There are 23 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: "In spite of"
From: John Quijada
1b. Re: "In spite of"
From: Jim Henry
2a. Contact information for Joshua Shinavier and Daniel Feuchard?
From: Jim Henry
2b. Re: Contact information for Joshua Shinavier and Daniel Feuchard?
From: Jeffrey Jones
3a. Re: Case or theta-role term for object of performance?
From: David McCann
3b. Re: Case or theta-role term for object of performance?
From: Yahya Abdal-Aziz
3c. Re: Case or theta-role term for object of performance?
From: Jim Henry
4. Brithenig (was Re: Ebb and flow (was Re: Naisek Pages Updated))
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
5a. Art is when someone says 'Now' -- or is it?
From: Jim Henry
5b. Re: Art is when someone says 'Now' -- or is it?
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
5c. Re: Art is when someone says 'Now' -- or is it?
From: Jim Henry
6a. 'out-' affix in conlangs?
From: Henrik Theiling
6b. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
From: Lars Finsen
6c. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
From: Jim Henry
6d. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
From: M. Czapp
7a. Nutrition and pleasurable sense data
From: Jim Henry
7b. Re: Nutrition and pleasurable sense data
From: Eldin Raigmore
8a. "Kitchen sink conlang" and other such terms
From: Jim Henry
8b. Re: "Kitchen sink conlang" and other such terms
From: Jeffrey Jones
8c. Re: "Kitchen sink conlang" and other such terms
From: Scotto Hlad
8d. Re: "Kitchen sink conlang" and other such terms
From: Scotto Hlad
8e. Re: "Kitchen sink conlang" and other such terms
From: Jeffrey Jones
8f. Re: "Kitchen sink conlang" and other such terms
From: David J. Peterson
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: "In spite of"
Posted by: "John Quijada" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed Aug 6, 2008 7:04 pm ((PDT))
Jim Henry wrote:
>I'm particularly interested in languages where it's derived
>from some more basic root rather than being an unanalyzable
>particle.
>
>Jim Henry
===============================================
Hi Jim:
I would create a root whose meaning is "something (whose
existence/state/manifestation is) contrary to expectation."
--John Q.
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: "In spite of"
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 7, 2008 2:29 am ((PDT))
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:03 PM, John Quijada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would create a root whose meaning is "something (whose
> existence/state/manifestation is) contrary to expectation."
Hmm. I have a root word for "expectation" in this sense,
{^jriw}; {^jriw-ja} is "according to expectation", and I suppose
{^jriw-dô} would be "contrary to expectation" (or more exactly
"violating (one's) expectations or presuppositions").
"Something (whose existence/state/manifestation is) contrary
to expectation" would be a noun phrase, {gâ ^jriw-dô}.
But I could derive a postposition directly from
the adjective, {^jriw-dô-i}. That's probably workable, since
this postposition is likely to be relatively rare in the
corpus (seeing as how it took me ten years to get
around to coining it; although, after coining a word for
it a week or so ago for a translation, I've found use
for it two or three times in my journal, oddly enough,
much as one will notice a word being used several times
in the days after one has first learned it).
The meaning I'm after here is a bit more specific
-- I had glossed {mil} as "unexpected noncausation",
but I think I should have said "unepexected non-prevention"
or "non-hindrance". That is, there's an entity or event
that one would have have expected to prevent some
other entity or event, but which in fact had no significant
effect on it. It seems to be related to the meanings
of the conjunctions "but, however, although, even though",
etc. -- which all involve a basic "and" conjunctive notion
plus +mirative marking of the preceding or following
clause -- and the particle "even" which Suzette
Haden Elgin writes about with such eloquent consternation.
Yet another possibility is to derive the postposition from
the mindstate root word meaning "surprise": {wlâ-i}.
I'm not sure that would be consistent with the other
semantic patterns in the mindstate area, though.
The only other postpositions I have derived from
mindstate roots so far are e.g. {fâ-i} "for the love of";
by analogy with that, {wlâ-i} would seem to mean
"motivated by surprise at", which doesn't work here.
I'm not sure why it couldn't mean "being surprised
by" which is a closer fit.
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/gzb/semantic.htm#p21_7578276
Thanks (and thanks to all the people who posted conlang and natlang
examples of words similar in meaning).
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang/
Messages in this topic (12)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Contact information for Joshua Shinavier and Daniel Feuchard?
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 7, 2008 2:31 am ((PDT))
Does anyone have current contact information for Joshua Shinavier
or Daniel Feuchard? The addresses I have for them are bouncing.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang/fluency-survey.html
Conlang fluency survey -- there's still time to participate before
I analyze the results and write the article
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Contact information for Joshua Shinavier and Daniel Feuchard?
Posted by: "Jeffrey Jones" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 7, 2008 4:47 am ((PDT))
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 05:31:46 -0400, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Does anyone have current contact information for Joshua Shinavier
> or Daniel Feuchard? The addresses I have for them are bouncing.
>
> --
> Jim Henry
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang/fluency-survey.html
> Conlang fluency survey -- there's still time to participate before
> I analyze the results and write the article
Daniel Feuchard at least has been active on ZBB. You might try there.
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Case or theta-role term for object of performance?
Posted by: "David McCann" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 7, 2008 8:22 am ((PDT))
On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 09:35 -0400, Jim Henry wrote:
> In sentences like these,
>
> * Kate sang a madrigal.
>
> * We played four games of Go.
>
> -- it seems to me there's a common element the direct objects have;
> they're transitory processes called into existence while the action
> of the verb is being performed.
> Is there a standard
> term in linguistics for this theta role or case? Are there natlangs or
> conlangs that consistently mark this role distinctively from patients,
> and if so, what other theta roles tend to be marked with the same
> case?
I couldn't remember any examples, and a quick check of Palmer's
"Grammatical roles and relations" doesn't show any sentences of this
type, but I should think that it would be covered by the distinction
between affected and unaffected patients.
In Ga'dang (Austronesian), the verbal marking shows if the patient (when
the topic) is altered (e.g. broken) or not (e.g. tied up). Rather
differently, in Japanese things you read are accusative, those you like
are nominative, and people you meet are dative. In Tabassaran
(Caucasian), things you look at are in the dative.
It seems too esoteric to ever get its own case or verbal marking (and so
to need a term in linguistics), but the object of a performance could
obviously be treated as a dative or partitive, or put into an oblique
case as in gzb. The performer would seem to be nominative or ergative:
after all, they are *doing* something, unlike one who experiences a
sight or liking.
Of course, some people want a word for *everything*: generally in wikis
rather than in books, though.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Case or theta-role term for object of performance?
Posted by: "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 7, 2008 8:31 am ((PDT))
Jim Henry wrote:
'In sentences like these,
* Kate sang a madrigal.
* We played four games of Go.
* I read "The Raven" aloud.
* The troupe performed "Hamlet".
-- it seems to me there's a common element the direct objects have;
they're transitory processes called into existence while the action
of the verb is being performed. Rick Morneau classes these
kinds of verb arguments as "focus" as distinct from "patient";
they certainly aren't patients, but it seems to me they're also
different from objects-of-result as in
* Kate composed a madrigal.
* Edgar Allan Poe wrote "The Raven".
* What unknown genius invented Go?
* If Bacon wrote Hamlet, Shakepeare must have written the Organon.
This one seems to be a borderline case:
* Tom gave an extempore speech.
-- that is, it's a transitory result of a creative act.'
Jim, how important to your distinction is the degree of creativity involved?
>From the perspective of modern (and perhaps, post-modern?) performers,
each performance (singing, playing, reading, presenting) of an established
work is an original creative act, of no less significance than the creative act
(composition, invention, design, writing) that established the (broad) form and
content of that work. Equally, one might say that the work in question does
not really exist, except in the abstract, until it is "actualized" (filthy
word!) by
being practiced or performed.
>From a more traditional perspective, of course, all the hard or important work
is done by the original creative "artist as genius"; the work of the players,
musicians, and readers is necessary but subsidiary. We see this approach
taken by the performers of the classic Japanese drama; innovation is not
expected here. This point of view is also compatible with that of the
traditional public servant: one who "performed" his duties religiously, but
without an ounce of interpretation being required or even desired of him, the
duties in question having been established by a superior authority.
Having both constructed languages and spoken them; composed music and
sung or performed it; written stories and read them; invented games and
played them, I can't say that I'm actually conscious of any greater necessity
for application of my creative skills whether I'm originating a new work or
performing one. There's always enough scope for creative interpretation to
sufficiently tax my resources! I guess my point is this: that although I can
see the distinction you're making, in theory, it doesn't seem to be of any
great
practical significance.
Nor could it be, unless in a context where the norms of performance so rigidly
proscribed innovation that the only creative act must be seen to be the
origination of the work. Such societies have undoubtedly existed before, and
may again - but I'd never find them very congenial ...
Regards,
Yahya
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Case or theta-role term for object of performance?
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 7, 2008 9:10 am ((PDT))
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:20 AM, David McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 09:35 -0400, Jim Henry wrote:
>> Is there a standard
>> term in linguistics for this theta role or case? Are there natlangs or
> I couldn't remember any examples, and a quick check of Palmer's
> "Grammatical roles and relations" doesn't show any sentences of this
> type, but I should think that it would be covered by the distinction
> between affected and unaffected patients.
"Unaffected patient" seems at first like a contradiction in terms, as
far as I understand the term "patient". But:
> In Ga'dang (Austronesian), the verbal marking shows if the patient (when
> the topic) is altered (e.g. broken) or not (e.g. tied up).
That makes sense, and I guess affected vs unaffected patient
is not a bad way to terminologize it. Still, gzb would conceptualize
tying a knot in a string as a patient relation (or perhaps
object-of-result, if the object noun were knot rather than string)
even though the string isn't as drastically affected by tying
as it would be by cutting or burning. If I were starting over,
I might have two or more patient cases for different degrees
of affectedness, but this part of gzb is too stable for that
to change now.
> It seems too esoteric to ever get its own case or verbal marking (and so
> to need a term in linguistics), but the object of a performance could
> obviously be treated as a dative or partitive, or put into an oblique
> case as in gzb. The performer would seem to be nominative or ergative:
> after all, they are *doing* something, unlike one who experiences a
> sight or liking.
Yes, the performer of all these verbs would get agent-case marking
in gzb. The (tentatively named) performative case isn't necessarily
oblique in gzb, though; I'm not sure gzb has any oblique cases
as distinct from non-oblique cases. All cases except topic,
agent and experiencer are obligatorily marked by postpositions;
the patient case doesn't get special treatment that marks
it out from other theta roles, like the accusative case in
IE languages. I think the only way you could say that the
patient case postposition is special is that it occurs more often in the
corpus than the other postpositions; syntactically it's treated like all
the other object case postpositions.
The most common case and spacetime postpositions in the corpus are,
2.7230% 218 hxy-i patient
2.4731% 198 miq-i topic
2.2733% 182 i at
1.4864% 119 kax-i object of attention
1.4614% 117 tu-i agent
1.2366% 99 o to
1.0867% 87 jax-o becoming
0.8619% 69 sqi after
0.8119% 65 nxiqn-i comment
0.5121% 41 im part of
0.4871% 39 nxaxw-o addressee of communication
0.4372% 35 daxm-rq by (authorship)
0.3997% 32 jax-rq ceasing-to-be
0.3747% 30 kujm-o for, in order to
0.3622% 29 liqw-i related to
0.3123% 25 kriq-o object of result
0.2873% 23 sxu-i of (quality)
0.2748% 22 il through
0.2623% 21 jqaxr-i experiencer
0.2498% 20 syj-i with, using
0.2498% 20 jax-i in such a state
I'm not sure how good a corpus this is re:
representativity, since it has a mix of archaic and current
text and I haven't made any effort to balance the
relative word-count of different genres as in the
Brown Corpus. About half of it is randomly selected
journal entries from 2002-2008, and most of the other
half is translation exercises and relay texts.
> Of course, some people want a word for *everything*: generally in wikis
> rather than in books, though.
I need some way to refer to this distinctly in the gzb grammar, and I'd like
to use a standard term if I can. I can make up my own terms like
the Lojbanists, of course, if I have to, and it looks like I'll have to in
this case (pun unintended, but shamelessly left in place once noticed).
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Yahya Abdal-Aziz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim, how important to your distinction is the degree of creativity involved?
>
> From the perspective of modern (and perhaps, post-modern?) performers,
> each performance (singing, playing, reading, presenting) of an established
> work is an original creative act, of no less significance than the creative
> act
<snip>
.........
> sufficiently tax my resources! I guess my point is this: that although I can
> see the distinction you're making, in theory, it doesn't seem to be of any
> great
> practical significance.
I think in gzb the degree of creativity is not what matters, but the
transitoriness of the creative act's result. I would use {kri-o} to
mark objects-of-result of creative acts that stick around in some
form or other, even for a relatively short time after the action
of the verb is complete, and {^cul-i} for creative objects-of-result
that exist only while the action of the verb is being done.
As for the practical significance, consider that gzb, though not
verbless like Kelen, is (what I might call) verb-drop; if the postpositions
in a sentence are explicit enough about the relations of the
various entities denoted by the nouns, then no verb is needed.
So for instance
^srun-twâ ^cul-i.
music-saying performance-at
I sing a song.
^srun-twâ kri-o.
music-saying create-to
I compose a song.
Here the explicitness of the two postpositions makes it unnecessary
to supply verbs. (The first-person agent is also left out by the default
subject rule.)
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang/fluency-survey.html
Conlang fluency survey -- there's still time to participate before
I analyze the results and write the article
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Brithenig (was Re: Ebb and flow (was Re: Naisek Pages Updated))
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 7, 2008 11:52 am ((PDT))
Hallo!
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 20:42:10 +1200, andrew wrote:
> [re changing Brithenig or not]
>
> Best to leave it as is. I think if I did get around to working on an
> alternative Brythonic conlang I should have a go at doing an a priori
> language. Could be interesting to try. (Although Sindarin already
> exists! :) At my current rate of conlanging this should take place
> sometime around about when we achieve technological singularity.
>
> Grammatically I consider Brithenig a closed canon. Lexically I'm still
> researching words and phrases for translation exercises.
Yes. Brithenig is a classic, and apart from researching new words,
it ought to be kept the way it is. Any substantial change to its
phonology or grammar would cause a major upheaval with the Ill
Bethisad community and is not worth the trouble.
A friend of a friend of mine once said, "Art is when someone says
'Now'." There is a point in most works of art when the artist
declares it finished and refrains from further additions. Art
always means to choose what to do and what NOT to do.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Art is when someone says 'Now' -- or is it?
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Aug 7, 2008 10:16 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A friend of a friend of mine once said, "Art is when someone says
> 'Now'." There is a point in most works of art when the artist
> declares it finished and refrains from further additions. Art
> always means to choose what to do and what NOT to do.
Without disagreeing with you and Ray that Andrew should probably
refrain from major changes in Brithenig, I wonder whether the saying
you quoted really applies to artlangs in general, and whether, if it
doesn't, that has anything to say about how conlanging differs
fundamentally from other artforms.
I suppose many of us who work one one conlang long-term, whether
engelang or artlang or even auxlang,will never consider it really
finished. One of our ideal goals, which we can never reach in a
single lifetime, is to make it as expressive as the typical natlang.
Unless we start out with a severe degree of simplicity in the grammar
as one of the design goals, we may never be finished with the grammar,
and unless we start out with oligosynthesis or oligoisolation as a
design principle, we'll never be finished with the vocabulary. The
open-endedness of our goal of maximum expressivity doesn't necessarily
mean we keep tinkering with existing parts of the language; but it
does mean we can never say it's finished in the way a novelist or
painter says he's finished with a novel or painting. There's always
another species of beetle you haven't got a name for yet.
Is there any equivalent in other art forms to the state Brithenig is
in?
>> Grammatically I consider Brithenig a closed canon. Lexically I'm still
>> researching words and phrases for translation exercises.
Novelists, for instance, occasionally do second editions of their
novels (James Branch Cabell, J.R.R. Tolkien); but I've never heard of
one saying something equivalent to this, like "I may keep making
slight additions to the worldbuilding detail until I die, but the plot
and characters aren't going to change". That doesn't mean that
conlanging is a better or worse kind of artform than literature (let's
not open that can of worms again) but it may tell us something about
how they differ.
To return to another point,
> Art always means to choose what to do and what NOT to do.
I agree that applies to artlanging (and engelanging insofar as it can
be an art or craft) as much as to any other kind of art, even though I
disagree that (baring certain unusual goals or design principles) an
artlang should at some point be considered finished and left in an
unchanging state thereafter. There can be art in the ways you
deliberately choose to leave certain grammatical capabilities out of a
language or in what concepts you deliberately choose not to
lexicalize. The term "kitchen sink conlang" was coined for a good
reason.[1]
Another point: it seems that many conlangers think of their conlangs
primarily in terms of *langue* rather than *parole*. I may be in a
minority in focusing on *parole* -- more and more in recent years, I
think. gzb is stabilizing, I'm becoming semi-fluent in it, and its
corpus is growing, so there's more scope to observe and describe my
usage and less scope to creatively make arbitrary, unconstrained
design decisions about how it's going to work. But my last few
sketchlangs have also been *parole*-oriented, almost all my notes on
them consisting of sentences in the language with general (not
interlinear) glosses, having little or no lexicon or analytical
description of grammar. Even with my engelang project säb zjeda,
there is more grammar implied by the corpus than what is explicitly
described in the grammar documentation. It may be that this
orientation is part of why I see artlanging as an inherently
open-ended process; the *langue* may at some point seem to be as complete
and expressive as necessary, but as long as *parole* is going on, it's
going to change the *langue* in various subtle ways.
Every natlang is a collaborative conlang in a sense, each speaker's
*parole* acts of speech and writing constantly modifying the *langue*
structures in their own and other speakers' brains, which influence
the form future *parole* will take, which determine the *langue*
structures that will eventually form in the brains of speakers yet
unborn. And it seems to me that something similar may take place on a
smaller scale in the interaction between a lone artlanger and his
conlang, if he works on it intensely enough for long enough, even if
not enough to become truly fluent in it. Once you get that kind of
positive feedback loop going, why would you ever want to stop?
1. -- I Googled the term and got only 5 hits; I'd thought it was more
commonly used than that. The earliest datable uses were from 2006.
I thought I'd seen it used before then.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang/fluency-survey.html
Conlang fluency survey -- there's still time to participate before
I analyze the results and write the article
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: Art is when someone says 'Now' -- or is it?
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 8, 2008 12:59 pm ((PDT))
Hallo!
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 01:16:31 -0400, Jim Henry wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > A friend of a friend of mine once said, "Art is when someone says
> > 'Now'." There is a point in most works of art when the artist
> > declares it finished and refrains from further additions. Art
> > always means to choose what to do and what NOT to do.
>
> Without disagreeing with you and Ray that Andrew should probably
> refrain from major changes in Brithenig, I wonder whether the saying
> you quoted really applies to artlangs in general, and whether, if it
> doesn't, that has anything to say about how conlanging differs
> fundamentally from other artforms.
Sure. There is art which exists as a *process* without a
definable endpoint. Yet, many processes of artistic creation
eventually reach a point of time when the artist decides that
his work was finished and he'd not add another stroke.
An artlang indeed is never really finished; there are always
more words to coin and usually also gaps in the grammar to
fill as the author proceeds in composing texts in it. Yet,
at least I feel that things need to be settled at a lower
level of the structure (e.g., phonology) before one can
expect to make much progress somewhere higher (e.g.,
morphology). It is always difficult to change things at
the bottom if there is much being built up upon it.
I also should have stated that I myself think that that FOAF's
statement needs to be qualified. That guy had some rather
radical ideas of art, and some of his art is indeed quite
radical, too - he'd take a canvas, paint it solid green, and
then write a lengthy manifesto on what that painting is meant
to express :)
> I suppose many of us who work one one conlang long-term, whether
> engelang or artlang or even auxlang,will never consider it really
> finished.
Sure; see above.
> One of our ideal goals, which we can never reach in a
> single lifetime, is to make it as expressive as the typical natlang.
> Unless we start out with a severe degree of simplicity in the grammar
> as one of the design goals, we may never be finished with the grammar,
> and unless we start out with oligosynthesis or oligoisolation as a
> design principle, we'll never be finished with the vocabulary. The
> open-endedness of our goal of maximum expressivity doesn't necessarily
> mean we keep tinkering with existing parts of the language; but it
> does mean we can never say it's finished in the way a novelist or
> painter says he's finished with a novel or painting. There's always
> another species of beetle you haven't got a name for yet.
Certainly. A conlang is never ever finished. It grows with use.
Languages are by their nature big and complex systems, and there
is always something left to be covered. Even a closed-vocabulary
scheme like Toki Pona is never "finished" - while one can say that
the language will never gain more lexemes, there are still more
semantemes to be added in the form of idiomatic compounds. The
word list and the grammar of Toki Pona won't tell you how to
translate, say, "morphosyntactic alignment" into TP.
Yet, in order to make any progress in making a conlang, you
eventually have to make some basic decision that are not subject
to revision. You have to decide which phonemes to use before you
can move on to anything else, for instance. There are conlangers
who constantly revise even the most basic elements of their
conlang, sure; but those never get anywhere near being able to
"use" their conlang. As And Rosta once put it, they are like a
motorcyclist who constantly assembles, diassembles and modifies
his motorcycle without ever getting to ride it. *I* wish to
"ride my motorcycle"!
> Is there any equivalent in other art forms to the state Brithenig is
> in?
I don't know. Perhaps a role-playing game: there is a world and
a set of rules set out in book form, but the actual narratives
result from people playing it. (Of course, the players can
introduce house rules and change the world's history, just as
someone can go and build a conlang derived from Brithenig.)
> >> Grammatically I consider Brithenig a closed canon. Lexically I'm still
> >> researching words and phrases for translation exercises.
>
> Novelists, for instance, occasionally do second editions of their
> novels (James Branch Cabell, J.R.R. Tolkien);
And painters occasionally paint several different versions of their
paintings; etc.
> but I've never heard of
> one saying something equivalent to this, like "I may keep making
> slight additions to the worldbuilding detail until I die, but the plot
> and characters aren't going to change". That doesn't mean that
> conlanging is a better or worse kind of artform than literature (let's
> not open that can of worms again) but it may tell us something about
> how they differ.
Concurred. It is meaningless to say that one artform was superior
to another artform, and even comparative judgements of works within
the same field are bound to be subjective. Let's keep that can of
worms firmly closed.
> To return to another point,
>
> > Art always means to choose what to do and what NOT to do.
>
> I agree that applies to artlanging (and engelanging insofar as it can
> be an art or craft) as much as to any other kind of art, even though I
> disagree that (baring certain unusual goals or design principles) an
> artlang should at some point be considered finished and left in an
> unchanging state thereafter.
Sure. What Andrew meant was, I think, that he was not going to
revise the phonological and morphosyntactic *structure* of Brithenig,
but he'll very much continue *using* the language, i.e. compose new
texts in it, which entails adding new *words* to it. That is also
what I meant when I quoted my friend's friend.
> There can be art in the ways you
> deliberately choose to leave certain grammatical capabilities out of a
> language or in what concepts you deliberately choose not to
> lexicalize. The term "kitchen sink conlang" was coined for a good
> reason.[1]
Yes. That's exactly what I meant when I said that art always means
to choose what to do and what not to do. There is an endless choice
of possibilities, and you have to make a selection. Otherwise, if
you include everything you can think of, you end up with a kitchen
sink conlang. Old Albic, for instance, has 18 consonant phonemes,
not because I could not think of more, but because I made a conscious
choice to use certain phonemes and not to use many others. There was
a point when I had a list of phonemes and, as my FOAF put it, "said
'Now'": I decided that those phonemes were the phonemes of Old Albic,
and it has been at that ever since. If I was to change this phoneme
inventory, I'd have to change so many things I have built up on it
since then: the phonotactics, the morphology, the 1000-something
words in my lexicon, etc. No, the phoneme inventory has been fixed
for about five years by now, and I am not going to change it. The
grammar is also quite advanced by now; what has already been laid
out won't be subject to major changes, though there is certainly
still something to be added. And the lexicon, of course, is an
eternally open matter.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. Re: Art is when someone says 'Now' -- or is it?
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 8, 2008 1:24 pm ((PDT))
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Jörg Rhiemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree with pretty much everything you said here, and
won't quote or comment in detail on much of it, except:
>> Is there any equivalent in other art forms to the state Brithenig is
>> in?
> I don't know. Perhaps a role-playing game: there is a world and
> a set of rules set out in book form, but the actual narratives
> result from people playing it. (Of course, the players can
Hmm. Is that any indicator of a general similarity between
roleplaying and conlanging that's closer than the resemblances
between either of them and other art forms? It's generally seemed
to me that roleplaying is most similar to fiction writing, on the
one hand, and theater, on the other hand; but here's an aspect
in which it's more similar to conlanging than either of those.
This reminds me that a friend once asked me if I thought
we could adapt Glossotechnia in such as way as to combine
it with a role-playing game. We still haven't figured out a way
to do it yet. The languages created by the players in Glossotechnia
games tend to lack concultural context; maybe it would be
interesting to add optional cards and rules covering
the language/culture interaction....? And then the players could,
in addition to working on coining words to translate their
challenge sentences, also be roleplaying as persons living
in the as-yet-underspecified conculture that speaks the
language being created by the game?
>> There can be art in the ways you
>> deliberately choose to leave certain grammatical capabilities out of a
>> language or in what concepts you deliberately choose not to
>> lexicalize. The term "kitchen sink conlang" was coined for a good
>> reason.[1]
> Yes. That's exactly what I meant when I said that art always means
> to choose what to do and what not to do. There is an endless choice
> of possibilities, and you have to make a selection. Otherwise, if
> you include everything you can think of, you end up with a kitchen
> sink conlang. Old Albic, for instance, has 18 consonant phonemes,
> not because I could not think of more, but because I made a conscious
> choice to use certain phonemes and not to use many others. There was
> a point when I had a list of phonemes and, as my FOAF put it, "said
> 'Now'":
The first version of gzb phonology, in March 1998, was pretty kitchen-sinky;
all the phonemes I knew how to pronounce and a few more I could barely
manage, and phonotactics that allowed zillions of consonant clusters.
I made major changes within a few weeks, and a few more changes over
the next two years; the phoneme inventory is still large, but hopefully it's
much more coherent than the original phoneme inventory, and the
phonotactics are much more elegant now. The phonology has been
stable for eight years, and most parts of the grammar have been stable
for 3-6 years. Certain semantic fields are very stable, others are still
growing by new root words although their overall structure is fixed,
and others are still in flux such that existing roots might narrow their
meaning as new roots are added to take on some of their workload.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. 'out-' affix in conlangs?
Posted by: "Henrik Theiling" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 8, 2008 3:59 am ((PDT))
Hi!
Does anyone have an affix in their conlang that corresponds more or
less directly to the English prefix 'out-' as in transitive verbs as
'outperform', 'outsell', etc.?
It would be a nice feature if a language had this a the only way to
form comparisons, especially languages where advectives are verbs. So
you would say ,Jim outtalls John'. ANADEW?
I just made a sidenote to think about this in new conlangs.
Bye,
Henrik
--
------------------------------ Dr. Henrik Theiling -------------
Tel: +49 681 38360 27 AbsInt Angewandte Informatik GmbH
Fax: +49 681 38360 20 Science Park 1
http://www.AbsInt.com/ D-66123 Saarbruecken
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dr.-Ing. Christian Ferdinand
Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Saarbruecken, HRB 11234
Encrypted e-mail preferred. Private: http://www.theiling.de/
0x9E314CA5 FA 1C 02 C9 58 04 57 6E 53 9C DF 94 B4 45 AE 24
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
6b. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
Posted by: "Lars Finsen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 8, 2008 4:30 am ((PDT))
Den 8. aug. 2008 kl. 12.58 skreiv Henrik Theiling:
>
>
> Does anyone have an affix in their conlang that corresponds more or
> less directly to the English prefix 'out-' as in transitive verbs as
> 'outperform', 'outsell', etc.?
>
> It would be a nice feature if a language had this a the only way to
> form comparisons, especially languages where advectives are verbs. So
> you would say ,Jim outtalls John'. ANADEW?
Suraetua has a suffix -u/-wa for verbalising any adjective, but in
such comparisons it isn't in fact needed. Suraetuan auxiliaries are
translated as "be" or "do" depending on context, and simple
copulative statements are formed with the subject, the adjective and
the intransitive auxiliary, example:
Jim engen ju - "Jim is tall" (jim-abs tall he.is),
while comparisons such as above is formed with the subject in the
ergative, the object in the absolutive, the adjective, and the
transitive auxiliary:
Jimke John engen a - "Jim is tall to John" (Jim-erg John-abs tall
he.is.to.him).
LEF
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
6c. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 8, 2008 4:50 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Henrik Theiling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Does anyone have an affix in their conlang that corresponds more or
> less directly to the English prefix 'out-' as in transitive verbs as
> 'outperform', 'outsell', etc.?
gzb doesn't. I thought at first of Esperanto "super-" used prefixively,
but I'm not sure it has the same effect on the argument structure
of the verb as English "out-".
I added this to the
http://conlang.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_derivation_methods
as "To VERB more than / to a greater degree than NOUN".
The subject stays the same, the object of comparison becomes
the direct object, and the direct object (if any) is dropped.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
6d. Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
Posted by: "M. Czapp" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 8, 2008 11:14 am ((PDT))
Am Vendredo 08 Augusto 2008 schrieb Henrik Theiling:
> Hi!
>
> Does anyone have an affix in their conlang that corresponds more or
> less directly to the English prefix 'out-' as in transitive verbs as
> 'outperform', 'outsell', etc.?
>
> It would be a nice feature if a language had this a the only way to
> form comparisons, especially languages where advectives are verbs. So
> you would say ,Jim outtalls John'. ANADEW?
>
The conlang I made, Rejistanian, can use the comparison particles as verbs due
to the 'weak typing discipline'* of the language. Of course this implies that
the adjective is already known from previous sentences: Jason mi'salan. Anna
mi'alna. (Jason is big, Anna is bigger). Esperanto does something similar
with 'pli^sati' (to prefer) (pli: 'more'; ^sati: to like).
~Mechthild
*HIJACK: Is there a better linguistic term for the ease with which you can
change whether a word is a noun, adjective or a verb? The best example for
weak typing (easy/implicite changes) might be Esperanto, German is of the
languages I know the one with the most problematic 'typecasts.
--
Bitte beachten Sie, dass dem Gesetz zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung zufolge
jeder elektronische Kontakt mit mir sechs Monate lang gespeichert wird.
Please note that according to the German law on data retention,
information on every electronic information exchange with me is retained
for a period of six months.
www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. Nutrition and pleasurable sense data
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 8, 2008 6:45 am ((PDT))
Does anyone have nutritional terminology in their conlang? If so,
what concepts are the roots and how do you derive others from them?
gzb has root words for "calorie" and for "glucose", from the latter of which
terms for "sugar" and "fructose" are derived. I don't have a word yet
for "sucrose"; it seems like it ought to be derived rather than root,
but I'm not sure how yet. Maybe from the word for sugar and a word
for some foodstuff that's typically made with sucrose?
I lack as yet words for vitamins, proteins, fats, carbohydrates
(I reckon I could derive a general term for the latter from words
for carbon and hydrogen), or minerals other than iron, zinc, and calcium.
I don't think my chemistry knowledge is up to snuff for deriving
all those systematically, yet. I might could derive "fat" from
a word for butter or ice cream plus the "primary/active ingredient"
suffix. (The word for milk + that suffix already is in use for
"calcium".) Protein, maybe the same kind of derivation from
the word for meat/muscle, and maybe "carbohydrate" from
the word for rice or potato or something. What about vitamins?
This musing grew out of a small translation project, rendering the
Sirius Cybernetics Corporation slogans into gzb. Share and enjoy:
t liw-i kuln pe'ljy-na gÇ, gâ lÇ
^hun-i pwi-t-van.
2 relationship-at casual.friend plastic-made.of behold,
thing
REL together-at delight-2-V.STATE
Your plastic pal who's fun to be with!
syj-^hun-t-zô mwe kin pwi-van.
use-together-2-V.ACT IMP and delight-V.STATE
Share and enjoy!
vâ-ja-tÇj pe sÄÅ-zâw jyn-fwa
digestion-fitting-NOMZ and information-sensation pleasure-CAUS
Nutrition and pleasurable sense data!
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/conlang/
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
7b. Re: Nutrition and pleasurable sense data
Posted by: "Eldin Raigmore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 8, 2008 11:43 am ((PDT))
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:45:17 -0400, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Does anyone have nutritional terminology in their conlang?
>If so, what concepts are the roots and how do you derive others from them?
This post won't really be an answer to your questions as asked; but some
information and thoughts that might help.
>I don't have a word yet for "sucrose"; it seems like it ought to be derived
>rather than root, but I'm not sure how yet. Maybe from the word for sugar
>and a word for some foodstuff that's typically made with sucrose?
Chemicals that taste sweet are termed "glucophores".
As a general rule, the sweet taste clues the animal in to carbohydrate content.
Simple carbohydrates are glucophores; the simpler, the sweeter.
More complex carbohydrates are less sweet; the more complex (like starch),
the less sweet.
People and other animals have enzymes in their saliva that simplify digestible
complex carbohydrates by breaking off simpler pieces; so if you chew
something starchy long enough you should get some sweet taste out of it.
Some complex carbohydrates, e.g. "fiber" and cellulose, are not digestible.
People can't taste them; I think, though, that maybe other animals can. (The
non-vestigial analogs of the vermiform appendix can digest it in some species;
ruminants can digest it; some symbiotic flora of some animals' digestive tracts
can digest it.)
>I lack as yet words for vitamins, proteins, fats, carbohydrates
>(I reckon I could derive a general term for the latter from words
>for carbon and hydrogen), or minerals other than iron, zinc, and calcium.
(Carbohydrates)
I talked about carbohydrates above.
Remember carbohydrates have to have significant amounts of oxygen in them
too; they are "polyols" (or "poly-alcohols"), poly-hydroxy aldehydes and poly-
hydroxy ketones. They'er different from fats; fatty-accids are mostly
hydrocarbons except for the COOH carboxyl end that makes them "organic
acids", and fats -- fatty-acid esters of glycerol -- also have some the oxygens
from glycerol, which is a tri-hydroxy alcohol.
(Proteins)
Animals are probably clued in to the protein content of their food by
the "umami" taste. "Umami", from a Japanese word meaning
approximately "delicious", is the fifth taste the tongue senses, on the same
level as sweet, salty, sour, and bitter. "Umami" responds to the presence of
glutamic acid and various glutamates, some of which are amino-acids. Animals
mostly can't tell much difference between one protein and another; and
probably can't sense all dietarily-essential amino acids. Proteins are
polypeptides, polymers made up out of amino-acid monomers. An AA
is "dietarily essential" if the animal can't make enough of it in its own body
to
stay healthy, and therefore must eat some of it to stay healthy; so the
definition of "essential" varies from species to species. Odds are animals
haven't evolved the ability to sense every essential AA; or to tell the
difference between all the AAs they can sense. Rather, their "taste"
safely "assumes" that if the ones they can sense are present in some food,
the others are too.
Possibly, also, like "sweet", there are chemicals that aren't essential AAs
that
nevertheless taste "umami".
Proteins must contain at least about half as much nitrogen as oxygen, and/or
at least about half as much nitrogen as carbon. This differentiates them from
carbohydrates, and also from fats.
(Fats)
People can't taste fat, but fat in food enhances the flavor of the other things
that people can taste. Interestingly, the oilier the fat is, the more it
enhances
the taste; and the less saturated it is, the more it enhances the taste.
Fatty-acids may or may not be dietarily essential; essential fatty acids are
called "EFAs".
Mono-unsaturated fatty-acids are called "MUFAs"; poly-unsaturated fatty-
acids are called "PUFAs".
As a general rule for humans, "EFA" and "PUFA" can be considered synonyms.
Fats are esters of one (monoglyceride) or two (diglyceride) or three
(triglyceride) fatty-acids with glycerol, an alcohol. The fewer fatty-acids
combined with the glycerol, the more oily it is and the more it enhances the
taste; but triglycerides are more digestible than diglycerides, which are more
digestible than monoglycerides.
Fatty-acid esters of alcohols other than glycerol are called "waxes". Several
of them are important in the bodies of humans (for instance fatty-acid esters
of sphingol are important in the human nervous system); others are important
in the bodies of other organisms.
An alcohol that has more hydroxyl groups than glycerol does, could combine
with more than three fatty acids. For instance, glucose has six hydroxyl
groups, and could combine with up to six fatty-acids. Past the third one, the
more fatty-acid chains that get attached, the less digestible the wax is.
Olestra (TM) is such a wax; it has the taste-enhancing properties of fat, but
isn't digestible as fat is.
(Minerals)
The only mineral I know of that people can taste is sodium. Sodium is
essential for nerves and muscles; all animals must eat sodium. Plants have no
nerves and no muscles, so few plants contain enough sodium to sustain an
animal's health; therefore herbivores have to find "salt-licks".
Humans, and AFAIK many other animals, can't actually taste all the minerals
that are dietarily essential to them.
(Vitamins)
Vitamins are traditionally "amine" compounds (thus "-amin"), though I suppose
not all of them are. All of them are dietarily essential (thus "vita-"). They
often contain essential metals that are needed in small amounts (I think one of
the B vitamins contains some cobalt?) Some of these dietarily-essential-in-
small-amounts metals could be eaten as "minerals", but some have to be in a
chemically accessible form, such as combined in an organic compound, such as
an amine. At least one metalloid (selenium) is actually needed for some
proteins (the amino-acid "selenocysteine" is needed also in other parts of the
cell, but especially in the mitochondria). And of course there are many others
I'm not mentioning here.
Humans, and AFAIK many other animals, can't actually taste all the vitamins
that are dietarily essential to them.
>I don't think my chemistry knowledge is up to snuff for deriving
>all those systematically, yet.
Realistically they won't be able to taste the presence or absence of everything
they have to eat to survive, so I don't know that they need all those words at
all. Deriving them all systematically may not actually be an issue (unless you
just decide that it should be).
>I might could derive "fat" from a word for butter or ice cream plus
>the "primary/active ingredient" suffix.
Like the fatty-acid "butyric acid" (from butter), the organic acid "lactic
acid"
(from milk), or the sugars "lactose" and "galactose" (from milk)?
>(The word for milk + that suffix already is in use for "calcium".)
They can taste calcium? And it doesn't just taste "salty"? Then they
aren't "standard-issue" humans.
>Protein, maybe the same kind of derivation from the word for meat/muscle,
Not a bad idea.
>and maybe "carbohydrate" from the word for rice or potato or something.
They're likelier to be able to taste the simple ones (e.g. sugars) than the
complicated ones (e.g. starch).
>What about vitamins?
They're not likely to be able to taste most of them.
Humans can taste citric acid (but can't really tell it by taste alone from
various
other edible acids).
The vitamin humans need is ascorbic acid (Vitamin C). ("Ascorbic"
means "without scurvy", btw.)
I don't know if humans can even taste ascorbic acid; but the fruits ascorbic
acid comes in (citrus fruits, peppers, and tomatoes, e.g.) often contain also
lots of citric acid.
>This musing grew out of a small translation project, rendering the
>Sirius Cybernetics Corporation slogans into gzb. Share and enjoy:
>
> t liw-i kuln pe'ljy-na gÇ, gâ lÇ
>
^hun-i pwi-t-van.
> 2 relationship-at casual.friend plastic-made.of behold,
thing
> REL together-at delight-2-V.STATE
> Your plastic pal who's fun to be with!
>
> syj-^hun-t-zô mwe kin pwi-van.
> use-together-2-V.ACT IMP and delight-V.STATE
> Share and enjoy!
>
> vâ-ja-tÇj pe sÄÅ-zâw jyn-fwa
> digestion-fitting-NOMZ and information-sensation pleasure-
CAUS
> Nutrition and pleasurable sense data!
Nice!
-----
eldin
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8a. "Kitchen sink conlang" and other such terms
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 8, 2008 7:34 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There can be art in the ways you
> deliberately choose to leave certain grammatical capabilities out of a
> language or in what concepts you deliberately choose not to
> lexicalize. The term "kitchen sink conlang" was coined for a good
> reason.[1]
> 1. -- I Googled the term and got only 5 hits; I'd thought it was more
> commonly used than that. The earliest datable uses were from 2006.
> I thought I'd seen it used before then.
I've just been adding to
http://conlang.wikia.com/wiki/Conlang
some material on conlang terminology that seems too subjective,
perhaps, to be suitable for Wikipedia. Take a look and see if there
are other terms in common use I haven't covered, or if you think my
definitions of the terms don't match the way you use the terms /
hear them used, or add link references to CONLANG list messages
or other sources about when and how these terms were coined.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
8b. Re: "Kitchen sink conlang" and other such terms
Posted by: "Jeffrey Jones" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 8, 2008 8:12 am ((PDT))
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:34:11 -0400, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 1. -- I Googled the term and got only 5 hits; I'd thought it was more
>> commonly used than that. The earliest datable uses were from 2006.
>> I thought I'd seen it used before then.
>
>--
>Jim Henry
>http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
The term "kitchen sink conlang" (or KSC, not to be confused with KFC) seems
to be used mainly on ZBB; it could have originated there. If so, the earliest
references are probably long gone. On the other hand, there are a lot of pages
that aren't googlable.
Jeff
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
8c. Re: "Kitchen sink conlang" and other such terms
Posted by: "Scotto Hlad" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 8, 2008 9:24 am ((PDT))
What is a KSC anyway?
S
Quoting Jeffrey Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:34:11 -0400, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> 1. -- I Googled the term and got only 5 hits; I'd thought it was more
> >> commonly used than that. The earliest datable uses were from 2006.
> >> I thought I'd seen it used before then.
> >
> >--
> >Jim Henry
> >http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
>
> The term "kitchen sink conlang" (or KSC, not to be confused with KFC) seems
> to be used mainly on ZBB; it could have originated there. If so, the earliest
>
> references are probably long gone. On the other hand, there are a lot of
> pages
> that aren't googlable.
>
> Jeff
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
8d. Re: "Kitchen sink conlang" and other such terms
Posted by: "Scotto Hlad" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 8, 2008 9:26 am ((PDT))
Further to previous...
is it a conglang wherein the author appears to put every language idea into it?
S
Quoting Jeffrey Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:34:11 -0400, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> 1. -- I Googled the term and got only 5 hits; I'd thought it was more
> >> commonly used than that. The earliest datable uses were from 2006.
> >> I thought I'd seen it used before then.
> >
> >--
> >Jim Henry
> >http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
>
> The term "kitchen sink conlang" (or KSC, not to be confused with KFC) seems
> to be used mainly on ZBB; it could have originated there. If so, the earliest
>
> references are probably long gone. On the other hand, there are a lot of
> pages
> that aren't googlable.
>
> Jeff
>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
8e. Re: "Kitchen sink conlang" and other such terms
Posted by: "Jeffrey Jones" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 8, 2008 9:52 am ((PDT))
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:26:03 -0700, Scotto Hlad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Further to previous...
> is it a conglang wherein the author appears to put every language idea into
> it?
>S
yes, "everything but the kitchen sink"
>Quoting Jeffrey Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:34:11 -0400, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> >
>> >> 1. -- I Googled the term and got only 5 hits; I'd thought it was more
>> >> commonly used than that. The earliest datable uses were from 2006.
>> >> I thought I'd seen it used before then.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Jim Henry
>> >http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
>>
>> The term "kitchen sink conlang" (or KSC, not to be confused with KFC)
>> seems to be used mainly on ZBB; it could have originated there. If so, the
>> earliest references are probably long gone. On the other hand, there are a
>> lot of pages that aren't googlable.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
8f. Re: "Kitchen sink conlang" and other such terms
Posted by: "David J. Peterson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Aug 8, 2008 1:06 pm ((PDT))
Jeff:
<<
The term "kitchen sink conlang" (or KSC, not to be confused with KFC)
seems
to be used mainly on ZBB; it could have originated there. If so, the
earliest
references are probably long gone. On the other hand, there are a lot
of pages
that aren't googlable.
>>
I don't think so. I knew the term before the ZBB existed, and
I'm sure I heard it here. Check out these messages from 2000:
Jim Grossman:
Item #27951 (27 Jun 2000 12:34) - help with starting out
help you focus your efforts, and limit the temptation to throw
absolutely
everything including the kitchen sink into your grammar.
Danny Wier:
Item #28213 (4 Jul 2000 16:51) - Re: Case Name
"objective" (which better describes English pronouns). Or as I call it
"nominative" and "the kitchen sink".
-David
*******************************************************************
"A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
-Jim Morrison
http://dedalvs.free.fr/
Messages in this topic (6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
