring forth GHO grass, CO herb yielding
seed CE, and QO fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is
in itself QE, upon DA: and it was so.
1:12 And DA brought forth GHA, and CA, and QA: and BA saw that it was good.
1:13 And KA and LA were third TTA.
1:14 And BA said, Let there be KHAs in MA of GA
to divide TTA from JA; and let KHAs be for signs, and for
seasons, and for TTAs, and years: 1:15 And let KHAs be for KHAs in
MA of GA to give KHA upon DA: and it was
so.
1:16 And BA made two great KHAs; the greater KHA to rule TTA,
and the lesser KHA to rule JA: he made RO stars also.
1:17 And BA set KHAs in MA of GA to give KHA
upon DA,
1:18 And to rule over TTA and over JA, and
to divide KHA from HA: and BA saw that it was good.
1:19 And KA and LA were fourth TTA.
1:20 And BA said, Let ZA bring forth abundantly moving
SHO creature that hath life, and TO fowl that may fly above DA in the
open MA of GA.
1:21 And BA created great whales, and every living SHA that
moveth, which ZAs brought forth abundantly, after their kind,
and every winged TA after his kind: and BA saw that it was good.
1:22 And BA blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill
ZAs in Sos, and let TA multiply in DA.
1:23 And KA and LA were fifth TTA.
1:24 And BA said, Let DA bring forth the living SHA after
his kind, GO cattle, and creeping HO thing, and KHO beast of DA after his
kind: and it was so.
1:25 And BA made KHA of DA after his kind, and GA
after their kind, and every HA that creepeth upon DA after
his kind: and BA saw that it was good.
1:26 And BA said, Let us make JO man in BA's MO image, after BA's NO
likeness:
and let JOs have GHO dominion over RO fish of SA, and over TA
of SHO air, and over GA, and over all DA, and over
every creeping HA that creepeth upon DA.
1:27 So BA created JA in BA's own MA, in MA of BA created
BA JA; male and female created BA JAs.
1:28 And BA blessed JAs, and BA said unto JAs, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish DA, and subdue DA: and have GHA
over the RA of SA, and over TA of SHA, and over every
living HA that moveth upon DA.
1:29 And BA said, Behold, I have given you every CA,
which is upon WA of all DA, and every QA; to you it shall be for meat.
1:30 And to every KHA of DA, and to every TA of SHA,
and to every HA that creepeth upon DA, wherein there is
life, I have given every CA for meat: and it was so.
1:31 And BA saw every HA that he had made, and, behold, it was
very good. And KA and LA were sixth TTA.
Messages in this topic (4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
