There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Babel Text Blues - 'one speech' and 'common languages'
From: Jim Henry
1b. Re: Babel Text Blues - 'one speech' and 'common languages'
From: Matthew A. Gurevitch
2a. Re: language vs. economics
From: Billy JB
2b. Re: language vs. economics
From: Roman Rausch
2c. Re: language vs. economics
From: Jen Runds
2d. Re: language vs. economics
From: Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones
2e. Re: language vs. economics
From: Jen Runds
2f. Re: language vs. economics
From: Eugene Oh
2g. Re: language vs. economics
From: George Corley
2h. Re: language vs. economics
From: MorphemeAddict
2i. Re: language vs. economics
From: Roman Rausch
3. Іљте Ьлеј: Delang keyboard for Wi ndows
From: Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ
4a. Re: Terminology for Non-native Natives
From: Amanda Babcock Furrow
4b. Re: Terminology for Non-native Natives
From: Adam Walker
4c. Re: Terminology for Non-native Natives
From: Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ
4d. Re: Terminology for Non-native Natives
From: Daniel Bowman
4e. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
From: Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ
4f. Re: Terminology for Non-native Natives
From: Adam Walker
4g. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
From: Jim Henry
4h. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
From: Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ
4i. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
From: Daniel Bowman
4j. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
From: Daniel Bowman
4k. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
From: Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ
4l. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
From: Daniel Bowman
4m. Re: Terminology for Non-native Natives
From: Logan Kearsley
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Babel Text Blues - 'one speech' and 'common languages'
Posted by: "Jim Henry" jimhenry1...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Apr 5, 2012 7:16 am ((PDT))
On 4/4/12, Matthew A. Gurevitch <mag122...@aol.com> wrote:
> One suggestion I would have is to translate "speech" as "words," to
> differentiate from "tongue."
Mark Shoulson's literal translation from Hebrew has "few words".
http://www.langmaker.com/babel/englvrbm.htm
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Babel Text Blues - 'one speech' and 'common languages'
Posted by: "Matthew A. Gurevitch" mag122...@aol.com
Date: Thu Apr 5, 2012 3:01 pm ((PDT))
It is not a coincidence: I got the idea because I read the original Hebrew.
--Matthew
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Henry <jimhenry1...@gmail.com>
To: CONLANG <conl...@listserv.brown.edu>
Sent: Thu, Apr 5, 2012 12:09 pm
Subject: Re: Babel Text Blues - 'one speech' and 'common languages'
On 4/4/12, Matthew A. Gurevitch <mag122...@aol.com> wrote:
> One suggestion I would have is to translate "speech" as "words," to
> differentiate from "tongue."
Mark Shoulson's literal translation from Hebrew has "few words".
http://www.langmaker.com/babel/englvrbm.htm
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: language vs. economics
Posted by: "Billy JB" ad...@caudimordax.org
Date: Thu Apr 5, 2012 11:34 am ((PDT))
S.V.B.E.E.V.
Hi, mailing list folk!
I have to concur in saying that this was very interesting and fascinating.
I was already aware of certain theories concerning the influence of passive
constructions on blaming in languages, but to see actual (even if early)
data on how specific demands and features of a language may concretely
influence our way of thinking, and ergo living is highly exciting.
Thanks for passing onward the video!
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:55 PM, MorphemeAddict <lytl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I found the following video very interesting.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=m9x8l9vXU9w
>
> It may be that speakers of languages with a strong future time reference
> (e.g., English, Italian, Russian) have better lives economically than
> speakers of languages with weak future time reference (e.g., Chinese,
> German).
>
> A language designed without a mandatory tense marker (in particular, for
> the future tense), e.g., Lojban, might be better for its speakers than
> having an obligatory future tense marker, e.g., Esperanto.
>
> stevo
>
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: language vs. economics
Posted by: "Roman Rausch" ara...@mail.ru
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 5:22 am ((PDT))
This does not compute for me. Even if you have weak future time reference,
there are still temporal adverbs like 'tomorrow', 'next year', 'soon' etc.
in your language. And actually, 'tomorrow' was present in the given example
sentences, so it seems to me that still was future time reference. The
conveyed information was exactly the same and using the present tense is
just a grammatical, not a conceptional difference. I'd say nothing in
grammar changes your experience of time.
Apart from that, I would actually prefer to say "Morgen wird's regnen / kalt
sein" in German... The strong-FTR vs. weak-FTR distinction seems way to
rough to me: English and German both have explicit future tense markers, but
also allow their omission in some contexts, whereas Japanese and Korean lack
future tense markers altogether, yet German and Japanese are both put into
weak-FTR?
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: language vs. economics
Posted by: "Jen Runds" evil....@gmail.com
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 5:32 am ((PDT))
His coding of languages into weak/strong FTR is based on the
predominant form of future marking used in the language. So even
though a language might have overt future tense, speakers of that
language might show a strong preference for referring to the future
with phrases like "I am eating tomorrow" rather than "I will eat
tomorrow"
Also, it probably didn't make it into the TED talk but in the past
he's admitted that the FTR/savings correlation might be due to an
underlying factor that causes both - ie. maybe there's something that
causes people to think about the future in a certain way, and that
affects both the way you talk about it (which might lead to
grammaticalisation of future-reference) and your saving behaviour.
Jen
On 6 April 2012 08:22, Roman Rausch <ara...@mail.ru> wrote:
> This does not compute for me. Even if you have weak future time reference,
> there are still temporal adverbs like 'tomorrow', 'next year', 'soon' etc.
> in your language. And actually, 'tomorrow' was present in the given example
> sentences, so it seems to me that still was future time reference. The
> conveyed information was exactly the same and using the present tense is
> just a grammatical, not a conceptional difference. I'd say nothing in
> grammar changes your experience of time.
>
> Apart from that, I would actually prefer to say "Morgen wird's regnen / kalt
> sein" in German... The strong-FTR vs. weak-FTR distinction seems way to
> rough to me: English and German both have explicit future tense markers, but
> also allow their omission in some contexts, whereas Japanese and Korean lack
> future tense markers altogether, yet German and Japanese are both put into
> weak-FTR?
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: language vs. economics
Posted by: "Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones" jeff.rol...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 5:40 am ((PDT))
Sorry, I have to call BS on this one. If speakers of English and Russian "had
better lives economically" than speakers of German and Chinese, then
English-speaking countries would have an unassailable lead over Germany and
China. But the strongest economy in Europe is currently Germany, not Britain,
and China has gone from being a communist backwater to an economic powerhouse
in my lifetime. Judging from the thread, the article sounds like it's promoting
racialist theories.
On 6 Apr 2012, at 13:22, Roman Rausch <ara...@mail.ru> wrote:
> This does not compute for me. Even if you have weak future time reference,
> there are still temporal adverbs like 'tomorrow', 'next year', 'soon' etc.
> in your language. And actually, 'tomorrow' was present in the given example
> sentences, so it seems to me that still was future time reference. The
> conveyed information was exactly the same and using the present tense is
> just a grammatical, not a conceptional difference. I'd say nothing in
> grammar changes your experience of time.
>
> Apart from that, I would actually prefer to say "Morgen wird's regnen / kalt
> sein" in German... The strong-FTR vs. weak-FTR distinction seems way to
> rough to me: English and German both have explicit future tense markers, but
> also allow their omission in some contexts, whereas Japanese and Korean lack
> future tense markers altogether, yet German and Japanese are both put into
> weak-FTR?
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: language vs. economics
Posted by: "Jen Runds" evil....@gmail.com
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 5:55 am ((PDT))
It's 'all else being equal', that future-marking or lack thereof is
supposedly the best indicator of economic well-being. Most countries
and households do not have 'all else' even close to equal to other
countries or households.
If you really get down to the core of it, all his study is saying is
that if you take two households which are identical in every important
respect (country, culture, religion, class, etc) except for which
language they speak, you can make a strong prediction about which of
those households is likely to have more savings (and by how much)
based on the way their language does future marking.
On 6 April 2012 08:40, Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones
<jeff.rol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I have to call BS on this one. If speakers of English and Russian "had
> better lives economically" than speakers of German and Chinese, then
> English-speaking countries would have an unassailable lead over Germany and
> China. But the strongest economy in Europe is currently Germany, not Britain,
> and China has gone from being a communist backwater to an economic powerhouse
> in my lifetime. Judging from the thread, the article sounds like it's
> promoting racialist theories.
>
> On 6 Apr 2012, at 13:22, Roman Rausch <ara...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
>> This does not compute for me. Even if you have weak future time reference,
>> there are still temporal adverbs like 'tomorrow', 'next year', 'soon' etc.
>> in your language. And actually, 'tomorrow' was present in the given example
>> sentences, so it seems to me that still was future time reference. The
>> conveyed information was exactly the same and using the present tense is
>> just a grammatical, not a conceptional difference. I'd say nothing in
>> grammar changes your experience of time.
>>
>> Apart from that, I would actually prefer to say "Morgen wird's regnen / kalt
>> sein" in German... The strong-FTR vs. weak-FTR distinction seems way to
>> rough to me: English and German both have explicit future tense markers, but
>> also allow their omission in some contexts, whereas Japanese and Korean lack
>> future tense markers altogether, yet German and Japanese are both put into
>> weak-FTR?
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: language vs. economics
Posted by: "Eugene Oh" un.do...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 8:15 am ((PDT))
Good luck with proving or disproving that. Doesn't seem like a useful
hypothesis/theory to me.
Eugene
Sent from my iPhone
On 6 Apr 2012, at 13:55, Jen Runds <evil....@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's 'all else being equal', that future-marking or lack thereof is
> supposedly the best indicator of economic well-being. Most countries
> and households do not have 'all else' even close to equal to other
> countries or households.
>
> If you really get down to the core of it, all his study is saying is
> that if you take two households which are identical in every important
> respect (country, culture, religion, class, etc) except for which
> language they speak, you can make a strong prediction about which of
> those households is likely to have more savings (and by how much)
> based on the way their language does future marking.
>
> On 6 April 2012 08:40, Jeffrey Daniel Rollin-Jones
> <jeff.rol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, I have to call BS on this one. If speakers of English and Russian
>> "had better lives economically" than speakers of German and Chinese, then
>> English-speaking countries would have an unassailable lead over Germany and
>> China. But the strongest economy in Europe is currently Germany, not
>> Britain, and China has gone from being a communist backwater to an economic
>> powerhouse in my lifetime. Judging from the thread, the article sounds like
>> it's promoting racialist theories.
>>
>> On 6 Apr 2012, at 13:22, Roman Rausch <ara...@mail.ru> wrote:
>>
>>> This does not compute for me. Even if you have weak future time reference,
>>> there are still temporal adverbs like 'tomorrow', 'next year', 'soon' etc.
>>> in your language. And actually, 'tomorrow' was present in the given example
>>> sentences, so it seems to me that still was future time reference. The
>>> conveyed information was exactly the same and using the present tense is
>>> just a grammatical, not a conceptional difference. I'd say nothing in
>>> grammar changes your experience of time.
>>>
>>> Apart from that, I would actually prefer to say "Morgen wird's regnen / kalt
>>> sein" in German... The strong-FTR vs. weak-FTR distinction seems way to
>>> rough to me: English and German both have explicit future tense markers, but
>>> also allow their omission in some contexts, whereas Japanese and Korean lack
>>> future tense markers altogether, yet German and Japanese are both put into
>>> weak-FTR?
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2g. Re: language vs. economics
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 8:28 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Eugene Oh <un.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good luck with proving or disproving that. Doesn't seem like a useful
> hypothesis/theory to me.
>
> Eugene
>
>
Now wait a minute. I'm also skeptical of this study, and I'd like to see
more work done, but if we rejected every hypothesis that required us to
control for other variables (the whole "all else being equal" bit), then a
whole lot of sociological and economic research simply could not be done.
There are ways to analyze statistics that can eliminate other variables
(never perfectly, but then that's why we ask for replication). I think the
most important issue to tackle here is the coding -- it seems from comments
here that there were some reasonable assumptions made in coding weak-FTR
and strong-FTR, but I still think it should be very carefully picked at by
linguists familiar with the languages studied, and applied to other
languages for corroboration. You can't be too careful when categorizing
languages.
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2h. Re: language vs. economics
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" lytl...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 8:54 am ((PDT))
Basically, some people noticed an unusual correlation, and now they are
trying to explain it. The research is ongoing, and no conclusions have been
reached, although some of the results are enticing.
stevo
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Eugene Oh <un.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Good luck with proving or disproving that. Doesn't seem like a useful
> > hypothesis/theory to me.
> >
> > Eugene
> >
> >
> Now wait a minute. I'm also skeptical of this study, and I'd like to see
> more work done, but if we rejected every hypothesis that required us to
> control for other variables (the whole "all else being equal" bit), then a
> whole lot of sociological and economic research simply could not be done.
> There are ways to analyze statistics that can eliminate other variables
> (never perfectly, but then that's why we ask for replication). I think the
> most important issue to tackle here is the coding -- it seems from comments
> here that there were some reasonable assumptions made in coding weak-FTR
> and strong-FTR, but I still think it should be very carefully picked at by
> linguists familiar with the languages studied, and applied to other
> languages for corroboration. You can't be too careful when categorizing
> languages.
>
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2i. Re: language vs. economics
Posted by: "Roman Rausch" ara...@mail.ru
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 10:26 am ((PDT))
>His coding of languages into weak/strong FTR is based on the
>predominant form of future marking used in the language. So even
>though a language might have overt future tense, speakers of that
>language might show a strong preference for referring to the future
>with phrases like "I am eating tomorrow" rather than "I will eat
>tomorrow"
But in the video he reasoned with information that *has* to be expressed in
a particular language vs. information which *may* be expressed. In Chinese
you cannot say 'uncle' without expressing whether it's an uncle on the
mother's or father's side and so on. But 'I am eating tomorrow' and 'I will
eat tomorrow' convey exactly the same amount of information because of the
temporal adverb.
>From the statistical point of view, you'd need to start off with a random
sample of language (preferably unrelated), but the diagram given at 9:04 in
the video is clearly based on the available savings data which happens to be
for European countries mostly.
>Now wait a minute. I'm also skeptical of this study, and I'd like to see
>more work done, but if we rejected every hypothesis that required us to
>control for other variables (the whole "all else being equal" bit), then a
>whole lot of sociological and economic research simply could not be done.
Mhm, maybe they shouldn't have been done then...
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. Іљте Ьлеј: Delang keyboard for Wi ndows
Posted by: "Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ" mi...@illte.conlang.org
Date: Thu Apr 5, 2012 2:53 pm ((PDT))
Wanna write in Delang? Keyboard now available on site.
http://illte.conlang.org/ (Link on bottom left)
--
Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ МаьіПаніљ
Δебјані ҩнІљте Ьлеј
http://illte.conlang.org/ http://delang.conlang.org/
___
«Панемі ƒłе δеьлеј ҩнδеьомеłс» - анƕомі
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Terminology for Non-native Natives
Posted by: "Amanda Babcock Furrow" la...@quandary.org
Date: Thu Apr 5, 2012 11:34 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 05:55:12AM -0400, Jim Henry wrote:
> On 4/4/12, Logan Kearsley <chronosur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > to refer to a person whose speech is considered canonical for the
> > language. I've started using "canonical speaker" as a placeholder
> > term, but I wonder if there is some other existing terminology for
> > this sort of thing.
>
> "canonical speaker" and "original speaker" both sound good to me.
How about "founding speaker"?
tylakèhlpë'fö,
Amanda
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Terminology for Non-native Natives
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 7:18 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Amanda Babcock Furrow <la...@quandary.org>wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 05:55:12AM -0400, Jim Henry wrote:
> > On 4/4/12, Logan Kearsley <chronosur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > to refer to a person whose speech is considered canonical for the
> > > language. I've started using "canonical speaker" as a placeholder
> > > term, but I wonder if there is some other existing terminology for
> > > this sort of thing.
> >
> > "canonical speaker" and "original speaker" both sound good to me.
>
> How about "founding speaker"?
>
> tylakčhlpė'fö,
> Amanda
>
Or firstspeakers?
Adam
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: Terminology for Non-native Natives
Posted by: "Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ" mi...@illte.conlang.org
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 7:28 am ((PDT))
I think the correct term is either "primorator" or "protomilitis".
On 06.04.2012 16:17, Adam Walker wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Amanda Babcock
> Furrow<la...@quandary.org>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 05:55:12AM -0400, Jim Henry wrote:
>>> On 4/4/12, Logan Kearsley<chronosur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> to refer to a person whose speech is considered canonical for the
>>>> language. I've started using "canonical speaker" as a placeholder
>>>> term, but I wonder if there is some other existing terminology for
>>>> this sort of thing.
>>> "canonical speaker" and "original speaker" both sound good to me.
>> How about "founding speaker"?
>>
>> tylakčhlpė'fö,
>> Amanda
>>
>
> Or firstspeakers?
> Adam
--
Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ МаьіПаніљ
Δебјані ҩнІљте Ьлеј
http://illte.conlang.org/ http://delang.conlang.org/
___
«Панемі ƒłе δеьлеј ҩнδеьомеłс» - анƕомі
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
4d. Re: Terminology for Non-native Natives
Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" danny.c.bow...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 7:31 am ((PDT))
Or "glossarch"
2012/4/6 Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ МаьіПаніљ <mi...@illte.conlang.org>
> I think the correct term is either "primorator" or "protomilitis".
>
>
> On 06.04.2012 16:17, Adam Walker wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Amanda Babcock Furrow<la...@quandary.org>
>> **wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 05:55:12AM -0400, Jim Henry wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/4/12, Logan Kearsley<chronosurfer@gmail.**com<chronosur...@gmail.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> to refer to a person whose speech is considered canonical for the
>>>>> language. I've started using "canonical speaker" as a placeholder
>>>>> term, but I wonder if there is some other existing terminology for
>>>>> this sort of thing.
>>>>>
>>>> "canonical speaker" and "original speaker" both sound good to me.
>>>>
>>> How about "founding speaker"?
>>>
>>> tylakčhlpė'fö,
>>> Amanda
>>>
>>>
>> Or firstspeakers?
>> Adam
>>
>
> --
> Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ МаьіПаніљ
>
> Δебјані ҩнІљте Ьлеј
> http://illte.conlang.org/ http://delang.conlang.org/
> ___
> «Панемі ƒłе δеьлеј ҩнδеьомеłс» - анƕомі
>
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
4e. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
Posted by: "Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ" mi...@illte.conlang.org
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 7:40 am ((PDT))
No, glossarch would mean the same as native speaker, while primorator
means first, or initial speaker.
On 06.04.2012 16:30, Daniel Bowman wrote:
> Or "glossarch"
>
> 2012/4/6 Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ МаьіПаніљ<mi...@illte.conlang.org>
>
>> I think the correct term is either "primorator" or "protomilitis".
>>
>>
>> On 06.04.2012 16:17, Adam Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Amanda Babcock Furrow<la...@quandary.org>
>>> **wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 05:55:12AM -0400, Jim Henry wrote:
>>>>> On 4/4/12, Logan
>>>>> Kearsley<chronosurfer@gmail.**com<chronosur...@gmail.com>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> to refer to a person whose speech is considered canonical for the
>>>>>> language. I've started using "canonical speaker" as a placeholder
>>>>>> term, but I wonder if there is some other existing terminology for
>>>>>> this sort of thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>> "canonical speaker" and "original speaker" both sound good to me.
>>>>>
>>>> How about "founding speaker"?
>>>>
>>>> tylakčhlpė'fö,
>>>> Amanda
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Or firstspeakers?
>>> Adam
>>>
>> --
>> Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ МаьіПаніљ
>>
>> Δебјані ҩнІљте Ьлеј
>> http://illte.conlang.org/ http://delang.conlang.org/
>> ___
>> «Панемі ƒłе δеьлеј ҩнδеьомеłс» - анƕомі
>>
--
Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ МаьіПаніљ
Δебјані ҩнІљте Ьлеј
http://illte.conlang.org/ http://delang.conlang.org/
___
«Панемі ƒłе δеьлеј ҩнδеьомеłс» - анƕомі
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
4f. Re: Terminology for Non-native Natives
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 9:44 am ((PDT))
I likes!
Adam
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Bowman <danny.c.bow...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Or "glossarch"
>
> 2012/4/6 Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ МаьіПаніљ <mi...@illte.conlang.org>
>
> > I think the correct term is either "primorator" or "protomilitis".
> >
> >
> > On 06.04.2012 16:17, Adam Walker wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Amanda Babcock Furrow<
> la...@quandary.org>
> >> **wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 05:55:12AM -0400, Jim Henry wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 4/4/12, Logan Kearsley<chronosurfer@gmail.**com<
> chronosur...@gmail.com>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> to refer to a person whose speech is considered canonical for the
> >>>>> language. I've started using "canonical speaker" as a placeholder
> >>>>> term, but I wonder if there is some other existing terminology for
> >>>>> this sort of thing.
> >>>>>
> >>>> "canonical speaker" and "original speaker" both sound good to me.
> >>>>
> >>> How about "founding speaker"?
> >>>
> >>> tylakčhlpė'fö,
> >>> Amanda
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Or firstspeakers?
> >> Adam
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ МаьіПаніљ
> >
> > Δебјані ҩнІљте Ьлеј
> > http://illte.conlang.org/ http://delang.conlang.org/
> > ___
> > «Панемі ƒłе δеьлеј ҩнδеьомеłс» - анƕомі
> >
>
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
4g. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
Posted by: "Jim Henry" jimhenry1...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 10:12 am ((PDT))
> On 06.04.2012 16:30, Daniel Bowman wrote:
>> Or "glossarch"
On 4/6/12, Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ МаьіПаніљ <mi...@illte.conlang.org> wrote:
> No, glossarch would mean the same as native speaker, while primorator
> means first, or initial speaker.
I'm not sure how "glossarch" could be parsed as "native speaker". It
could mean either "language ruler" or "language pioneer", and I guess
it's the latter sense that Daniel Bowman intended. I have a slight
dispreference for it over the plain English terms suggested so far
(canonical speaker, founding speaker, etc.) not because it's Greek but
because to people with only a vague familiarity with Greek I suspect
the "arch" element suggests rulers and forms of goverment (from words
like "monarch", "monarchy", "anarchy" etc.) more than pioneers and
beginnings. The only English word using "arch" in that sense I can
think of offhand is "menarche", and that gets far fewer Google hits
than "monarchy".
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
4h. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
Posted by: "Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ" mi...@illte.conlang.org
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 10:27 am ((PDT))
Well..., glossarch could also mean "language ruler", however that would
be a possible synonym for a conlanger, not for those who are the first
speakers of a conlang.
On 06.04.2012 19:12, Jim Henry wrote:
>> On 06.04.2012 16:30, Daniel Bowman wrote:
>>> Or "glossarch"
> On 4/6/12, Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ МаьіПаніљ<mi...@illte.conlang.org> wrote:
>> No, glossarch would mean the same as native speaker, while primorator
>> means first, or initial speaker.
> I'm not sure how "glossarch" could be parsed as "native speaker". It
> could mean either "language ruler" or "language pioneer", and I guess
> it's the latter sense that Daniel Bowman intended. I have a slight
> dispreference for it over the plain English terms suggested so far
> (canonical speaker, founding speaker, etc.) not because it's Greek but
> because to people with only a vague familiarity with Greek I suspect
> the "arch" element suggests rulers and forms of goverment (from words
> like "monarch", "monarchy", "anarchy" etc.) more than pioneers and
> beginnings. The only English word using "arch" in that sense I can
> think of offhand is "menarche", and that gets far fewer Google hits
> than "monarchy".
>
--
Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ МаьіПаніљ
Δебјані ҩнІљте Ьлеј
http://illte.conlang.org/ http://delang.conlang.org/
___
«Панемі ƒłе δеьлеј ҩнδеьомеłс» - анƕомі
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
4i. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" danny.c.bow...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 10:37 am ((PDT))
> It
> could mean either "language ruler" or "language pioneer", and I guess
> it's the latter sense that Daniel Bowman intended.
Yeah...after some thought I agree with Jim's assessment. I think "language
pioneer" in and of itself might be a good label. It is in plain English
and it conveys the sense we are looking for: a person who is the first one
to explore a language. This is opposed to a 'language designer' that could
be a label for any conlang.
However, I will start saying that I am the Glossarch of Angosey, because it
just...rolls off the tongue!
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
4j. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" danny.c.bow...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 10:39 am ((PDT))
>
>
> Yeah...after some thought I agree with Jim's assessment. I think
> "language pioneer" in and of itself might be a good label. It is in plain
> English and it conveys the sense we are looking for: a person who is the
> first one to explore a language. This is opposed to a 'language designer'
> that could be a label for any conlang.
>
>
*conlanger
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
4k. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
Posted by: "Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ" mi...@illte.conlang.org
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 11:07 am ((PDT))
I see your point. It is obvious that I misinterpretated glossarch when I
first checked it out. Conlanger is the generic term, while the
conlanger is glossarch of each of the languages (s)he has created. Most
likely the glossarchs of a conlang is also primorators of the same
language. But non-glossarchs of a conlang can also be "first speakers",
or primorators. So I still thinks that's the word that was requested by
Logan Kearsley.
On 06.04.2012 19:37, Daniel Bowman wrote:
>> It
>> could mean either "language ruler" or "language pioneer", and I guess
>> it's the latter sense that Daniel Bowman intended.
>
> Yeah...after some thought I agree with Jim's assessment. I think "language
> pioneer" in and of itself might be a good label. It is in plain English
> and it conveys the sense we are looking for: a person who is the first one
> to explore a language. This is opposed to a 'language designer' that could
> be a label for any conlang.
>
> However, I will start saying that I am the Glossarch of Angosey, because it
> just...rolls off the tongue!
--
Тоłе МаьіЛеƒіљ МаьіПаніљ
Δебјані ҩнІљте Ьлеј
http://illte.conlang.org/ http://delang.conlang.org/
___
«Панемі ƒłе δеьлеј ҩнδеьомеłс» - анƕомі
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
4l. Re: primorator was: Terminology for Non-native Natives
Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" danny.c.bow...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 11:20 am ((PDT))
I propose the following nomenclature:
1. Conlanger: Someone who creates languages.
2. Glossarch: Someone who oversees the creation of a certain language and
retaining control of its canon (i.e. Glossarch of Angosey).
3. Primorator: First speaker (first person to attempt to use a given
language?)
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
4m. Re: Terminology for Non-native Natives
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" chronosur...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Apr 6, 2012 11:21 am ((PDT))
On 5 April 2012 02:28, BPJ <b...@melroch.se> wrote:
> On 2012-04-05 02:59, Daniel Bowman wrote:
>>
>> How about "urspeaker". Also brings a nice Babel-textish sound to it.
>
> What, then, about "original speaker" rather than a macaronic
> coinage?
I had to look that up! (macaronic) Congratulations, that doesn't
happen very often & I like learning new words.
> Two things to note:
>
> 1. You (Logan) might reverse the meaning of
> "native speaker": you and your fiancée weren't
> native with the language, but the language is
> native with you two in the sense that you are
> the language's parents!
Eh... that's a stretch. My aim with the documentation is to produce
something in an academic, _Describing Morphosyntax_ style, so I'd like
to avoid using standard terminology in non-standard ways. Hence asking
about terminology in the first place.
> 2. You *can* be a native speaker of more than one language.
True, but were my fiancee a native multilingual, our total list of
native languages would still not include one that only began to come
into existence 5 months ago!
On 5 April 2012 03:55, Jim Henry <jimhenry1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/4/12, Logan Kearsley <chronosur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> to refer to a person whose speech is considered canonical for the
>> language. I've started using "canonical speaker" as a placeholder
>> term, but I wonder if there is some other existing terminology for
>> this sort of thing.
>
> For some conlangs with a speaker community, I refer to "fluent speaker
> intiution" rather than "native speaker intuition", even if the speaker
> community in question does have some native speakers, like that of
> Esperanto -- their judgement isn't necessarily weightier than that of
> other fluent speakers. I'm guessing Mev Pailom is too new for you and
> your fiancée to be fluent in it yet, though.
Yup. I sadly cannot learn a new language in only 5 months of sporadic
usage, especially when it's still under construction during the
learning process.
> "canonical speaker" and
> "original speaker" both sound good to me.
"Original speaker" captures a different sense for me. I'm looking for
something that is a superset of "native speaker", including "fluent
speakers" in the Esperanto-community sense- a word for the set of all
people whose performance is exemplary of definitional of correctness.
Here's a collection of things suggested so far, and what they seem to mean:
Native speaker - we all know that one
Canonical speaker - my coinage for someone whose usage defines correctness
Primorator == Original speaker == Founding speaker - one of the first
people to learn / use a language (possibly not the same as the
creator)
Language pioneer - same, as far as I can tell from the discussion. One
of the first to use a new language
Glossarch - a single person or entity who is authoritative for a
language. Probably the creator, but not necessarily, if the language
if the language is inherited or something.
With that breakdown, we could say the canonical speakers of English
are the native speakers, the canonical speakers of Esperanto are the
fluent speakers, and the canonical speakers of Mev Pailom are also the
founding speakers. Meanwhile, the glossarch of gjâ-zym-byn is Jim
Henry, who is also a founding speaker and a canonical speaker, the
glossarch of French is the French Academy, made up of native speakers,
Mev Pailom has no glossarch.
-l.
Messages in this topic (17)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
