There are 16 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Celtic & other myths (was: Celticity?)
From: Andreas Johansson
1b. Re: Celtic & other myths (was: Celticity?)
From: MorphemeAddict
1c. Re: Celtic & other myths (was: Celticity?)
From: Andreas Johansson
1d. Re: Celtic & other myths (was: Celticity?)
From: Adam Walker
1e. Re: Celtic & other myths
From: R A Brown
1f. Re: Celtic & other myths (was: Celticity?)
From: Deiniol Jones
2a. Re: Young conlanger/cellist on NPR's From The Top
From: Lee
2b. Re: Young conlanger/cellist on NPR's From The Top
From: Tony Harris
2c. Re: Young conlanger/cellist on NPR's From The Top
From: Amanda Babcock Furrow
3. Conlang Talk in Edinburgh
From: Richard Littauer
4a. Re: As the Actress Said to the Bishop
From: Lars Finsen
4b. norsk (was Re: As the Actress Said to the Bishop)
From: Lee
4c. Re: norsk (was Re: As the Actress Said to the Bishop)
From: Lars Finsen
4d. Re: norsk (was Re: As the Actress Said to the Bishop)
From: kechpaja
5a. Re: Celticity?
From: John Vertical
6. Future Mandarin (was: Re: Tone death)
From: John Vertical
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Celtic & other myths (was: Celticity?)
Posted by: "Andreas Johansson" andre...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:07 am ((PDT))
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:40 PM, BPJ <b...@melroch.se> wrote:
[snip]
> Already Thomas Mallory referred to Arthur's kingdom as
> "England". A similar thing which used to irritate the
> hell out of me was ancient Asia Minor referred to as
> "Turkey", but I think these things are inevitable as
> long as elementary history and geography education
> doesn't make a point of teaching that geographical
> names and the names of polities don't always coincide.
A while ago I had the questionable pleasure to read a text that used
"America" to mean, seemingly, "the territory of the modern USA"* while
speaking of the High Middle Ages. Presumably, someone finds it natural
to use the name like that, but I found it quite confusing.
* Or perhaps "North America north of the Rio Grande" or something like
that. Mexico was quite clearly not included.
--
Andreas Johansson
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Celtic & other myths (was: Celticity?)
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" lytl...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:09 pm ((PDT))
Is there such a thing as an "actual astrological date"?
stevo
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:56 AM, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
> On 23/09/2010 23:34, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>
>> Hallo!
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:17:18 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>
> Now the name has stuck and any attempt to name this
>>> sub-branch of IE differently is doomed to failure.
>>>
>>
>> There are several names of language groups which are
>> equally questionable. We have no evidence that the
>> languages usually named "Tocharian" by linguists had
>> anything to do with the people who are called _Tocharoi_
>> in Hellenistic sources; many scholars now assume that the
>> _Tocharoi_ were in fact an Iranian people.
>>
>
> True.
>
> Similar problems with "Hittite".
>>
>
> Yep - the only language called "Hittite"(i.e. the language
> of the Hittites) in the ancient world was the non-IE
> language we now call "Hattic" (not to be confused with a
> conlang of the same name!)
>
> For the language of the pre-IE Hittites, see:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language
>
> For the conlang called 'Hattic' see:
> http://steen.free.fr/khadurian/hattic_grammar.html
>
> When Jan van Steenbergen, who was (still is?) a member of
> this list, developed Hattic he had no idea that a natlang of
> the same name existed. IIRC he did think of changing the
> name of his conlang but thought that as it was set in an
> entirely different area at a different time no one in their
> right mind would confuse the two. Yet I notice on one
> website the warning: "Hattic (zõjuk Chader) is a fictional
> diachronic language invented by Jan van Steenbergen. It
> should be noted that Hattic has nothing in common with the
> ancient, non-IE Hattic language of the same name, spoken in
> Anatolia long ago." :)
>
> But I digress. What we call "Hittite" the ancients referred
> to as the language of Neša". The modern English would be
> Nesic, Nesian or, maybe, Nesite. In my M.Litt thesis I
> consistently referred to the language as Nesite; but the
> misnomer "Hittite" is, alas, too firmly established to
> change, even though it's as inappropriate as calling modern
> English "British."
>
> With "Celtic", we at least know that the people referred
>> to as _Keltoi_ in ancient sources indeed spoke a language
>> belonging to that group.
>>
>
> Yes, but the _Celti_ named by the Romans were one the
> peoples that made up those known collectively as "Gauls."
> It has been observed that 'Gallic' would have been a better
> name, but it was politically unacceptable in 18th century
> Britain since its was too closely associated with the French
> who were, of course, our "natural enemies." (Yes, folks,
> that term was widely used and appears in contemporary print
> - a bit of state propaganda to persuade the common man that
> it was natural to go and bash the French!)
>
> One of things that bugs me, however, is the assumption
>>> that the peculiarities of the Insular Celtic languages
>>> are features of the Celtic sub-branch of IE as a whole.
>>> In fact what we know of ancient Gaulish seems to
>>> contradict that.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed, indeed! There is not a shred of evidence for the
>> existence of any of the Insular Celtic peculiarities
>> (VSO word order, initial mutations, profusion of spirants
>> from the lenition of stops, etc.) in Gaulish, Lepontic
>> or Celtiberian! These languages are much more similar to
>> Latin in their structure than they are to Insular
>> Celtic.
>>
>
> Absolutely - yet if a conlang occurs that purports to be a
> survival of a Continental Celtic language, what's the
> betting it will have most, if not all, of these features!
>
> The Continental Celtic language I have under work for
>> the League of Lost Language shows *nothing* of the
>> typical traits of an Insular Celtic language.
>>
>
> Good for you.
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> On the Insular side, the uncertain member is Pictish,
>> long considered non-IE, but according to more recent
>> studies, probably Brythonic.
>>
>
> As I've pointed out before, 'Picti' simply means "painted
> people." Many think that the "painted people" were not all
> of the same stock, i.e. it included peoples who spoke
> Brythonic/Brittonic language(s), but there were others who
> spoke a non-IE language. Certainly non-IE languages must
> have been spoken in Ireland & Britain way before the spread
> of IE to these islands.
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> But I do find it annoying when people write, for
>>> example, as though the ancient Brits and ancient Irish
>>> felt themselves kindred people sharing a common
>>> culture. It just ain't true. The ancient Brits
>>> experienced the Irish as alien pirates and raiders much
>>> like the Saxons.
>>>
>>
>> [snip]
>
>>
>> Often, the "Celts" are even identified with the "megalith
>> culture" (itself a doubtful concept), utterly ignoring
>> the fact that the megalithic monuments are far too old to
>> have anything to do with the "Celts". Some were erected
>> at a time when Indo-European was just the language of a
>> tribe on the Ukrainian steppe.
>>
>
> Exactly!! And there was nothing Celtic about Stone Henge -
> but try telling the modern self-styled druids!
>
> And as if all that was not enough, there is also a lot of
>> boohow about "Celtic Christianity", as if there had been
>> a wiser and more truthful tradition of Christianity that
>> was stomped out by the evil Roman church. In fact,
>> "Celtic Christianity", which of course was never named
>> that way in its time, was just a branch of Western
>> Christianity that did some rather peripheral things such
>> as monks' tonsures or the calculation of Easter dates
>> differently (but shared the same doctrine and
>> acknowledged the authority of the Roman pope) -
>>
>
> Exactly! I'm darn sure the remnant of British Christianity,
> which had become inward looking and turned its back on the
> Saxons, felt no particularly closer connexion with the
> vibrant Christianity developing in Ireland than it did to
> Christianity on on the Continent.
>
> The difference over Easter was merely one of calculation.
> All accepted the Nicaean decree that it was the Sunday on or
> following the full moon after the Spring equinox. But this
> was calculated according to tables drawn up which did not
> always correspond to the actual astrological date. It's just
> that by the time the Irish monks and monks from Rome were at
> last evangelizing the Saxons, Rome in common with most other
> Christian communities had adopted the tables of calculation
> drawn up by the Alexandrians; the Irish were obviously still
> using an older set of tables. No big deal - at Whitby every
> one fell in line.
>
> The notion of the "Celtic Church" seems have been a
> Victorian invention which, inevitably, has stuck.
>
> No one in ancient times ever referred to the
>>> inhabitants of Britain or Ireland as Celts. It wasn't
>>> till the 18th century they were so named - and since
>>> then all sorts of nonsense has appeared which Tolkien
>>> objected to - and so do I.
>>>
>>
>> And I.
>>
>
> Amen.
>
>
> --
> Ray
> ==================================
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
> wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
> [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
> "A mind that thinks at its own expense
> will always interfere with language".
>
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Celtic & other myths (was: Celticity?)
Posted by: "Andreas Johansson" andre...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:14 pm ((PDT))
It's when you date someone one the recommendation of an astrologer.
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:45 PM, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there such a thing as an "actual astrological date"?
>
> stevo
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:56 AM, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> On 23/09/2010 23:34, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>>
>>> Hallo!
>>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:17:18 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Now the name has stuck and any attempt to name this
>>>> sub-branch of IE differently is doomed to failure.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are several names of language groups which are
>>> equally questionable. We have no evidence that the
>>> languages usually named "Tocharian" by linguists had
>>> anything to do with the people who are called _Tocharoi_
>>> in Hellenistic sources; many scholars now assume that the
>>> _Tocharoi_ were in fact an Iranian people.
>>>
>>
>> True.
>>
>> Similar problems with "Hittite".
>>>
>>
>> Yep - the only language called "Hittite"(i.e. the language
>> of the Hittites) in the ancient world was the non-IE
>> language we now call "Hattic" (not to be confused with a
>> conlang of the same name!)
>>
>> For the language of the pre-IE Hittites, see:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language
>>
>> For the conlang called 'Hattic' see:
>> http://steen.free.fr/khadurian/hattic_grammar.html
>>
>> When Jan van Steenbergen, who was (still is?) a member of
>> this list, developed Hattic he had no idea that a natlang of
>> the same name existed. IIRC he did think of changing the
>> name of his conlang but thought that as it was set in an
>> entirely different area at a different time no one in their
>> right mind would confuse the two. Yet I notice on one
>> website the warning: "Hattic (zõjuk Chader) is a fictional
>> diachronic language invented by Jan van Steenbergen. It
>> should be noted that Hattic has nothing in common with the
>> ancient, non-IE Hattic language of the same name, spoken in
>> Anatolia long ago." :)
>>
>> But I digress. What we call "Hittite" the ancients referred
>> to as the language of Neša". The modern English would be
>> Nesic, Nesian or, maybe, Nesite. In my M.Litt thesis I
>> consistently referred to the language as Nesite; but the
>> misnomer "Hittite" is, alas, too firmly established to
>> change, even though it's as inappropriate as calling modern
>> English "British."
>>
>> With "Celtic", we at least know that the people referred
>>> to as _Keltoi_ in ancient sources indeed spoke a language
>>> belonging to that group.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but the _Celti_ named by the Romans were one the
>> peoples that made up those known collectively as "Gauls."
>> It has been observed that 'Gallic' would have been a better
>> name, but it was politically unacceptable in 18th century
>> Britain since its was too closely associated with the French
>> who were, of course, our "natural enemies." (Yes, folks,
>> that term was widely used and appears in contemporary print
>> - a bit of state propaganda to persuade the common man that
>> it was natural to go and bash the French!)
>>
>> One of things that bugs me, however, is the assumption
>>>> that the peculiarities of the Insular Celtic languages
>>>> are features of the Celtic sub-branch of IE as a whole.
>>>> In fact what we know of ancient Gaulish seems to
>>>> contradict that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed, indeed! There is not a shred of evidence for the
>>> existence of any of the Insular Celtic peculiarities
>>> (VSO word order, initial mutations, profusion of spirants
>>> from the lenition of stops, etc.) in Gaulish, Lepontic
>>> or Celtiberian! These languages are much more similar to
>>> Latin in their structure than they are to Insular
>>> Celtic.
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely - yet if a conlang occurs that purports to be a
>> survival of a Continental Celtic language, what's the
>> betting it will have most, if not all, of these features!
>>
>> The Continental Celtic language I have under work for
>>> the League of Lost Language shows *nothing* of the
>>> typical traits of an Insular Celtic language.
>>>
>>
>> Good for you.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> On the Insular side, the uncertain member is Pictish,
>>> long considered non-IE, but according to more recent
>>> studies, probably Brythonic.
>>>
>>
>> As I've pointed out before, 'Picti' simply means "painted
>> people." Many think that the "painted people" were not all
>> of the same stock, i.e. it included peoples who spoke
>> Brythonic/Brittonic language(s), but there were others who
>> spoke a non-IE language. Certainly non-IE languages must
>> have been spoken in Ireland & Britain way before the spread
>> of IE to these islands.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> But I do find it annoying when people write, for
>>>> example, as though the ancient Brits and ancient Irish
>>>> felt themselves kindred people sharing a common
>>>> culture. It just ain't true. The ancient Brits
>>>> experienced the Irish as alien pirates and raiders much
>>>> like the Saxons.
>>>>
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> Often, the "Celts" are even identified with the "megalith
>>> culture" (itself a doubtful concept), utterly ignoring
>>> the fact that the megalithic monuments are far too old to
>>> have anything to do with the "Celts". Some were erected
>>> at a time when Indo-European was just the language of a
>>> tribe on the Ukrainian steppe.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly!! And there was nothing Celtic about Stone Henge -
>> but try telling the modern self-styled druids!
>>
>> And as if all that was not enough, there is also a lot of
>>> boohow about "Celtic Christianity", as if there had been
>>> a wiser and more truthful tradition of Christianity that
>>> was stomped out by the evil Roman church. In fact,
>>> "Celtic Christianity", which of course was never named
>>> that way in its time, was just a branch of Western
>>> Christianity that did some rather peripheral things such
>>> as monks' tonsures or the calculation of Easter dates
>>> differently (but shared the same doctrine and
>>> acknowledged the authority of the Roman pope) -
>>>
>>
>> Exactly! I'm darn sure the remnant of British Christianity,
>> which had become inward looking and turned its back on the
>> Saxons, felt no particularly closer connexion with the
>> vibrant Christianity developing in Ireland than it did to
>> Christianity on on the Continent.
>>
>> The difference over Easter was merely one of calculation.
>> All accepted the Nicaean decree that it was the Sunday on or
>> following the full moon after the Spring equinox. But this
>> was calculated according to tables drawn up which did not
>> always correspond to the actual astrological date. It's just
>> that by the time the Irish monks and monks from Rome were at
>> last evangelizing the Saxons, Rome in common with most other
>> Christian communities had adopted the tables of calculation
>> drawn up by the Alexandrians; the Irish were obviously still
>> using an older set of tables. No big deal - at Whitby every
>> one fell in line.
>>
>> The notion of the "Celtic Church" seems have been a
>> Victorian invention which, inevitably, has stuck.
>>
>> No one in ancient times ever referred to the
>>>> inhabitants of Britain or Ireland as Celts. It wasn't
>>>> till the 18th century they were so named - and since
>>>> then all sorts of nonsense has appeared which Tolkien
>>>> objected to - and so do I.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And I.
>>>
>>
>> Amen.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ray
>> ==================================
>> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
>> ==================================
>> "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
>> wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
>> [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
>> "A mind that thinks at its own expense
>> will always interfere with language".
>>
>
--
Andreas Johansson
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Celtic & other myths (was: Celticity?)
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Sep 25, 2010 7:31 pm ((PDT))
Ba dum bum!
On 9/25/10, Andreas Johansson <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's when you date someone one the recommendation of an astrologer.
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:45 PM, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there such a thing as an "actual astrological date"?
>>
>> stevo
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:56 AM, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/09/2010 23:34, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hallo!
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:17:18 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Now the name has stuck and any attempt to name this
>>>>> sub-branch of IE differently is doomed to failure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are several names of language groups which are
>>>> equally questionable. We have no evidence that the
>>>> languages usually named "Tocharian" by linguists had
>>>> anything to do with the people who are called _Tocharoi_
>>>> in Hellenistic sources; many scholars now assume that the
>>>> _Tocharoi_ were in fact an Iranian people.
>>>>
>>>
>>> True.
>>>
>>> Similar problems with "Hittite".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yep - the only language called "Hittite"(i.e. the language
>>> of the Hittites) in the ancient world was the non-IE
>>> language we now call "Hattic" (not to be confused with a
>>> conlang of the same name!)
>>>
>>> For the language of the pre-IE Hittites, see:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language
>>>
>>> For the conlang called 'Hattic' see:
>>> http://steen.free.fr/khadurian/hattic_grammar.html
>>>
>>> When Jan van Steenbergen, who was (still is?) a member of
>>> this list, developed Hattic he had no idea that a natlang of
>>> the same name existed. IIRC he did think of changing the
>>> name of his conlang but thought that as it was set in an
>>> entirely different area at a different time no one in their
>>> right mind would confuse the two. Yet I notice on one
>>> website the warning: "Hattic (zõjuk Chader) is a fictional
>>> diachronic language invented by Jan van Steenbergen. It
>>> should be noted that Hattic has nothing in common with the
>>> ancient, non-IE Hattic language of the same name, spoken in
>>> Anatolia long ago." :)
>>>
>>> But I digress. What we call "Hittite" the ancients referred
>>> to as the language of Neša". The modern English would be
>>> Nesic, Nesian or, maybe, Nesite. In my M.Litt thesis I
>>> consistently referred to the language as Nesite; but the
>>> misnomer "Hittite" is, alas, too firmly established to
>>> change, even though it's as inappropriate as calling modern
>>> English "British."
>>>
>>> With "Celtic", we at least know that the people referred
>>>> to as _Keltoi_ in ancient sources indeed spoke a language
>>>> belonging to that group.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but the _Celti_ named by the Romans were one the
>>> peoples that made up those known collectively as "Gauls."
>>> It has been observed that 'Gallic' would have been a better
>>> name, but it was politically unacceptable in 18th century
>>> Britain since its was too closely associated with the French
>>> who were, of course, our "natural enemies." (Yes, folks,
>>> that term was widely used and appears in contemporary print
>>> - a bit of state propaganda to persuade the common man that
>>> it was natural to go and bash the French!)
>>>
>>> One of things that bugs me, however, is the assumption
>>>>> that the peculiarities of the Insular Celtic languages
>>>>> are features of the Celtic sub-branch of IE as a whole.
>>>>> In fact what we know of ancient Gaulish seems to
>>>>> contradict that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, indeed! There is not a shred of evidence for the
>>>> existence of any of the Insular Celtic peculiarities
>>>> (VSO word order, initial mutations, profusion of spirants
>>>> from the lenition of stops, etc.) in Gaulish, Lepontic
>>>> or Celtiberian! These languages are much more similar to
>>>> Latin in their structure than they are to Insular
>>>> Celtic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely - yet if a conlang occurs that purports to be a
>>> survival of a Continental Celtic language, what's the
>>> betting it will have most, if not all, of these features!
>>>
>>> The Continental Celtic language I have under work for
>>>> the League of Lost Language shows *nothing* of the
>>>> typical traits of an Insular Celtic language.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good for you.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On the Insular side, the uncertain member is Pictish,
>>>> long considered non-IE, but according to more recent
>>>> studies, probably Brythonic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I've pointed out before, 'Picti' simply means "painted
>>> people." Many think that the "painted people" were not all
>>> of the same stock, i.e. it included peoples who spoke
>>> Brythonic/Brittonic language(s), but there were others who
>>> spoke a non-IE language. Certainly non-IE languages must
>>> have been spoken in Ireland & Britain way before the spread
>>> of IE to these islands.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But I do find it annoying when people write, for
>>>>> example, as though the ancient Brits and ancient Irish
>>>>> felt themselves kindred people sharing a common
>>>>> culture. It just ain't true. The ancient Brits
>>>>> experienced the Irish as alien pirates and raiders much
>>>>> like the Saxons.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Often, the "Celts" are even identified with the "megalith
>>>> culture" (itself a doubtful concept), utterly ignoring
>>>> the fact that the megalithic monuments are far too old to
>>>> have anything to do with the "Celts". Some were erected
>>>> at a time when Indo-European was just the language of a
>>>> tribe on the Ukrainian steppe.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly!! And there was nothing Celtic about Stone Henge -
>>> but try telling the modern self-styled druids!
>>>
>>> And as if all that was not enough, there is also a lot of
>>>> boohow about "Celtic Christianity", as if there had been
>>>> a wiser and more truthful tradition of Christianity that
>>>> was stomped out by the evil Roman church. In fact,
>>>> "Celtic Christianity", which of course was never named
>>>> that way in its time, was just a branch of Western
>>>> Christianity that did some rather peripheral things such
>>>> as monks' tonsures or the calculation of Easter dates
>>>> differently (but shared the same doctrine and
>>>> acknowledged the authority of the Roman pope) -
>>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly! I'm darn sure the remnant of British Christianity,
>>> which had become inward looking and turned its back on the
>>> Saxons, felt no particularly closer connexion with the
>>> vibrant Christianity developing in Ireland than it did to
>>> Christianity on on the Continent.
>>>
>>> The difference over Easter was merely one of calculation.
>>> All accepted the Nicaean decree that it was the Sunday on or
>>> following the full moon after the Spring equinox. But this
>>> was calculated according to tables drawn up which did not
>>> always correspond to the actual astrological date. It's just
>>> that by the time the Irish monks and monks from Rome were at
>>> last evangelizing the Saxons, Rome in common with most other
>>> Christian communities had adopted the tables of calculation
>>> drawn up by the Alexandrians; the Irish were obviously still
>>> using an older set of tables. No big deal - at Whitby every
>>> one fell in line.
>>>
>>> The notion of the "Celtic Church" seems have been a
>>> Victorian invention which, inevitably, has stuck.
>>>
>>> No one in ancient times ever referred to the
>>>>> inhabitants of Britain or Ireland as Celts. It wasn't
>>>>> till the 18th century they were so named - and since
>>>>> then all sorts of nonsense has appeared which Tolkien
>>>>> objected to - and so do I.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And I.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Amen.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ray
>>> ==================================
>>> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
>>> ==================================
>>> "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
>>> wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
>>> [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
>>> "A mind that thinks at its own expense
>>> will always interfere with language".
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Andreas Johansson
>
> Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
>
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Celtic & other myths
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:53 pm ((PDT))
OOOPS!! {Blushes deeply} - that must be one of my worst
typos! I, of course, meant _astronomical_.
On 25/09/2010 20:45, MorphemeAddict wrote:
> Is there such a thing as an "actual astrological date"?
I'm sure those who believe in astrology will vigorously
defend just such a notion. But the unbelievers amongst us,
of which I am one, will go along MorphemeAddict and question
the very notion.
If anyone is interested in how the tables for calculating
Easter used by the Western (Gregorian) & Eastern (Julian)
Churches as well as the Jewish Passover actually match up
the _astronomical_ calculation, there is a list from 2001
till 2020 given on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter#Reform_of_the_date_of_Easter
What was agreed at the Council of Whitby is what the Julian
system. The Gregorian one dates from the calendar reform of
Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. What system the pre-Whitby Irish
monks were using is AFAIK not known. I have seen it
claimed, tho not with supporting evidence, that the old
Irish system was more accurate that the one adopted at
Whitby; if this is true, the Irish monks must have
anticipated something like the Gregorian reform by several
centuries. But I suspect such claims of greater accuracy by
the Irish is likely to another "Celtic myth" ;)
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
[J.G. Hamann, 1760]
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Celtic & other myths (was: Celticity?)
Posted by: "Deiniol Jones" deiniolabi...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2010 5:40 am ((PDT))
Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>> Indeed, indeed! There is not a shred of evidence for the
>>> existence of any of the Insular Celtic peculiarities
>>> (VSO word order, initial mutations, profusion of spirants
>>> from the lenition of stops, etc.) in Gaulish, Lepontic
>>> or Celtiberian! These languages are much more similar to
>>> Latin in their structure than they are to Insular
>>> Celtic.
>>
>> Absolutely - yet if a conlang occurs that purports to be a
>> survival of a Continental Celtic language, what's the
>> betting it will have most, if not all, of these features!
>
> The only Continental Celtic conlang I am aware of is Dan Jones's
> Arvorec, and it *does* have all those features. Sigh.
Well, it's supposed to! :D Arvorec came about in response to the
elimination of the Brythonic languages in Ill Bethisad, and so was
*supposed* to be a fairly typical Insular-style language.
Interestingly, Ranko Matasovic makes a case that all these typically
"Celtic" features present in the modern Insular languages are the
result of intensive language contact during the late Dark Ages: the
Insular languages essentially forming a Sprachbund. Using this theory
to reverse-engineer a more linguistically sound justification for
Arvorec's "Insularity", I could say that the language acquired all
these features as a result of intensive language contact with Ireland
and Britain shortly after its speakers settled the islands in the
British Sea.
That's not to say, of course, that I wouldn't do it differently if I
were to revise the conlang today: I know a lot more now about Celtic
philology than I did back then. Certain traits I might dispense with,
particularly VSO word order.
> AFAIK, Stonehenge was already disused and in ruins when the Romans
> came to Britain. And what regards the neopagans: what they do has
> very little, if anything, to do with the beliefs of the actual
> pre-Christian Celts! There is nothing attractive about the cynical,
> warlike deities of the ancient Celts craving blood sacrifices and
> all that.
I dunno, I've always found it pretty attractive ;o)
Dan
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Young conlanger/cellist on NPR's From The Top
Posted by: "Lee" waywardwre...@yahoo.com
Date: Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:16 pm ((PDT))
Very cool. I'm going to have to check out the replay. Thanks for the heads up.
Lee
--- On Sat, 9/25/10, Amanda Babcock Furrow <la...@quandary.org> wrote:
From: Amanda Babcock Furrow <la...@quandary.org>
Subject: Young conlanger/cellist on NPR's From The Top
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Date: Saturday, September 25, 2010, 1:17 PM
I caught the end of NPR's From The Top today, and they had a
13-year-old cellist on, Kathryn Westerlund, who besides being
synaesthetic and working on a fantasy novel, has a conlang!
She was prepared with a sentence to say and mentioned that she
has an alphabet with 71 letters, but that was as much as we
learned about it. I cheered :)
tylakèhlpë'fö,
Amanda
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Young conlanger/cellist on NPR's From The Top
Posted by: "Tony Harris" t...@alurhsa.org
Date: Sat Sep 25, 2010 7:43 pm ((PDT))
Any chance of someone posting a transcription of her comments about
it, and the sentence she gave, or a link where we can hear just her part
of the program? Classical music is fine, but I'm hoping not to have to
listen to the entire program of it just to hear the one or two small
conlangy bits...
On 09/25/2010 03:13 PM, Lee wrote:
> Very cool. I'm going to have to check out the replay. Thanks for the heads up.
>
> Lee
>
> --- On Sat, 9/25/10, Amanda Babcock Furrow<la...@quandary.org> wrote:
>
> From: Amanda Babcock Furrow<la...@quandary.org>
> Subject: Young conlanger/cellist on NPR's From The Top
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> Date: Saturday, September 25, 2010, 1:17 PM
>
> I caught the end of NPR's From The Top today, and they had a
> 13-year-old cellist on, Kathryn Westerlund, who besides being
> synaesthetic and working on a fantasy novel, has a conlang!
> She was prepared with a sentence to say and mentioned that she
> has an alphabet with 71 letters, but that was as much as we
> learned about it. I cheered :)
>
> tylakèhlpë'fö,
> Amanda
>
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Young conlanger/cellist on NPR's From The Top
Posted by: "Amanda Babcock Furrow" la...@quandary.org
Date: Sat Sep 25, 2010 10:03 pm ((PDT))
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:41:54PM -0400, Tony Harris wrote:
> Any chance of someone posting a transcription of her comments about it,
> and the sentence she gave, or a link where we can hear just her part of
> the program? Classical music is fine, but I'm hoping not to have to
> listen to the entire program of it just to hear the one or two small
> conlangy bits...
I don't think there's a link for just her segment, but it was within the
final 10 minutes of the program, possibly the final five. Currently the
link is at http://www.fromthetop.org/radio/thisweek . I don't know if
there will be a permanent link, but it's show number 218.
As for a transcription of her speaking her conlang... I certainly couldn't
attempt it! Without knowing the phonology of her language, and factoring
in the usual conlang-creator-as-non-native-speaker accent, I was unable at
the time to even tell which sounds were supposed to be distinct from each
other (assuming more distinctions than English makes due to her statement
about having a 71-letter alphabet).
Someone could definitely transcribe her English translation of it, though :)
It was something about being honored to be on From The Top.
tylakèhlpë'fö,
Amanda
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. Conlang Talk in Edinburgh
Posted by: "Richard Littauer" richard.litta...@gmail.com
Date: Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:10 pm ((PDT))
I am going to be giving a talk on October the 6th in Edinburgh about conlangs,
particularly Na'vi, as I'm one of the administrators of LearnNavi.org. I'll
have
just come back from the first Na'vi conference in California, so I may be a bit
jet-lagged, but there should be some good stuff about that, as well. There'll
also probably be a bit about the upcoming Dothraki conlang of David Peterson,
and my own conlang project, where I tried to create Ll�rri�sh in one month.
This is part of a new lecture series organised by the Edinburgh University
Linguistics and English Language Society, of which I am the ex-president (and
current webmaster). Geoff Pullum of Language Log gave the last talk, and
mentioned it on Language log here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?
p=2657. There's more talks that are going to be going on, and the full details
can be found on http://langsoc.eusa.ed.ac.uk. But this is the only one
pertaining to Conlangs, and it should be fun, and, I hope, good; it's my first
public lecture. If any of you are in Scotland, do come along, it would be great
to have some actual conlangers present.
It'll be in Appleton Tower, Lecture Theatre 2, at 6:00pm. Cost of attendance is
�1.
Thought some of you would like to know. :)
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: As the Actress Said to the Bishop
Posted by: "Lars Finsen" lars.fin...@ortygia.no
Date: Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:11 pm ((PDT))
Den 24. sep. 2010 kl. 19.27 skreiv Lee:
> Arne: Hvis du vil lære norsk, må du på gå kurset.
> If you will be learning Norwegian, must you go to the class?
Your translations are good, but here you should switch the "must" and
"you" about and remover the question mark.
> Sue: Du er hard!
> You are hard!
>
>
>
> Pretty sure the English at the end is intended to be "difficult,"
> but why ruin a perfectly good scene with details like that?
It is in fact intended to be "merciless".
Curiously the rude connotations of the word _hard_ is not much
reflected in Norwegian. Most rude words connected to the male organ
refer to its stance or to comparisons with admittedly hard materials,
at least to my knowledge. The word _hard_ is much used as an adverb
in the context, though.
LEF
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. norsk (was Re: As the Actress Said to the Bishop)
Posted by: "Lee" waywardwre...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:05 am ((PDT))
--- On Sat, 9/25/10, Lars Finsen <lars.fin...@ortygia.no> wrote:
From: Lars Finsen <lars.fin...@ortygia.no>
Subject: Re: As the Actress Said to the Bishop
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Date: Saturday, September 25, 2010, 2:51 PM
Den 24. sep. 2010 kl. 19.27 skreiv Lee:
> Arne: Hvis du vil lære norsk, må du på gå kurset.
> If you will be learning Norwegian, must you go to the class?
Your translations are good, but here you should switch the "must" and "you"
about and remover the question mark.
- - - -
Thanks! Now if only my pronunciation would follow suit.
Ugh, dumb mistake on the "must you" on my part. Not quite sure what I was
thinking, other than misunderstanding.
> Sue: Du er hard!
> You are hard!
>
>
>
> Pretty sure the English at the end is intended to be "difficult," but why
> ruin a perfectly good scene with details like that?
It is in fact intended to be "merciless".
Curiously the rude connotations of the word _hard_ is not much reflected in
Norwegian. Most rude words connected to the male organ refer to its stance or
to comparisons with admittedly hard materials, at least to my knowledge. The
word _hard_ is much used as an adverb in the context, though.
LEF
- - - -
Ah, the scene makes more sense to me now!
A couple times now I have noticed that "er" is omitted from a sentence on the
audio. Is the copula frequently omitted?
Example...
Book: ... men kurset er kjedelig.
Audio: ... men kurset kjedeling.
First I thought it was a mistake in the audio, but I noticed it again in the
chapter following the above example.
And a question more for the conlang world, Flipping through my book, I find
there are two kinds of yes in Norwegian, "ja" and "jo." "Ja" is like the yes
we're all familiar with in English, while "jo" is an affirmative answer to a
question asked using a negative, and is also used as a slightly doubtful "yes."
Example: ja/yes
Kommer du fra Norge?
Do you come from Norway?
Ja, jeg kommer fra Norge.
Yes, I come from Norway.
Example: jo/yes - answer to a question with a negative
Kommer du ikke fra Norge?
Don't you come from Norway?
Jo, jeg kommer fra Norway.
Yes, I come from Norway.
Example: jo/slightly doubtful yes
Liker du norsk mat?
Do you like Norwegian food?
Jo, jeg liker norsk mat.
Well, yes, I like Norwegian food.
So, the question is, does anyone do this with "yes" in their conlang(s)? Or
perhaps something similar with "no"?
Lee
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: norsk (was Re: As the Actress Said to the Bishop)
Posted by: "Lars Finsen" lars.fin...@ortygia.no
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2010 4:53 am ((PDT))
Den 26. sep. 2010 kl. 09.03 skrev Lee:
>
> A couple times now I have noticed that "er" is omitted from a
> sentence on the audio. Is the copula frequently omitted?
>
> Example...
>
> Book: ... men kurset er kjedelig.
> Audio: ... men kurset kjedeling.
>
> First I thought it was a mistake in the audio, but I noticed it
> again in the chapter following the above example.
I suspect this is because both the final t on the noun and the final
r on the copula is dropped in speech (the latter will usually be
heard before vowels, though). You may notice that the final e is
opened somewhat before the start of the final word. The actual
pronunciation of the sentence is [menku\Se&Cedeli]. (The final g also
is used only in the writing - for what purpose is beyond me,
embellishment I suppose.)
LEF
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: norsk (was Re: As the Actress Said to the Bishop)
Posted by: "kechpaja" kechp...@comcast.net
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2010 7:23 am ((PDT))
> (The final g also is used only in the writing - for what purpose is beyond
> me, embellishment I suppose.
I will throw forth the opinion that the final -g is there purely for
etymological reasons�in German, the suffix -ig is used to form adjectives. It's
pronounced /IC/ in the standard dialect, which isn't too far from /i/.
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Celticity?
Posted by: "John Vertical" johnverti...@hotmail.com
Date: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:10 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:42:52 +0200, Andreas Johansson wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:17 PM, R A Brown wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>> The -ach ending, of course, could also be an echo of Welsh. Both _ellidon_
>> and _galadon_ 'feel' Welsh or Sindarin. But _éireamhóinen_ doesn't; in fact
>> it looks distinctly Irish/Gaelic, even to the point of apparently obeying
>> the 'broad to broad and slender to slender' rule ;)
>
>It occurs to me that if you remove the accents, it nevertheless looks
>rather like Finnish or Quenya. Probably coincidence, but it sort of
>leapt out at me.
Completing the circle, one could hypothetically indeed derive a Finnish word
_eireänmoinen_ "Celtic" (literally "Irish-like" - supposing Ireland were to
gain a Finnish name sufficiently early or late to be called _Eire_ or
_Eiri_, rather than the actual _Irlanti_).
John Vertical
Messages in this topic (21)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6. Future Mandarin (was: Re: Tone death)
Posted by: "John Vertical" johnverti...@hotmail.com
Date: Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:04 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:26:21 -0500, Patrick Dunn wrote:
>If I were to create a Future World Mandarin, I'd have to hack out the
>phonology. But every set of changes I imagine leads to a much more
>ambiguous language. I'd love to get rid of the aspirated stops
>replacing them with fricatives, but doing so makes a stew of the
>language, esp. if I snip away tone.
Well, the voiceless/aspirate distinction in Sinitic it pretty sturdy. Could
it drift towards a voiced/voiceless distinction? (But - since English seems
to be rather headed towards an aspiration system, I suppose it could quite
well simply persist.)
> I'd also love to get rid of the retroflex consonants, as much as I enjoy
>them in actual Mandarin. But I have no idea what a retroflex consonant
>might realistically change into.
Since they don't contrast with the palatals, a merger into a single
postalveolar series seems pretty likely.
>And then there's what to do with the other vowels.
One of the main Mandarin features is that there's a huge load of difthongs
but no vowel length. Let's fix that first:
ei (> e:) > i:
ai > ɛ: > e:
au > ɔ: > o:
ou (> o:) > u:
And supposing a huge load of compounding, there will be an inordinate amount
of n/N + consonant clusters. This seems liable to collapse to a single
homorganic nasal, but before that, it could probably introduce some vowel
effects, eg. an Aŋ > an on?
Compounding also provides an opportunity for medial lenition, if you think
eg. widescale aspirate fricativization would be too rash. Perhaps, have
stops remain aspirated/unaspirated initially, but medially change them to
voiced/unvoiced, then fricativize if intervocalic? [v θ ð γ] would remain
allophonic with /b t d g/ (and if you first have /x/ lenite to /h/, also [x]
with /k/). Affricates might resist lenition here (there are examples of this
sort of thing).
I have no idea what all the medials would do… wɔ ɥœ jɛ simply > ɔ œ ɛ is
possible, but that still leaves a lot. Metathesize these medially to
generate new falling difthongs? Take a cue from Germanic and have Cw Cj
geminate in various ways?
And speaking of Germanic, umlaut would be a way to completely wreck things
up, if that's your thing…
John Vertical
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
