There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: RWG - (yet another) random word generator
From: Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
2a. Avantimannish story was Re: [LCS Members] How can I show my conlangs
From: Padraic Brown
2b. Re: Avantimannish story was Re: [LCS Members] How can I show my conl
From: Adam Walker
3a. Re: Numbers from your conlang?
From: Padraic Brown
3b. Re: Numbers from your conlang?
From: R A Brown
4a. Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment
From: Logan Kearsley
5a. Re: A new direction in loglangs?
From: Logan Kearsley
6.1. Re: Transcription system for Books
From: J. 'Mach' Wust
6.2. Re: Transcription system for Books
From: Roman Rausch
6.3. Re: Transcription system for Books
From: BPJ
6.4. Re: Transcription system for Books
From: BPJ
7a. Re: Adjective Suffixes/Prefixes
From: David McCann
8. Indie Movie Looking For Language
From: Logan Kearsley
9a. Re: Hoofik
From: BPJ
10. Re: CONLANG Digest - 29 Jul 2012 to 30 Jul 2012 (#2012-213)
From: John H. Chalmers
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: RWG - (yet another) random word generator
Posted by: "Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews" goldyemo...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:58 pm ((PDT))
What I mean is does it generate real words?
Nicole Thompson-Andrews
Pen name Mellissa Green
Budding novelist
Emerging poet
Tweet me
@greenNovelist
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Swan" <nathanms...@gmail.com>
To: <conl...@listserv.brown.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:46 PM
Subject: RWG - (yet another) random word generator
You are all probably tired of these, but I've made another one: a random
word generator.
It's written in the D programming language, which means it supports Unicode
fully, but you'll have to get D (dlang.org) to compile.
Hope you like it:
http://nathansoftware.blogspot.com/2012/07/im-happy-to-announce-release-of-rwg-0.html
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Avantimannish story was Re: [LCS Members] How can I show my conlangs
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:09 pm ((PDT))
--- On Mon, 7/30/12, Thomas Ruhm <tho...@ruhm.at> wrote:
> Can I have more texts in Avantamannish? It is for practicing reading
> almost understandable languages.
Alright! Here's an Avantimannish quasi-folktale. It's based on a real
episode, but the telling and retelling of such a fabulous tale has given it
something of a life of its own.
They Thrêy Mês
On fornes waron thês thrêy blinden mês, ande market huw they dydetun
omhemrene thês thrêy blinden mês! Nuw therh thon layne then under thon
wayne ande on thon cutischen te bote! Ande twas thaar they sêhen
merveyelles thês thrêy blinden mês. For yn that cutiscen botwef Cgeolien
cutiscete ande thaar ho wascqete ande duwemcraftihh was her cutiscend
ande duwemcraftihh was her wascqend of botwef Cgeolien.
Nuw botwef Cgeolien was wifez te husbowend Sôlhaz se Mylwarthaz ande they
buwetun om Yppsihdale. Ande nuw cwemand thôs thrêy blinden mês
onhemrennend on thon cutiscen but they hemselfe stoppetun en wiscund
brouwdeth beforon te this cat that hehôte Galgumel his scarpe clêyô! Nuw
this Galgumel was en cyuwte, wiscraftihh cats but with happe wase he under
slepand; swo underhembehydetun thôz thrêy blinden mês yn thon pondarien
under summe Roumisce canaste. Ande twas fram that plâze they sêhen
merveylles, they thrêy blinden mês.
For thas times yn cwâme botwef Cgeolien ombeberend thon hlavandmund yn her
armes. For hwilam hit herselfe lîqete te hwessellen hwiles that ho west
werkend; ande swo ho hwessellete this murih-morih tônde, thrêy swôyen hwat
murnen of wenten ande douwthe. Ras-peh-bah — ras-peh-bah ho hwessellete
ande — hwaq! — thonqete her canefez swo ho scrapete thon tuwlgowe.
Ras-peh-bah — ras-peh-bah — hwaq! Ande hit mahhtylihh feyrete thêm mês,
but senhhe Galgumel, he swefnete om delyciouso mês!
Cwiqes ho liqete thon canefe ande omherwewôrthe te thon hlavandmund. For
hwilam hit herselfe lîqete te hwessellen hwiles that ho west werkend; ande
swo ho hwessellete this murih-morih tônde, thrêy swôyen hwat murnen of
wenten ande douwthe. Ras-tam-car — ras-tam-car ho hwessellete ande — hwap!
— ho clangete do se maytagges dorôn. Hit yngane te tansce ande senge —
scuggabuubbascuggabuubba — ande theys mêsô wiscundum dydetun ouwtstande
fram theys lêqes, ande they sêhen summe duwemmerglouwend! Ande hit
mahhtylihh feyte thêm mês, but senhhe Galgumel, he swefnete om bouwles of
swete meluqe!
Ande la! se forne brâmaz yngane te tansce, suwôpend thêm thrêy blinde mês
uwt fram thon pondarien ande thaar thêy sêhen merveyelles! For sange
scuggabuubbascuggabuubba that maytagge, ande tanscete en brauwle that
brâmaz ande adounfluhen allez thôz plattes thêz spênes yaan yâht
wascqcalethes summe fethuwor miscgmaken stôqes te cgeoyne thon drauwgme
with en forn trouwlez on touwe. Then spunen they qerfund canifes te tansce
yn thona êrem ofer thon murih drauwgme, hwessellend on rôndel theys
murih-morih tônde, summe swôyen hwat murnen of wenten ande douwthe.
Ras-peh-bah — ras-tam-car — ras-peh-bah — ras-tam-car.
And la! hwan that yerme Galgumel cunnete ande underhimbehyde under thon mense,
se fornen brâmaz him suwatte te hys fundamund, ande he himselfe rane griend te
therh thon yarden, ande besâhhtun yerme Galgumel they scarpe, morthenfulle
qerfund canifes; ande befluhen they thrêy blinden mês uwt fram that cutiscen
swo cwiqe swo mahtun . . .
But la! he uwtgegange se tuwlgowecaniftez, hwa flêsce havet taxet, ande
scassete thôz yermen blinden mês, ande market nuw huw they doend omhemrene thês
thrêy blinden mês! For he sengat this murih-morih tônde, summe swôyen hwat
murnen on rôndel of wenten ande douwthe. Ras-peh-bah — ras-tam-car —
ras-peh-bah — ras-tam-car.
Thrêy blinden mês, thrêy blinden mês —
Botwef Cgeolien, botwef Cgeolien —
Mylwarth’ zande his murih wîf'
Scrap’te thon tuwlgowe; liq’te thon ‘nîf —
Botwef Cgeolien, botwef Cgeolien —
Thrêy blinden mês, thrêy blinden mês!
==================
In ancientry were these three blind mice, and see how they did run, those
three blind mice! Now, through the lane then under the wain and into the
kitchen to boot! And twas there they saw wonders, those three blind mice.
For in that kitchen goodwife Julienne cooked and there she washed and
magic were her cooking and magic was her washing of goodwife Julienne.
Now goodwife Julienne was wife to husband Sulcus the Miller and they lived
in Yppsiy Dale. And now came those three blind mice running about into
the kitchen but they themselves stopped a whisker breadth before to this
cat that hight Gargamel his sharp claws! Now this Gargamel was a cute,
wisecrafty cat but with luck was he within sleeping; so away-them-hid those
three blind mice in the pantry within some Rumeliard basket. And twas from
that place they saw wonders, those three blind mice.
For at that time in came goodwife Julienne on-carrying the wash in her
arms. For at times (!) it her pleased to whistle while that she was
working; and so she whistled this merry-mort(*) tune, three soughing
(notes) that mourned (recalled with melancholy) of winter and death.
UT-SI-LA --- UT-SI-LA she whistled and --- whack! --- thunked her knife
as she scraped the suet. UT-SI-LA --- UT-SI-LA --- WHACK! And it greatly
feared those mice, but old Gargamel, he dreamed of delicious mice!
Shortly she licked the knife and to-her-turned to the washing. For at times
it her pleased to whistle while that she was working; and so she whistled
this merry-mort tune, three soughing tones that mourned of winter and
death. UT-RE-MI --- UT-RE-MI she whistled and --- whap! --- she clanged-to
the washer's door. It began to dance and sing --- chuggabuubbachuggabuubba
--- and the mice's whiskers did out-stand from their bodies, and they
saw this magic glow! And it greatly feared the mice, but old Gargamel, he
dreamed of bowls of sweet milk!
And lo! the old broom began to dance, sweeping those three blind mice out
from the pantry and there they saw marvels! For sang
chuggabuubbachuggabuubba the washer, and danced a brawl that broom and down
flew all those plates these spoons yon eight washcloths and some four
mismatched stockings to join the music with an old trowel in tow. Then
spun the carving knives to dance in the airs over the merry music,
whistling in round their merry-mort tune, some soughing notes that mourned
of winter and death. UT-SI-LA --- UT-RE-MI --- UT-SI-LA --- UT-RE-MI.
And lo! when that poor Gargamel tried and under-him-hide under the table,
the old broom him swatted to his bum, and he him ran howling to through
the garden, and besought poor Gargamel the sharp, murdersome carving
knives; and beflew the three blind mice out from that kitchen as quick as
they could . . .
But lo! he out-went the suet-knife, who flesh has tasted, and chased those
poor blind mice, and mark now how they do run about, those three blind
mice! For he sings this merry-mort tune, some soughing notes that mourn in
roundelay of winter and death. UT-SI-LA --- UT-RE-MI --- UT-SI-LA --- UT-RE-MI.
Three blind mice, three blind mice -
Goodwife Julienne, goodwife Julienne -
Miller and his merry wife
Scraped the fat and licked the knife -
Goodwife Julienne, goodwife Julienne -
Three blind mice, three blind mice!
There, that ought to hold you for a while!
Oh: (*) a "murih-morih" is something of an oxymoron, a tune that is both
merry and sad, perhaps in a minor key. It may be sung gaily, but its words
speak of violence, loss, death.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Avantimannish story was Re: [LCS Members] How can I show my conl
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:48 pm ((PDT))
BRAVO! I was laughing so hard I could barely read. Maytagge indeed!
Cuiqe ho liqe! Ho ho! Adam
On 7/30/12, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, Thomas Ruhm <tho...@ruhm.at> wrote:
>
>> Can I have more texts in Avantamannish? It is for practicing reading
>> almost understandable languages.
>
> Alright! Here's an Avantimannish quasi-folktale. It's based on a real
> episode, but the telling and retelling of such a fabulous tale has given it
> something of a life of its own.
>
> They Thr�y M�s
>
> On fornes waron th�s thr�y blinden m�s, ande market huw they dydetun
> omhemrene th�s thr�y blinden m�s! Nuw therh thon layne then under thon
> wayne ande on thon cutischen te bote! Ande twas thaar they s�hen
> merveyelles th�s thr�y blinden m�s. For yn that cutiscen botwef Cgeolien
> cutiscete ande thaar ho wascqete ande duwemcraftihh was her cutiscend
> ande duwemcraftihh was her wascqend of botwef Cgeolien.
>
> Nuw botwef Cgeolien was wifez te husbowend S�lhaz se Mylwarthaz ande they
> buwetun om Yppsihdale. Ande nuw cwemand th�s thr�y blinden m�s
> onhemrennend on thon cutiscen but they hemselfe stoppetun en wiscund
> brouwdeth beforon te this cat that heh�te Galgumel his scarpe cl�y�! Nuw
> this Galgumel was en cyuwte, wiscraftihh cats but with happe wase he under
> slepand; swo underhembehydetun th�z thr�y blinden m�s yn thon pondarien
> under summe Roumisce canaste. Ande twas fram that pl�ze they s�hen
> merveylles, they thr�y blinden m�s.
>
> For thas times yn cw�me botwef Cgeolien ombeberend thon hlavandmund yn her
> armes. For hwilam hit herselfe l�qete te hwessellen hwiles that ho west
> werkend; ande swo ho hwessellete this murih-morih t�nde, thr�y sw�yen hwat
> murnen of wenten ande douwthe. Ras-peh-bah � ras-peh-bah ho hwessellete
> ande � hwaq! � thonqete her canefez swo ho scrapete thon tuwlgowe.
> Ras-peh-bah � ras-peh-bah � hwaq! Ande hit mahhtylihh feyrete th�m m�s,
> but senhhe Galgumel, he swefnete om delyciouso m�s!
>
> Cwiqes ho liqete thon canefe ande omherwew�rthe te thon hlavandmund. For
> hwilam hit herselfe l�qete te hwessellen hwiles that ho west werkend; ande
> swo ho hwessellete this murih-morih t�nde, thr�y sw�yen hwat murnen of
> wenten ande douwthe. Ras-tam-car � ras-tam-car ho hwessellete ande � hwap!
> � ho clangete do se maytagges dor�n. Hit yngane te tansce ande senge �
> scuggabuubbascuggabuubba � ande theys m�s� wiscundum dydetun ouwtstande
> fram theys l�qes, ande they s�hen summe duwemmerglouwend! Ande hit
> mahhtylihh feyte th�m m�s, but senhhe Galgumel, he swefnete om bouwles of
> swete meluqe!
>
> Ande la! se forne br�maz yngane te tansce, suw�pend th�m thr�y blinde m�s
> uwt fram thon pondarien ande thaar th�y s�hen merveyelles! For sange
> scuggabuubbascuggabuubba that maytagge, ande tanscete en brauwle that
> br�maz ande adounfluhen allez th�z plattes th�z sp�nes yaan y�ht
> wascqcalethes summe fethuwor miscgmaken st�qes te cgeoyne thon drauwgme
> with en forn trouwlez on touwe. Then spunen they qerfund canifes te tansce
> yn thona �rem ofer thon murih drauwgme, hwessellend on r�ndel theys
> murih-morih t�nde, summe sw�yen hwat murnen of wenten ande douwthe.
> Ras-peh-bah � ras-tam-car � ras-peh-bah � ras-tam-car.
>
> And la! hwan that yerme Galgumel cunnete ande underhimbehyde under thon
> mense, se fornen br�maz him suwatte te hys fundamund, ande he himselfe rane
> griend te therh thon yarden, ande bes�hhtun yerme Galgumel they scarpe,
> morthenfulle qerfund canifes; ande befluhen they thr�y blinden m�s uwt fram
> that cutiscen swo cwiqe swo mahtun . . .
>
> But la! he uwtgegange se tuwlgowecaniftez, hwa fl�sce havet taxet, ande
> scassete th�z yermen blinden m�s, ande market nuw huw they doend omhemrene
> th�s thr�y blinden m�s! For he sengat this murih-morih t�nde, summe sw�yen
> hwat murnen on r�ndel of wenten ande douwthe. Ras-peh-bah � ras-tam-car �
> ras-peh-bah � ras-tam-car.
>
> Thr�y blinden m�s, thr�y blinden m�s �
> Botwef Cgeolien, botwef Cgeolien �
> Mylwarth� zande his murih w�f'
> Scrap�te thon tuwlgowe; liq�te thon �n�f �
> Botwef Cgeolien, botwef Cgeolien �
> Thr�y blinden m�s, thr�y blinden m�s!
>
> ==================
>
> In ancientry were these three blind mice, and see how they did run, those
> three blind mice! Now, through the lane then under the wain and into the
> kitchen to boot! And twas there they saw wonders, those three blind mice.
> For in that kitchen goodwife Julienne cooked and there she washed and
> magic were her cooking and magic was her washing of goodwife Julienne.
>
>
> Now goodwife Julienne was wife to husband Sulcus the Miller and they lived
> in Yppsiy Dale. And now came those three blind mice running about into
> the kitchen but they themselves stopped a whisker breadth before to this
> cat that hight Gargamel his sharp claws! Now this Gargamel was a cute,
> wisecrafty cat but with luck was he within sleeping; so away-them-hid those
> three blind mice in the pantry within some Rumeliard basket. And twas from
> that place they saw wonders, those three blind mice.
>
>
> For at that time in came goodwife Julienne on-carrying the wash in her
> arms. For at times (!) it her pleased to whistle while that she was
> working; and so she whistled this merry-mort(*) tune, three soughing
> (notes) that mourned (recalled with melancholy) of winter and death.
> UT-SI-LA --- UT-SI-LA she whistled and --- whack! --- thunked her knife
> as she scraped the suet. UT-SI-LA --- UT-SI-LA --- WHACK! And it greatly
> feared those mice, but old Gargamel, he dreamed of delicious mice!
>
>
> Shortly she licked the knife and to-her-turned to the washing. For at times
> it her pleased to whistle while that she was working; and so she whistled
> this merry-mort tune, three soughing tones that mourned of winter and
> death. UT-RE-MI --- UT-RE-MI she whistled and --- whap! --- she clanged-to
> the washer's door. It began to dance and sing --- chuggabuubbachuggabuubba
> --- and the mice's whiskers did out-stand from their bodies, and they
> saw this magic glow! And it greatly feared the mice, but old Gargamel, he
> dreamed of bowls of sweet milk!
>
> And lo! the old broom began to dance, sweeping those three blind mice out
> from the pantry and there they saw marvels! For sang
> chuggabuubbachuggabuubba the washer, and danced a brawl that broom and down
> flew all those plates these spoons yon eight washcloths and some four
> mismatched stockings to join the music with an old trowel in tow. Then
> spun the carving knives to dance in the airs over the merry music,
> whistling in round their merry-mort tune, some soughing notes that mourned
> of winter and death. UT-SI-LA --- UT-RE-MI --- UT-SI-LA --- UT-RE-MI.
>
> And lo! when that poor Gargamel tried and under-him-hide under the table,
> the old broom him swatted to his bum, and he him ran howling to through
> the garden, and besought poor Gargamel the sharp, murdersome carving
> knives; and beflew the three blind mice out from that kitchen as quick as
> they could . . .
>
>
> But lo! he out-went the suet-knife, who flesh has tasted, and chased those
> poor blind mice, and mark now how they do run about, those three blind
> mice! For he sings this merry-mort tune, some soughing notes that mourn in
> roundelay of winter and death. UT-SI-LA --- UT-RE-MI --- UT-SI-LA ---
> UT-RE-MI.
>
>
> Three blind mice, three blind mice -
> Goodwife Julienne, goodwife Julienne -
> Miller and his merry wife
> Scraped the fat and licked the knife -
> Goodwife Julienne, goodwife Julienne -
> Three blind mice, three blind mice!
>
> There, that ought to hold you for a while!
>
> Oh: (*) a "murih-morih" is something of an oxymoron, a tune that is both
> merry and sad, perhaps in a minor key. It may be sung gaily, but its words
> speak of violence, loss, death.
>
> Padraic
>
>
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Numbers from your conlang?
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:11 pm ((PDT))
--- On Sat, 7/28/12, janko gorenc <j_gor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Janko! Good to see you're still collecting numbers!
Avantimannish numbers 1-10:
ein, twa, thrêy, fethuwor, fyf, sehhsco, sefund, yâht, neuwn, tene
But it's from here that they get less ordinary: einlefend, twalefend,
thrêlefend, fethuwortene, fyftene, sehhscotene, sefuntene, yâhttene,
neuwntene, twantencuo, thrêntencuo, fethuworntencuo, fyfentencuo,
sehhscontencuo, sefuntencuo, yâhtentencuo, neuwntencuo, tenetencuo,
einlefentencuo, twalfentencuo, etc. It's not until we arrive at 200 that
we meet the word "hundred": twahoundarad.
> I wish you a lot of success at your work!
And for you as well!
> Janko Gorenc
Padraic
Messages in this topic (19)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Numbers from your conlang?
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:53 pm ((PDT))
On 30/07/2012 15:11, G. van der Vegt wrote:
> I think I know what's going on. Janco Gorenc meant to
> send this e-mail off-list to a certain 'Randy', but
> accidentally send it to the list. (As can be seen in his
> e-mail, he addresses it with 'Hey Randy')
I noticed "Hey Randy" - I assumed Janco was recycling a
private email and to send to the list, having forgotten
to remove the opening line.
> Jennifer Collins-Lai then pressed reply to the wrong
> e-mail in the conversation.
>
> At least, that seems to be what is going on here.
Probably so - I guess.
========================================================
On 30/07/2012 15:19, Patrick Dunn wrote:
> Janco is also remarkably persistant and often asks the
> same person for numbers repeatedly through several
> different fora.
Does he? I associate him asking on Conlang every so often
for numbers 1 to 10 etc. But on reflexion I do recall a
private email from him asking for numbers in my conlang
Eteocretan ;)
If only I knew the Eteocretan numbers for 1 to 10 I would
gladly have sent them - but, alas, I don't. That's the
trouble with natlangs, you can't make the missing bits up.
=========================================================
On 31/07/2012 00:11, Jennifer Collins-Jai wrote:
> Oh man... I'm really embarrassed now. @/////@
Don't worry - many of us, I suspect, have sent replies to
the wrong person in our time - I know I have; and it wasn't
so very long ago I embarrassed myself on this list by doing
something similar.
==========================================================
On 30/07/2012 23:07, Padraic Brown wrote:
[snip]
>
> He is a consummate collector, a veritable juggernaut --
> never stopping, never resting, never ceasing from the
> hunt of a new set of conlang numbers!
Yep - that's our Janco :)
[snip]
>
> I'm sure I'll owe him the set of Avantimannish numbers
> soon enough, once I can find out what four through ten
> are...
Umm - yes, maybe I'd better address myself to Bax/Brx (or
whatever name it finishes up with) and get those pesky
numbers ready ......
--
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 (19)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: In Defense of Monster Raving Loony Alignment
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" chronosur...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:11 pm ((PDT))
On 26 July 2012 17:33, Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:50:12 -0600, Logan Kearsley <chronosur...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Grouping A & P together and marking S separate is considered crazy
>>because it fails to distinguish nouns in the only situation in which
>>they occur together. However, it does still make a useful distinction,
>>using noun marking to indicate the transitivity of the verb. This
>>could be important, e.g., in a situation where there is no
>>morphological distinction between attributives and additional
>>noun/pronoun phrases; a pair of S-marked phrases must be, e.g., in
>>apposition or in a posessive arrangement, rather than being separate
>>arguments of the verb.
>
> Mm, yes. In this kind of MRL I'd expect that S-marking would be particular
> to S, and AP would presumably be unmarked. So I'd expect the core contrast
> to be the contrast between 2 unmarked NPs and 1 unmarked + 1 S-marked one, in
> either or both orders -- because whatever turned into the S-marking to
> resolve the ambiguity probably didn't itself occur twice in a clause when the
> structure was first grammaticalising.
>
> So what might one S-marked and one unmarked noun mean? Topic + intransitive
> subject comes readily to mind, as does zero-marked genitive (with S marking
> being phrasal clitic-like as opposed to agreement-like). Or maybe it's just
> that many other random words that can be floating around a sentence
> (adverbials or whatnot) happen to be identical with or homophonous to nouns.
It could also be transitive with a verb that selects for a particular
different-than-default case.
> An AP and an S phrase in a single clause could perhaps
>>indicate ditransitivity; if so, the system could perhaps derive from
>>an original nom/acc system that began using dative subjects for
>>impersonals, then analogized dative subjects to all intransitives to
>>form the S marking while losing the nom/acc case distinction.
>
> But why would (the probably tiny class of) impersonals with expletive
> subjects take over (the large class of) intransitives?
One simply needs to make impersonals more common somehow. E.g., if
impersonal constructions are the standard means of expressing
predicate adjectives, that could be a fairly large class to start out
with. Then perhaps form a passive via predication of a participle,
such that all passives have the same form as an impersonal, and
generalizing to all intransitives is a much smaller hop from there.
> I think I'd expect the S marking not to derive from an original core case.
> Maybe it could derive from something information-structural, like a topic or
> focus marking, pressed into being an marker of the formerly zero-marked S
> once the chance for ambiguity without it arose. (And a topic / focus marker
> could be an extended use of a dative marker.)
Yeah, I'm not married to the dative derivation. I'm sure there're
plenty of ways to get transitivity marking on nouns; how one gets to
that point isn't particularly important.
>>I propose a slightly different additional system that involves a lot
>>of lexicalization. Every verb, as part of its lexical definition,
>>would specify the kinds of semantic features that it prefers for
>>subjects and objects,
>
> That begins to feel like too much dissimilar data to lexicalise well. I'd
> expect that to slim down to maybe one hierarchy per broad semantic class of
> verb. Bigger things act physically on littler ones, ...
Possibly. If the origin is, say, one generation speaking with 100%
lexicalized hierarchies before the next generation simplifies it,
there's plenty of room for a middlingly-sized number of
mostly-consistent classes but with lots of individual exceptional
cases left over. Like English irregular verbs.
>>By reanalysis of the verb + role markers as a single
>>lexical unit, that could then easily further develop into a system
>>such as I've proposed before in which every verb has multiple
>>separable parts, each of which is associated with a single noun.
>
> I'd say the source is stranger than the target, there! Something like
> English's phrasal verbs could already be put on the path to this system: [the
> bird threw] [the worm up], [I threw] [the broken arrow away], etc.
I had considered that before, but then one has to explain how every
transitive verb in the language develops into a phrasal verb. One
could do it by, say, just making all verbs default intransitive and
requiring adpositions to attach additional arguments, but then you'd
expect a large degree of consistency with certain adpositions carrying
their actual original adpositional meaning, which makes the verb
complexes still decomposable.
This way, you have a path that logically requires an additional
component added to every transitive verb, but one that is specific not
to the role of the object, but to the semantics of that specific verb;
additionally, the extra verb-parts can be derived from open class
words like adjectives, which greatly expands the potential variety of
verb-parts that could be added. That makes it relatively easy to get
to a final state in which the two parts of the verb complex (the
original root and the original hierarchy marker), form a totally
unanalyzable unit, which merely happens to be phonologically
separable.
If hierarchy markers undergo, say, unusual stressing to distinguish
them from normal attributives at some point in the process, that opens
up the way for phonological processes that could even help to obscure
the relationship of the extra verb-parts with their attributive-word
origins.
-l.
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: A new direction in loglangs?
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" chronosur...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:22 pm ((PDT))
On 26 July 2012 15:58, Logan Kearsley <chronosur...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> I.e., verb- (and some clause-) modifying adverbs are actually
> semantically equivalent to higher-order functions!
> This may or may not result in a revolution in computational
> linguistics, but it certainly will result in some serious rethinking
> of Palno, and perhaps my views on the proper construction of loglangs
> in general.
After thinking about this for another day, I've concluded that the
biggest problem is resolving associativity. E.g., given the sequence
"Bob ball kick hard"
How do you know if "hard" is a higher order function operating on
"kick" before binding the arguments "Bob" and "ball", or if it's a
first-order function operating on the result of "Bob ball kick"? In a
more linguisticky terms, how do you determine if it attaches to the
verb or the clause?
In Palno so far, only the second option is possible, because there are
only first-order operators. Effectively, there are two types of things
in the language (atoms/values and predicates/functions), and
predicates always take values as arguments. If we allow higher-order
operators by letting predicates take other predicates, rather than
values, as arguments, we could introduce an explicit type system into
the language, specifying lexically what the types of an operator's
arguments must be. Then, we'd just have two separate words for "hard"
that takes a predicate argument (and thus must attach to the "verb"
with higher precedence) and "hard" that takes a value argument (and
thus must attach to the clause with lower precedence). However, I find
that horribly inelegant (despite the fact that it would really map
quite well onto natural-language verbs, which have plenty of semantic
and syntactic selectional features; in fact, this has gotten me
thinking of verb semantics in general in terms of multiple dispatch
off of typed arguments). Partially, that opinion is due to the fact
that this would result in implicitly adding a whole hierarchy of
function types to the language which could in turn be selected for and
produce yet another layer of complex types, which would not correspond
in the least degree to anything that actually occurs in human
languages. There's no reason that potential hierarchy of types would
have to be taken advantage of in the lexicon, but the fact that it
*could* be I see as a serious flaw. Ideally, the syntax should remain
fully untyped.
What a programming language would do is just add parentheses. But
spoken parentheses are wholly unnatural and best avoided. We could
define an explicit order of operations, and then just provide multiple
versions of words with different levels of precedence (so, again two
versions of "hard", with no selectional distinctions but one of which
binds closer than "kick" does and so would attach to the "verb" and
one which binds looser and so would attach to the clause). But while
this works well for math, with a limited number of operators, it
wouldn't work so well for a language with an open class of predicates.
It would be like the animacy hierarchy from hell, having to memorize
the relative positions of every possible pair of predicates in the
entire language, and you could never define enough different synonyms
for every predicate to cover ever possible binding order you might
ever want.
In one version of Palno I introduced conjunctions as a means of
simplifying syntax trees; that extra lexical class could come to the
rescue here, by adding a conjunction that acts like a high-precedence
function application operator. Then we could distinguish
"Bob ball kick hard" -> ((Bob ball kick) hard)
from
"Bob ball kick app hard" -> (Bob ball (kick hard))
It complicates parsing the syntax, because you can't use just a simple
single stack anymore, consuming arguments as soon as you encounter a
predicate; but then *all* infix conjunctions do that, so it's really a
complaint against conjunctions as an additional lexical class being in
the language at all.
Another option is inspired by some dialects of LISP that put function
names in a different namespace from value names. There could be some
special morphology that either promotes a value to a predicate or
demotes a predicate to a value. E.g., "Bob ball kickval hard", which
must parenthesize as (Bob ball (kickval hard)) because "kickval" isn't
a predicate but the result of applying the higher-order predicate
"hard" to the argument "kickval" is.
However, both of these options break down when we look at longer
chains of predicates; e.g.,
"Bob ball kick app hard app really"
Is it "Bob kicks the ball really hard" or "Really, Bob kicks the ball hard"?
I dunno. Got to think about this more.....
-l.
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6.1. Re: Transcription system for Books
Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@yahoo.com
Date: Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:32 am ((PDT))
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:38:30 +0200, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>Still, I feel that mispronouncing the names in
>Tolkien's works does injustice to his linguistic creation.
>He did not take these matters lightly at all!
Within Tolkien's particular setting, an anglicization of the Elvish names is
not so far off since it would be something similar to what the Hobbits
supposedly do: They "Hobbitize" the Elvish names.
Of course, this procedure goes only that far and should not result in the
palatalization of the C in Celeborn. But in the case of that C, there is yet
another consideration: The esthetics of the transcription. Tolkien could have
chosen K over C. If I am not mistaken, his decision to use C instead of the K
he had been using before came rather late in his process of writing the book.
He chose C in order to give the Elvish names a more classical appearance (I
guess that might have been the reason why he chose QU over previous Q).
--
grüess
mach
Messages in this topic (36)
________________________________________________________________________
6.2. Re: Transcription system for Books
Posted by: "Roman Rausch" ara...@mail.ru
Date: Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:14 am ((PDT))
>Of course, this procedure goes only that far and should not result in the
>palatalization of the C in Celeborn. But in the case of that C, there is yet
>another consideration:
>The esthetics of the transcription. Tolkien could have chosen K over C. If I
>am not mistaken, his decision to use C instead of the K he had been using
>before came
>rather late in his process of writing the book. He chose C in order to give
>the Elvish names a more classical appearance (I guess that might have been the
>reason why
>he chose QU over previous Q).
That's right, we actually have the spelling _Keleborn_ attested in the LotR
drafts, as well as other k-spellings for Sindarin
(http://www.sindanoorie.net/art/RS_TI_WR000.html#htoc141). Considering the fact
that Tolkien never used <k> in Noldorin/Sindarin before or after that, he must
have entertained the idea of a k-spelling specifically for the LotR, but chose
to stick to <c> in the end. Interestingly, he also chose to use a c-spelling
for Quenya which had previously only used k-spelling.
But shouldn't even monolingual English-speaking readers be aware of the
ambiguity of such letters as <c>? As they say in German, you cannot pre-chew
the food for everybody...
In any case, in my language, I've sprinkled some Greek letters into the
transcription. It avoids weird digraphs and diacritics, and is not as radical
or difficult to do as inserting a custom script, so it might be a worthwhile
possibilty for books. There is the same long-established custom in mathematical
notation: Quite often, one tries to exhaust Latin and Greek characters before
turning to diacritics or subscripts.
Messages in this topic (36)
________________________________________________________________________
6.3. Re: Transcription system for Books
Posted by: "BPJ" b...@melroch.se
Date: Tue Jul 31, 2012 6:22 am ((PDT))
On 2012-07-31 02:14, George Corley wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:24 PM, And Rosta <and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jörg Rhiemeier, On 30/07/2012 15:44:
>>
>>> I once knew a guy who pronounced _Dúnedain_ as [dʌn i'dein]! The
>>> "Celeborn" problem has already been mentioned in this thread.
>>>
>>
>> _Celeborn_ starting with _cell_, _Sauron_ starting with _saw_, and
>> _Dunedain_ pronounced ['dʌnidein] (but not [dʌn i'dein], tho maybe the
>> irregular final stress gives the form an evocative Celticity, cf e.g.
>> _Donegal_) are perfectly reasonable anglicizations and pronunciations of
>> those names. Tolkien had good reasons not to use forms whose anglicizations
>> would be more faithful to the source (-- the importance of fidelity to the
>> source languages; the importance of making Elven Latin remind of Latin),
>> but a reader's use of regular anglicizations is not to be considered a
>> mistake or deplored.
>
>
> I'm sorry but /s/ in Celeborn is a mistake and not a valid anglicisation to
> me. If it were actual Latin, then it would be acceptable, but it is, in
> fact, a fictional language. This is why I made the decision some time ago
> never to use <c> for /k/ in any of my conlangs, even if it aesthetically
> fits better than <k>.
>
I do the same, but then I have a tendency to use _c_ for
/tʃ/ and similar, which kind of spoils the lunch! Moreover
in Swedish */k/ has undergone palatalization to /ɕ/ before
front vowels, and I've actually heard _Kelvar_, in which
Christopher Tolkien kept the _k_ spelling (see below),
pronounced as [ɕɛlvɑ(ɻ)], including the facultative loss of
utterance final /r/ common in these parts. At least the
palatalization means no loss of phonemic distinctions as
Quenya/Sindarin are concerned. However Sueticizations of
vowel qualities ("u" --> /ʉ/, "o" --> /u/, "a" --> /o/),
_+h_ ("th" --> /t/, "dh" --> /d/~/dh/, "ch" --> /ɕ/), _v/w_
confusion and a total disregard for quantity and stress
placement are rife. I try to follow Marcus Aurelius's
advice of not pointing out linguistic errors, but to use the
correct form in my reply, and have even tried to write an
article about Tolkien's attempts to reconcile different
influences and aesthetic concerns with his desire for
accuracy in such matters, especially stressing the fact that
he originally used _k_ for Quenya, and that he decided for
_c_ against the advice of Christopher Tolkien (who spelled "Kirith
Ungol" on theGondor-Mordor map), and against his own
knowledge that Middle Welsh used _k_, the switch to _c_ being
because printers equipped for English and Latin didn't have
enough _k_ types. All to no avail so far.
As for that Elvish dude he was Silly Born, we just have to live
with it! ;) And Tokien himself said his real name was Teleporno,
which in its correctness beats any mispronunciation in the world
in outrageousness!
I'm still not decided whether I'd use 'real'
Latinization of Sohlob or some
Anglicization/Sueticization if I ever publish anything
about my conworld Sohldar. I've considered various
options, both English-targeted and Swedish-targeted,
but none is really satisfying. The more or less related
languages have more or less differing phonologies, so
that some sounds which only exist in one language or
another, so that it's OK to transcribe them with the
same letter in the 'real' transliteration, but it would
be a disservice to readers, I feel. Add to that that
the 'real' transcriptions of two of the languages are
crafted to vaguely resemble Old Norse and Old English
respectively, while that of most of the others is meant
to vaguely evoke Turkic or Persian. One language
contrasts +/-nasality on the _word level_; I haven't
even begun contemplating how to render that!
'real' 'English' 'Swedish' Sw. naïve
------------- --------- ----------- ----------- ------------
/tɕ/ c ch tj /ɕ/
/ɕ/ ç sh sj /χ/ʃ/
/(d)ʑ/ j j dj /j/
/j/ y/j y/i y/j /j/
/χ/ x kh ch /ɕ/ʃ/χ/
/ʁ/ q gh gh /g/
/ɬ/, /r̥/ hl, hr hl, hr hl, hr /l/, /r/
vcl nasal h+ h+ h+ vcd nasal
/ð/ ð dh dh /d/
/θ/ þ th th /t/
/u/ u u u (o?) /ʉ/
/ɒ/ o/å o o/å (a?) /u/o/
/ɑ/ a a/â a ("â"?) /ɒ/ɑ/
/æ/ æ/ä ae/æ/a ä /ɛ/
/ɨ/ e/ë ie/ë/ï "ë"/e/"ï" /e/ɛ/i/
/ɔ/ o o/oa/ô o (å?) /u/
/ɛ/ e e e /e/ɛ/
/y/ ü/y ue/ü/y "ü"/y /ʉ/y/
/œ/ø/ ö/œ oe/œ ö /ø/
vwl length VV/´ VV/^ VV/^ ?
/bpj
Messages in this topic (36)
________________________________________________________________________
6.4. Re: Transcription system for Books
Posted by: "BPJ" b...@melroch.se
Date: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:43 am ((PDT))
On 2012-07-31 15:14, Roman Rausch wrote:
> In any case, in my language, I've sprinkled some
> Greek letters into the transcription. It avoids weird
> digraphs and diacritics, and is not as radical or
> difficult to do as inserting a custom script, so it
> might be a worthwhile possibilty for books. There is
> the same long-established custom in mathematical
> notation: Quite often, one tries to exhaust Latin and
> Greek characters before turning to diacritics or
> subscripts.
I've considered using Greek letters, but if you then need
both _b_ and _β_, as I do for Isturjeb, how do you capitalize
them? I could abuse _Ɓ/Б_, but would readers really follow
me out on that limb? Then _Ƀƀ, Ꝑꝑ_ seem preferable.
*I* have nothing against diacritics, even though I know
my readers may, and more importantly on the WWW: they may
lack the font coverage; then even +h digraphs, which I
viscerally detest other than for aspirated consonants,
start to seem like an option, along with the interpunct
to show where there's not a digraph.
Shame to say I even prefer something like this for
Isturjeb: for those who do and don't care about language
alike it will look, appropriately, weird, staccato,
'guttural' and alien (even to Hungarians I believe! ;-),
but for those who do care about language there will
still be a system.
f fv sz s sc sj x xq xh
/ɸ/ /f/ /θ/ /s/ /ʃ/ /ɕ/ /x/ /χ/ /h/
vf v z zs zc zj qx q h
/β/ /v/ /ð/ /z/ /ʒ/ /ʑ/ /ɣ/ /ʁ/ /ɦ/
- pf cz cs c(h) cj kx kq -
- /pf/ /tθ/ /ts/ /tʃ/ /tɕ/ /kx/ /qχ/ -
- bv jz js jc j(h) gx gq -
- /bv/ /dð/ /dz/ /dʒ/ /dʑ/ /gɣ/ /ɢʁ/ -
p - td t - - kg k kh
/p/ - /t̪/ /t/ - - /k/ /q/ /ʔ/
b - d dt - - g gk -
/b/ - /d̪/ /d/ - - /g/ /ɢ/ -
m mv - n - ny ng nq nh
/m/ /ɱ/ - /n/ - /ɲ/ /ŋ/ /ɴ/ /~/
hm hmv - hn - hny hng hnq
/m̥/ /ɱ̊/ - /n̥/ - /ɲ̊/ /ŋ̊/ /ɴ̥/
- - r ll - ly l rq
- - /r/ /ɮ/ - /ʝˡ/ ʟ /ʀ/
- - hr hll - hly hl hrq
- - /r̥/ /ɬ/ - /çˡ/ /ʟ̥/ /ʀ̥/
/bpj
Messages in this topic (36)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. Re: Adjective Suffixes/Prefixes
Posted by: "David McCann" da...@polymathy.plus.com
Date: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:46 am ((PDT))
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:28:24 -0700
Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, David McCann <da...@polymathy.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> Uninflected languages with postponed adjectives
>> tend to avoid multiple adjectives, using relative clauses
>> instead. E.g. Malay rumah batu yang baru
>> house stone that new
>> "new stone house"
> That's true about Malay, especially if the NP is indefinite. If it's
> definite (at least in Indonesian) then the noun phrase ends with
> "itu" = 'that, the' or "ini" 'this' and I'm not sure, but I think you
> can pile on several adjectives and prep.phrases between the noun and
> the "itu"
Quite so. The demonstrative marks the end of the NP.
rumah saya di Jakarta yang terbakar itu
house I in Jakarta which burnt-down that
"that house of mine in Jakarta which burnt down"
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8. Indie Movie Looking For Language
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" chronosur...@gmail.com
Date: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:05 am ((PDT))
http://www.wreckamovie.com/tasks/show/2688
They provide the sample dialog that they want translated. There's one
day left to make proposals, and so far the only thing they've got is a
guy suggesting they play the dialog backwards.
-l.
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
9a. Re: Hoofik
Posted by: "BPJ" b...@melroch.se
Date: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:06 am ((PDT))
>
> However, I recently came across Liberman's discussion of the order of the
> futhark, which sees quite a different word at the head:
> http://blog.oup.com/2007/10/element_hocus_pocus/ -- search for "futh"
That's oooold news among Scandinavists. Everybody learns it at
some post-seminar in their second year. ;-)
Moreover in the early medieval version of the fuþark the fourth
rune had by regular sound change in its name come to stand for
/o/ or /ɒ/, so that the fourth to sixth rune also form a word,
namely _ǫrk_ 'ark, chest, casket'. It's debated whether the
resulting collocation _fuðǫrk_, which kinda makes a kenning
for 'womb' was lost on the medievals (magicians in particular,
one guesses), but it has certainly not been lost on the moderns!
BTW the dictionary has an amazing word: _fuðhundr_ "cunt-dog"
'one who runs away from his (probably pregnant) girlfriend'.
It doesn't list the simplex _fuð_ though...
/bpj
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
10. Re: CONLANG Digest - 29 Jul 2012 to 30 Jul 2012 (#2012-213)
Posted by: "John H. Chalmers" jhchalm...@ucsd.edu
Date: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:11 am ((PDT))
Roger: I'm very sorry about your sister's passing. Please accept my
condolences.
Michael: A lot of English words in many dialects have a i-glide before
long u sounds.\
For example, cute in American English has the ju sound, so I'm not too
surprised that
someone transliterating an English word with a long u might spell Tûk as
Tjuko.
Gary: There seems to be less interest in "conmusic" than I would hope. I
see no reason why
ETs or concultures in general should limit their music to the familiar
12-tone equal temperament.
There's a wealth of material about alternative scales, tunings,
harmonies, etc. on the net, especially
under the names microtonal and xenharmonic.
--John
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
