There are 13 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Hemingway story
From: Paul Schleitwiler, FCM
1.2. Re: Hemingway story
From: George Corley
1.3. Re: Hemingway story
From: Padraic Brown
2.1. Re: Speedtalks and briefscripts (was: Hemingway story
From: J. 'Mach' Wust
2.2. Re: Speedtalks and briefscripts (was: Hemingway story
From: MorphemeAddict
2.3. Re: Speedtalks and briefscripts (was: Hemingway story
From: Padraic Brown
2.4. Re: Speedtalks and briefscripts (was: Hemingway story
From: George Corley
2.5. Re: Speedtalks and briefscripts (was: Hemingway story
From: Padraic Brown
2.6. Re: Speedtalks and briefscripts (was: Hemingway story
From: J. 'Mach' Wust
3.1. Re: How many overloaded words?
From: Logan Kearsley
3.2. Re: How many overloaded words?
From: David Brumbley
3.3. Re: How many overloaded words?
From: Logan Kearsley
4. K5 outline
From: neo gu
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Hemingway story
Posted by: "Paul Schleitwiler, FCM" pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am ((PDT))
Don't forget napkin has two sides, double the area.
Que Dios te bendiga de siempre y de todas maneras,
Paul
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 7/13/12, And Rosta <and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe you're just yanking our chains,
>
> Would I do that!? :)
>
> > Padraic, for let us not forget that you are Padraic; but it
> > seems to me that the solution you describe is impossible or
> > is a nonsolution.
>
> Impossible? Perhaps. Or maybe we just need couple more dimensions inside
> that napkin...
>
> > Make the reasonable assumption that the
> > characters are formed from pixels of a minimum size. Since
> > there must be an infinite number of characters, the maximum
> > character size must also be infinite.
>
> Well, perhaps we don't need an absolutely *infinite* number of of
> characters. Surely even if we include every story, every novel ever
> written, there must be a nontrivially less than infinite number of
> actual sentences in circulation.
>
> > Maybe the higher
> > frequency characters will be smaller and the lower frequency
> > characters bigger.
>
> That makes sense.
>
> > But there's no telling how many will fit
> > on a napkin. Furthermore, if characters are formed from
> > black and white pixels, that essentially amounts to a
> > 2-phoneme phonology (/black/ and /white/), and the upshot is
> > that you're dealing with a language that generates
> > sentences, the only oddity being that the phonology is
> > interpreted graphically rather than phonetically.
>
> Well, there's no reason why we must be limited to 2D b&w. Colours and
> multiple dimensions could perhaps reduce the absolute number of symbols.
>
> But I still think we need to use a larger napkin. 100cm2 is a bloody
> tiny napkin. Only a little bigger than a cocktail napkin. I think we'd
> need a good sized napkin -- like you get over at General Phat's All Night
> Mentolatian Feedtrough. 18x18 or so.
>
> Padraic
>
> >
> > Padraic Brown, On 13/07/2012 13:40:
> > > --- On Thu, 7/12/12, And Rosta<and.ro...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >>> I think it would be a terribly unwieldy (but
> > not
> > >> impossible) writing
> > >>> system to create a unique character that
> > symbolises
> > >> every possible
> > >>> thought, phrase or sentence thinkable by the
> > human
> > >> mind.
> > >>
> > >> That's what language is, roughly speaking. A way
> > of
> > >> generating 'characters' (i.e. sentences) that
> > symbolize many
> > >> of the possible thoughts thinkable by the human
> > mind.
> > >
> > > Right, though here we have a space constraint: we have
> > to fit a book full
> > > of these sentences on a napkin.
> > >
> > >> I don't see how your imagined scheme would differ
> > from
> > >> normal language, or at least from a language
> > primarily
> > >> expressed in graphic form.
> > >
> > > Each possible sentence has a unique and small symbol.
> > The previous sentence
> > > therefore might be symbolized by "%". This last
> > sentence might be
> > > symbolised by "@".
> > >
> > > That paragraph could thus be represented by the string:
> > "%@=".
> >
> > OK, but this is a language with only a few sentences, then.
> >
> > I hereby propose a language with only one word, "O", whose
> > meaning is equivalent to the contents of _War & Peace_.
> > Lo, a language in which _War and Peace_ can be written *by
> > hand* on a pinhead.
> >
> > >>> A long novel could thus be easily written in a
> > small
> > >> space.
> > >>
> > >> I don't follow. The more characters the language
> > needs, the
> > >> bigger the characters are going to have to be.
> > >
> > > Well, sure! I leave that to symbological artificers!
> > >
> > > Can always use something like matrix codes. Small
> > space, lots of
> > > information. Or even some kind of multidimensional
> > symbol.
> > >
> > > No one ever said the napkin novel had to be readily
> > human readable!
> >
> > I think someone did, because otherwise the challenge is not
> > a challenge; as Joerg pointed out, we already have
> > microfiche for instance.
> >
> > I think the challenge is essentially impossible: roughly
> > speaking, the size of the smallest visible pixel determines
> > how much information can be fitted into the space, and
> > that's not going to be enough for a novel.
> >
> > --And.
> >
>
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: Hemingway story
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:23 am ((PDT))
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM <
pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't forget napkin has two sides, double the area.
> Que Dios te bendiga de siempre y de todas maneras,
> Paul
And most paper napkins unfold to four times the surface area.
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: Hemingway story
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:17 pm ((PDT))
--- On Mon, 7/16/12, Paul Schleitwiler, FCM <pjschleitwiler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't forget napkin has two sides, double the area.
You're right! Room aplenty for two novels!!
Padraic
> Que Dios te bendiga de siempre y de todas maneras,
> Paul
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > --- On Fri, 7/13/12, And Rosta <and.ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe you're just yanking our chains,
> >
> > Would I do that!? :)
> >
> > > Padraic, for let us not forget that you are
> Padraic; but it
> > > seems to me that the solution you describe is
> impossible or
> > > is a nonsolution.
> >
> > Impossible? Perhaps. Or maybe we just need couple more
> dimensions inside
> > that napkin...
> >
> > > Make the reasonable assumption that the
> > > characters are formed from pixels of a minimum
> size. Since
> > > there must be an infinite number of characters,
> the maximum
> > > character size must also be infinite.
> >
> > Well, perhaps we don't need an absolutely *infinite*
> number of of
> > characters. Surely even if we include every story,
> every novel ever
> > written, there must be a nontrivially less than
> infinite number of
> > actual sentences in circulation.
> >
> > > Maybe the higher
> > > frequency characters will be smaller and the lower
> frequency
> > > characters bigger.
> >
> > That makes sense.
> >
> > > But there's no telling how many will fit
> > > on a napkin. Furthermore, if characters are formed
> from
> > > black and white pixels, that essentially amounts
> to a
> > > 2-phoneme phonology (/black/ and /white/), and the
> upshot is
> > > that you're dealing with a language that
> generates
> > > sentences, the only oddity being that the
> phonology is
> > > interpreted graphically rather than phonetically.
> >
> > Well, there's no reason why we must be limited to 2D
> b&w. Colours and
> > multiple dimensions could perhaps reduce the absolute
> number of symbols.
> >
> > But I still think we need to use a larger napkin.
> 100cm2 is a bloody
> > tiny napkin. Only a little bigger than a cocktail
> napkin. I think we'd
> > need a good sized napkin -- like you get over at
> General Phat's All Night
> > Mentolatian Feedtrough. 18x18 or so.
> >
> > Padraic
> >
> > >
> > > Padraic Brown, On 13/07/2012 13:40:
> > > > --- On Thu, 7/12/12, And Rosta<and.ro...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> I think it would be a terribly
> unwieldy (but
> > > not
> > > >> impossible) writing
> > > >>> system to create a unique character
> that
> > > symbolises
> > > >> every possible
> > > >>> thought, phrase or sentence thinkable
> by the
> > > human
> > > >> mind.
> > > >>
> > > >> That's what language is, roughly
> speaking. A way
> > > of
> > > >> generating 'characters' (i.e. sentences)
> that
> > > symbolize many
> > > >> of the possible thoughts thinkable by the
> human
> > > mind.
> > > >
> > > > Right, though here we have a space
> constraint: we have
> > > to fit a book full
> > > > of these sentences on a napkin.
> > > >
> > > >> I don't see how your imagined scheme
> would differ
> > > from
> > > >> normal language, or at least from a
> language
> > > primarily
> > > >> expressed in graphic form.
> > > >
> > > > Each possible sentence has a unique and small
> symbol.
> > > The previous sentence
> > > > therefore might be symbolized by "%". This
> last
> > > sentence might be
> > > > symbolised by "@".
> > > >
> > > > That paragraph could thus be represented by
> the string:
> > > "%@=".
> > >
> > > OK, but this is a language with only a few
> sentences, then.
> > >
> > > I hereby propose a language with only one word,
> "O", whose
> > > meaning is equivalent to the contents of _War
> & Peace_.
> > > Lo, a language in which _War and Peace_ can be
> written *by
> > > hand* on a pinhead.
> > >
> > > >>> A long novel could thus be easily
> written in a
> > > small
> > > >> space.
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't follow. The more characters the
> language
> > > needs, the
> > > >> bigger the characters are going to have
> to be.
> > > >
> > > > Well, sure! I leave that to symbological
> artificers!
> > > >
> > > > Can always use something like matrix codes.
> Small
> > > space, lots of
> > > > information. Or even some kind of
> multidimensional
> > > symbol.
> > > >
> > > > No one ever said the napkin novel had to be
> readily
> > > human readable!
> > >
> > > I think someone did, because otherwise the
> challenge is not
> > > a challenge; as Joerg pointed out, we already
> have
> > > microfiche for instance.
> > >
> > > I think the challenge is essentially impossible:
> roughly
> > > speaking, the size of the smallest visible pixel
> determines
> > > how much information can be fitted into the space,
> and
> > > that's not going to be enough for a novel.
> > >
> > > --And.
> > >
> >
>
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Speedtalks and briefscripts (was: Hemingway story
Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@yahoo.com
Date: Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:34 am ((PDT))
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:39:23 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
>On 14/07/2012 23:33, MorphemeAddict wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:17 PM, J. 'Mach' Wust
>>> Arabic, which also can be used like a stenography, is
>>> not geometric either, and in contrast to Western
>>> shorthands, it is beautiful.
>>>
>>
>> A script is a script. Arabic writing is no more
>> beautiful than cursive English or Russian or Greek.
I very much disagree. Even though I deeply sympathize with relativism, I
believe that some scripts are inherently more beautiful than others. If you
don't like that wording, call them more suited for calligraphy than others.
This correlates with the calligraphic culture. I believe that the only
important calligraphies have been developed in the Arabic/Persian cultural
sphere and in the Chinese/Japanese cultural sphere. In these cultures,
calligraphy receives at least as much attention as painting (if not more).
Compare that to the little attention calligraphy receives in the European/etc.
cultural sphere.
>Arabic can, indeed, look beautiful; but I have also seen it
>look anything but beautiful - horrible scrawls like marks
>made by spiders with inky feet.
>
>Western shorthands can be written carefully and neatly to
>give beautiful calligraphic effects. They are, of course,
>not normally so written because the aim is to write at the
>speed of normal speech. Try writing Arabic script at that
>speed; the result will not be beautiful!
>
>IME any cursive script may be written to give beautiful,
>calligraphic results or written as (almost) eligible scrawls
>- and, in practice, a whole load of variants in
>between.
Allow me an analogy with flavours instead of scripts. Imagine that there is
some pleasant element in wet dog as well as some unpleasant element in vanilla.
The relativistic conclusion would be that both flavours may produce pleasant or
unpleasant effects (and, in practice, a whole load of variants in between).
Would this invalidate the general observation that vanilla is more pleasant
than wet dog? I believe it wouldn't. So while I fully agree with you that there
are unpleasant instances of Arabic as well as pleasant instances of Western
cursive script, this doesn't invalidate my more general perception that Arabic
is more pleasant/suited for calligraphy/beautiful than any Western cursive
script.
My main reason for saying that Western shorthand systems are ugly (unsuited for
calligraphy) comes from my years of trying to make them look good. There are
two main problems with these systems. They tend not to preserve a line, instead
going up and down, which destroys any rhythm. And they tend to feature too many
different movements, which prevents any rhythm. In other words, they are uneven
and disparate. I was pretty much forced into con-scripting until I got
something more beautiful (suited for calligraphy).
--
grüess
mach
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
2.2. Re: Speedtalks and briefscripts (was: Hemingway story
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" lytl...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:11 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 2:34 PM, J. 'Mach' Wust <j_mach_w...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:39:23 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
> >On 14/07/2012 23:33, MorphemeAddict wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:17 PM, J. 'Mach' Wust
> >>> Arabic, which also can be used like a stenography, is
> >>> not geometric either, and in contrast to Western
> >>> shorthands, it is beautiful.
> >>>
> >>
> >> A script is a script. Arabic writing is no more
> >> beautiful than cursive English or Russian or Greek.
>
> I very much disagree. Even though I deeply sympathize with relativism, I
> believe that some scripts are inherently more beautiful than others. If you
> don't like that wording, call them more suited for calligraphy than others.
> This correlates with the calligraphic culture. I believe that the only
> important calligraphies have been developed in the Arabic/Persian cultural
> sphere and in the Chinese/Japanese cultural sphere. In these cultures,
> calligraphy receives at least as much attention as painting (if not more).
> Compare that to the little attention calligraphy receives in the
> European/etc. cultural sphere.
>
> >Arabic can, indeed, look beautiful; but I have also seen it
> >look anything but beautiful - horrible scrawls like marks
> >made by spiders with inky feet.
> >
> >Western shorthands can be written carefully and neatly to
> >give beautiful calligraphic effects. They are, of course,
> >not normally so written because the aim is to write at the
> >speed of normal speech. Try writing Arabic script at that
> >speed; the result will not be beautiful!
> >
> >IME any cursive script may be written to give beautiful,
> >calligraphic results or written as (almost) eligible scrawls
> >- and, in practice, a whole load of variants in
> >between.
>
> Allow me an analogy with flavours instead of scripts. Imagine that there
> is some pleasant element in wet dog as well as some unpleasant element in
> vanilla. The relativistic conclusion would be that both flavours may
> produce pleasant or unpleasant effects (and, in practice, a whole load of
> variants in between). Would this invalidate the general observation that
> vanilla is more pleasant than wet dog? I believe it wouldn't. So while I
> fully agree with you that there are unpleasant instances of Arabic as well
> as pleasant instances of Western cursive script, this doesn't invalidate my
> more general perception that Arabic is more pleasant/suited for
> calligraphy/beautiful than any Western cursive script.
>
> My main reason for saying that Western shorthand systems are ugly
> (unsuited for calligraphy) comes from my years of trying to make them look
> good. There are two main problems with these systems. They tend not to
> preserve a line, instead going up and down, which destroys any rhythm. And
> they tend to feature too many different movements, which prevents any
> rhythm. In other words, they are uneven and disparate. I was pretty much
> forced into con-scripting until I got something more beautiful (suited for
> calligraphy).
>
> --
> grüess
> mach
>
I think the cultural appreciation of calligraphy is the reason those Arabic
and Chinese-based scripts have such excellent calligraphy. It's not the
script at all, it's the appreciation of beautiful writing that matters.
stevo
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
2.3. Re: Speedtalks and briefscripts (was: Hemingway story
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:16 pm ((PDT))
--- On Mon, 7/16/12, J. 'Mach' Wust <j_mach_w...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: J. 'Mach' Wust <j_mach_w...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [CONLANG] Speedtalks and briefscripts (was: Hemingway story
> To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
> Date: Monday, July 16, 2012, 2:34 PM
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:39:23 +0100, R
> A Brown wrote:
> >On 14/07/2012 23:33, MorphemeAddict wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:17 PM, J. 'Mach' Wust
> >>> Arabic, which also can be used like a
> stenography, is
> >>> not geometric either, and in contrast to
> Western
> >>> shorthands, it is beautiful.
> >>>
> >>
> >> A script is a script. Arabic writing is no more
> >> beautiful than cursive English or Russian or
> Greek.
>
> I very much disagree. Even though I deeply sympathize with
> relativism, I believe that some scripts are inherently more
> beautiful than others. If you don't like that wording, call
> them more suited for calligraphy than others. This
> correlates with the calligraphic culture.
I don't think these are the same thing, though. I think runes are very
beautiful letters -- but clearly not well suited to calligraphy! I may
be mistaken, but I think Arabic script is by definition calligraphic --
it has the opposite feature of being poorly suited to block printing (i.e.,
individual letters). Oriental writing systems can be block printed or
painted. Roman (and Cyrillic) script is perhaps the most ideal, since it
can be readily adapted to all these: it can be block printed, it can be
joined into a flowing cursive script, it can be worked into dozens of
varying and beautiful calligraphic styles, and can also be done in a
brush stroke style.
> I believe that the
> only important calligraphies have been developed in the
> Arabic/Persian cultural sphere and in the Chinese/Japanese
> cultural sphere. In these cultures, calligraphy receives at
> least as much attention as painting (if not more). Compare
> that to the little attention calligraphy receives in the
> European/etc. cultural sphere.
Perhaps you are being a little too quick to dismiss western calligraphy.
I think it's true that western calligraphy has suffered great blows since
the introduction of the printing press. Just because calligraphy is
something one only sees on one's college diploma doesn't mean the west is
lacking in calligraphy.
But even modernity hasn't entirely wiped out calligraphy in the west. Take
a look at the St. John's Bible sometime. Simply astounding. Here's the
first hand lettered, hand illuminated Bible to be made in something like
500 years. It's definitely contemporary, but from what I've seen clearly
has its roots in the ancient art of fine lettering.
Take a look and see if you think the west has no "important" calligraphy.
For me, even seeing a tiny image on computer screen is very deeply
moving. It brought tears to my eyes to see that people can make something
so beautiful with their hands in an age best known for things made by the
million by machines. (I've seen hand lettered Korans as well, and won't
go into the relative theologies that are, at least for me, as fundamental
to their inherent beauty or lack thereof as the shape and flow of the
letters.) This is something I would travel to see in person.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
2.4. Re: Speedtalks and briefscripts (was: Hemingway story
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:01 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But even modernity hasn't entirely wiped out calligraphy in the west. Take
> a look at the St. John's Bible sometime. Simply astounding. Here's the
> first hand lettered, hand illuminated Bible to be made in something like
> 500 years. It's definitely contemporary, but from what I've seen clearly
> has its roots in the ancient art of fine lettering.
>
Looking at my Bachelor's degrees, they were clearly printed -- no
calligraphy there. Western calligraphy is there, and at one time it was a
great art, but it has fallen out of the culture a bit. There aren't that
many people creating illuminated manuscripts anymore.
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
2.5. Re: Speedtalks and briefscripts (was: Hemingway story
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com
Date: Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:21 pm ((PDT))
--- On Mon, 7/16/12, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > But even modernity hasn't entirely wiped out
> calligraphy in the west. Take
> > a look at the St. John's Bible sometime. Simply
> astounding. Here's the
> > first hand lettered, hand illuminated Bible to be made
> in something like
> > 500 years. It's definitely contemporary, but from what
> I've seen clearly
> > has its roots in the ancient art of fine lettering.
> >
>
> Looking at my Bachelor's degrees, they were clearly printed
> -- no
> calligraphy there.
I guess that depends on the school. I know mine is printed. I think my
wife's has some hand lettered elements (I'll look). I've seen hand lettered
diplomas in some doctor's offices.
> Western calligraphy is there, and
> at one time it was a
> great art, but it has fallen out of the culture a bit.
I tend towards agreement, though it's by no means gone entirely!
> There aren't that
> many people creating illuminated manuscripts anymore.
I get more than 500k hits for "calligraphy by" -- pages and pages of
"Calligraphy by Melissa" and "Calligraphy by Colleen". Calligraphy for
all occasions; calligraphy for invitations; "beautiful script, elegant
design, meaningful words"; "professional calligrapher". Arts and crafts
festivals (leastways in my area) always have a calligrapher or two.
Perhaps it's not at the vanguard of the art world, but by no means dead,
dying or even terminally ill in the west!
Padraic
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
2.6. Re: Speedtalks and briefscripts (was: Hemingway story
Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@yahoo.com
Date: Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:50 am ((PDT))
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:10:54 -0400, MorphemeAddict wrote:
>I think the cultural appreciation of calligraphy is the reason those Arabic
>and Chinese-based scripts have such excellent calligraphy. It's not the
>script at all, it's the appreciation of beautiful writing that matters.
Well I think that centuries of cultural appreciation of calligraphy have left a
deep imprint on the Arabic and Chinese-based scripts.
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:16:39 -0700, Padraic Brown wrote:
>--- On Mon, 7/16/12, J. 'Mach' Wust <...> wrote:
>> I very much disagree. Even though I deeply sympathize with
>> relativism, I believe that some scripts are inherently more
>> beautiful than others. If you don't like that wording, call
>> them more suited for calligraphy than others. This
>> correlates with the calligraphic culture.
>
>I don't think these are the same thing, though.
You're right, the personal taste is one thing, and the inherent quality of a
script is another thing.
>I think runes are very
>beautiful letters -- but clearly not well suited to calligraphy! I may
>be mistaken, but I think Arabic script is by definition calligraphic --
>it has the opposite feature of being poorly suited to block printing (i.e.,
>individual letters). Oriental writing systems can be block printed or
>painted. Roman (and Cyrillic) script is perhaps the most ideal, since it
>can be readily adapted to all these: it can be block printed, it can be
>joined into a flowing cursive script, it can be worked into dozens of
>varying and beautiful calligraphic styles, and can also be done in a
>brush stroke style.
I would say that the Western scripts' suitability for printing comes from their
co-evolution with the printing press. Late mediaval bookhands with lots of
connected letters were much less suited for printing. Consider for instance
that one popular style of the time, the bastarda, didn't make it into printing
at all.
Runes have a certain appeal to them and they certainly have a distinct rhythm.
But do they allow for expressivity? I would say that their expressivity is
extremely limited. And in a similar manner, I think that Western letters
certainly have a distinct rhythm (unlike Western shorthands), but they are more
limited than Arabic or Chinese-based letters. I think they are, by comparison,
rather dull. Of course, that won't hinder any serious calligrapher to do
beautiful work, but it requires much more of a creative effort. That leads to
modern Western calligraphy often being on the brink of illegibility (or beyond).
Thanks for mentioning the St. John's Bible ( http://www.saintjohnsbible.org/ ).
I wasn't aware of that truly amazing project.
--
grüess
mach
Messages in this topic (64)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Re: How many overloaded words?
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" chronosur...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:43 am ((PDT))
On 14 July 2012 20:27, Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:41:31 -0600, Logan Kearsley <chronosur...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 27 June 2012 13:25, Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> (b) is full mostly of unuseful meanings
>>
>>To solve point (b), Mev
>>Pailom has multiple different derivation classes, each of which has a
>>completely independent paradigm, with potentially completely size and
>>shape. Root concepts are assigned to derivation classes based on which
>>sets of derived meanings are most likely to be actually useful. So,
>>several small paradigms that capture just the useful elements rather
>>than one big all-encompassing paradigm with a lot of useless slots.
>
> Ooh. Can you tell us the paradigms? (Using hypothetical roots if you
> otherwise fear giving too much away?)
Oh, I don't fear giving too much away. (Even if Mev Pailom is sort of
supposed to be a cryptolang, I expect that no one else will ever
actually learn it regardless of how much information about it is
available; if anyone cares about spying on my home life enough to go
to that much trouble, gosh, they're welcome to it, I guess.) I just
asked for somebody else's paradigms, after all, so it's only fair.
I do, however, fear giving away misinformation, as specific forms are
still very much in flux, and the number of paradigms and distribution
of slots between them could change significantly as the language
evolves. With that proviso, here's how things look right now (at
least, the last time I recorded and tried formalizing stuff):
1st Declension ZN-C "meaning, signification" (possibly not the best
example of usefullness for this declension, but oh well)
The most generic declension.
Verb Forms:
AP/F "znec", to stand for something, intentionally (e.g., as a representative)
A/P "znaci", to give meaning to something
A/F "aznoce", to create a symbol for something
A/P/F "znacu", to give something a particular meaning
AP "znuci", to have meaning or purpose for oneself
P "aznca", to have meaning, to be significant
P/F "iznca", to mean something
Nominal Forms:
Abstract "znaic", meaningfullness
Agent "znacjr", cause of aboutness, bestower of significance
Patient "aznci", symbol or sign
Focus "zneces", meaning
Location "znacasa", a place for interpreting symbols (?)
Instrument "znaicom", the means by which meaning is implied (language, code)
2nd Declension SM-DQ "flat, smooth"
Mostly for concepts that have inherent foci, typically adjectivy things.
Verb Forms:
AP "smidq", to be smooth on purpose (e.g., to shave)
P "asmadq", to be flat or smooth
A/P "smodqi", to make something smooth, flatten
Nominal Forms:
Focus "esmedq", smoothness, flatitude
Agent "smidqjr", smoother, flattener (human)
Patient "asmdqi", smooth or flat thing
Instrument "smedqaj", smoother, flattener (e.g., hammer)
Location "smedqasa", a place for smooth, flat things (perhaps
riverbed? not so useful for this particular root, but essential for
Class 2 roots that aren't as adjectivy, like "yerqasa", "place for
snuggling, couch")
3rd Declension N-K, "make"
For things that are never voluntary.
Verb Forms:
A/F "nek", to make another example of something
A/P/F "neku", to make something into something else
P/F "nkuj", to become something
P "anke", to be made, artificial
Nominal Forms:
Abstract "jenk", production, manufacturing
Agent "nekjr", maker
Patient "anki", a made or worked on thing
Focus "nkes", the result or intent of making, a state or product
Instrument "jenkim", tool
Location "nakese", a place for making things, factory, workshop, kitchen, etc.
>>There's some interesting thought to be given here to what exactly
>>constitutes "ambiguity". If we have one word that can be used in all
>>the senses here listed for "give", does that mean that word is
>>ambiguous, or just that it has a single well-defined but very large
>>meaning? If We have a word that means "something masculine related to
>>rings", is that ambiguous between “ring-wearing man,” “the man with
>>the ring,” “the ring with a man’s face on it,” etc., or is it really
>>just "something masculine related to rings", which requirement *all*
>>of those referents satisfy?
>
> There are tests to sort out _ambiguity_, the condition of there being two
> words with the same form, from _vagueness_, the condition of a word that just
> doesn't specify some detail.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=canMZSZ32ZgC&lpg=PA167&ots=bLnHjilgcT&pg=PA167#v=onepage&q&f=false
Oh, cool. Thanks for that link.
> As you say, recast in this framework, Gary's "give" example is nearly
> certainly just vague (and let me add that it's not farfetched at all). Your
> "ring" example is trickier, and it probably depends on how transparent the
> morphological network giving the expanded sense "something masculine related
> to rings" is.
To be fair, David Brumbley's example.
-l.
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
3.2. Re: How many overloaded words?
Posted by: "David Brumbley" davidbrumb...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:14 pm ((PDT))
>Are all of your roots diconsonantal? That seems superficially similar to what
>I've done with Mev Pailom; inspired by Semitic triliteral roots, reduced to 2
>to make words shorter, but the consonant positions in Mev Pailom are filled by
>clusters rather than individual consonant segments to vastly expand the number
>of possible distinct roots. Do you perhaps have tables or other sharable
>documentation of your conjugation/declension/derivation paradigms?
I was at first inspired by Semitic consonant roots, yes, but the short
answer is no, Hsassiens has consonantal roots of 2,3 or 4 consonants.
It could even be said that it contains single-consonant roots, but
those function as the most common auxiliary particles rather than
actual noun/verb/adj/adv stems. And alas, I do not have tables or
sharable documentation to present on the language just yet, but that
grammar, like so very many other things in life, is still a work in
progress.
>Mev Pailom has multiple different derivation classes, each of which has a
>completely independent paradigm, with potentially completely size and shape.
>Root concepts are assigned to derivation classes based on which sets of
>derived meanings are most likely to be actually useful. So, several small
>paradigms that capture just the useful elements rather than one big
>all-encompassing paradigm with a lot of useless slots.
It's a wonderful thing sometimes to find that others have the same
problems you have experienced, and this is one such case. I've done
something of the same differentiation, but because of the constraints
of my system for Hsassiens, the classes I've come up with are somewhat
different. Hsassiens is an artlang for a fictional world containing
immortal beings. As such, the six genders I've constructed for it are
1-Male/Mortal
2-Female/Mortal
3-Concrete(inanimate 5-senses-perceivable/observable)
4-Abstract(philosophical concept or principle)
5-Male/Immortal
6-Female/Immortal.
Roots are classified by whether they have a Concrete, Abstract or
Personal "base" noun form. That way, according to the base form,
certain noun/adjective/verb structures would be theoretically possible
but not expected as common occurrence, much the same way that English
is capable of producing a sentence like "That grassiness next to my
living-place is definitely orchardable, with the right workyness."
Though the meaning is understandable, there are more common and
readily-understandable ways of conveying that meaning. The different
base classes help to differentiate that.
Specifically, Concrete roots (like the stem for �ring�) are not
expected to take Personal forms. Their declension if they do requires
an auxiliary personal adjective to clarify examples such as the "ring"
example discussed above, such that "Ring-maker" (Ring-TVJY, Make-TV)
would translate roughly to -atv�tajya �t�tav�-,
male/mortal/nominative/noun/singular ring-man -----
male/mortal/nominative/adjective/singular maker. In this instance,
the adjective locks in the otherwise vague noun-reference, as opposed
to -ah�tasa �t�tav�-, (Parent-HS) "a father who makes stuff." Father
is a personal root, and is expected to take a personal form (in this
case the Male/Mortal -�ta-), and so the adjective just adds details,
since it is not expected to lock in any vagueness or ambiguity.
After reading your last email with Mev Pailom's paradigms laid out,
not only will I be using "flatitude" as often as possible for the rest
of my life, (there's just something wonderfully exact about it), but
I'm also curious about how Mev Pailom is structured syntactically. I
ask because in reference to the original purpose of this chain, Mev
Pailom seems to be much closer to the interests of efficiency in word
quantity than Hsassiens. If the paradigms you've quoted contain the
words as they would appear in a Mev Pailom sentence, then that
suggests it is reliant on word order or auxiliary particles for case
and argument identification, in which case the number of unique words
in the language is greatly reduced. It puts me in mind of Tagalog's
Ang/Ng/Sa markers for sentence structure, as well as their
sometimes-extraordinarily-intricate conjugation methods, which I have
to admit were the primary inspiration for some of my structures in
Hsassiens.
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
3.3. Re: How many overloaded words?
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" chronosur...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:59 pm ((PDT))
On 16 July 2012 14:14, David Brumbley <davidbrumb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And alas, I do not have tables or
> sharable documentation to present on the language just yet, but that
> grammar, like so very many other things in life, is still a work in
> progress.
Sad. I look forward to seeing it. Progress in Mev Pailom has slowed
for many reasons, not least being that I feel like the current
paradigms are very much Sub Optimal and thus I am reluctant to spend
the effort internalizing them without absorbing a lot more inspiration
from other languages with template morphology.
> After reading your last email with Mev Pailom's paradigms laid out,
> not only will I be using "flatitude" as often as possible for the rest
> of my life, (there's just something wonderfully exact about it), but
> I'm also curious about how Mev Pailom is structured syntactically. I
> ask because in reference to the original purpose of this chain, Mev
> Pailom seems to be much closer to the interests of efficiency in word
> quantity than Hsassiens. If the paradigms you've quoted contain the
> words as they would appear in a Mev Pailom sentence, then that
> suggests it is reliant on word order or auxiliary particles for case
> and argument identification, in which case the number of unique words
> in the language is greatly reduced.
Yup. Verbs have no inflection, and there is no grammatical agreement
anywhere in the language. Nouns have a few inflectional forms (5,
total), but only one (the construct) has syntactic or other
grammatical relevance; the others are for particularity and number.
All of the paradigm forms are strictly derivational. The different
verb forms kind of blur the line between derivation and inflection,
since they specify argument structure, which is a syntactic thing, but
I let that count as derivation because the different verb forms that
result from any particular root would, for the most part, be
translated by completely different lexical items in English.
The full template for a non-elliptic, non-inverted clause looks
something like this:
[Clausifier] [Tense/Aspect] Verb [Agent] [Patient] [Focus] [Terminal]
'Clausifier' is a type of particle that identifies a phrase as a new
full clause; it's kind of like a complementizer, but it can appear on
top-level matrix clauses. Tense/Aspect is a particle chain, and
'Terminal' is a catch-all class of particles that can do evidentiality
stuff and some other random things but which, if it occurs,
unambiguously marks the end of a complete clause; basically, it means
that nothing that follows can have a syntactic relation to any
internal components of the previous clause, which is sometimes very
important because there is no syntactic distinction between a matrix
clause and a nominalized complement clause, which can result in
syntactic ambiguities like "I hear you and believe you" / "I hear you
and I hear that I believe you". They also nicely disambiguate the
attachment of terminal prepositional phrases- "I saw the man with the
telescope" in Mev Pailom probably means the man had the telescope,
because "I saw the man [Terminal] with the telescope" must have the
prepositional phrase attached to the entire preceding clause, so
that's what you'd be expected to say if that's what you meant.
Which of Agent, Patient, and Focus appear in a normal sentence depends
on the argument structure of the verb. However, since the argument
structure is built-in to every verb, any of the arguments can be
elided. Of course, if you elide an argument, then you lose positional
information to identify the roles of other arguments, so there's a
series of rules for how to figure out exactly what was left out. Case
comes into play here: There are in total 4 cases, marked by
phrase-level enclitics like the English " 's "; two of them are
genitives, one is the unmarked nominative, and the last is the
objective. Roles in inverted or elliptical sentences (technically, in
all sentences, but the rule is really simple for basic sentences: just
see the template above) are determined by relative positions with
respect to the verb & the objective case argument, if there is any.
A patient that occurs in the second position of the verbs argument
structure (i.e., any patient except those for P and P/F verbs) may be
explicitly marked as objective at any time, but doesn't have to be
unless the marking is necessary to apply one of the below rules.
An argument that is marked as objective must be a patient. This allows
fronting of patients: P-Obj V [A] [F]
An argument between a verb and an objective must be an agent; this
allows eliding foci: V A P-Obj. [F], F V A P-Obj.
Except when otherwise marked by one of the above rules, arguments must
be elided in the order A-P-F. This allows eliding an agent and a
patient, leaving behind just a focus, or eliding an agent and a focus
but leaving an explicitly marked patient.
Unless superceded by one the previous rules, an argument prior to a
verb must have the first role left in the elision list after dropping
as many as are needed to match the number of arguments in the clause.
Applicatives add an additional slot at the end of the usual elision list.
It's very difficult with those rules to front a focus in an A/F verb,
though it can be fudged by passivizing with an applicative to elide
the original agent position, but just about any other combination of
elision and reordering can be accommodated almost purely by syntax
with a little help from the objective clitic. The rules might change a
bit as the language evolves further, if better tweaks are discovered.
Attribution is handled in a few different ways:
1. Relative clauses.
2. A special coordinating conjunction that says "these two phrases
have the same referent". E.g., "the green plant" might be rendered as
"the green thing also the plant"; or, "I ate quickly" might be
rendered as "I ate also was quick".
3. A special attributive particle that says "the previous phrase
describes a quality of the following phrase".
All of 1 - 3 can be used for both adjectival and adverbial meanings.
4. Construct-state compounds; this can only be used with nominals.
-l.
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. K5 outline
Posted by: "neo gu" qiihos...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:28 pm ((PDT))
I'm trying to decide if my latest sketch K5 is viable. It's agglutinative with
a K/L pronoun system, noun phrase indexes, and word endings specifying
syntactical function.
There are 2 kinds of roots: independent, which have initial consonants, and
relational, which don't. The latter are attached to object phrases, which can
be pronominal. The pronouns are local (K, L, N)*, special (content question,
relative, reflexive, clause terminator, and possibly host agent), or indexes. I
think there should be about 7 indexes. This leaves only 6 initial consonants
available for the independent roots, if I want to avoid ambiguity.
Any comments?
* K = knower, L = learner, N = inclusive.
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
