There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Old draconic grammar and such
From: Geijss Streijde
1b. Re: Old draconic grammar and such
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
1c. Re: Old draconic grammar and such
From: Geijss Streijde
1d. Re: Old draconic grammar and such
From: Jeffrey Jones
1e. Re: Old draconic grammar and such
From: Ollock Ackeop
1f. Re: Old draconic grammar and such
From: John Vertical
2a. conlanging and journaling
From: Rick Harrison
2b. Re: conlanging and journaling
From: Parker Glynn-Adey
2c. Re: conlanging and journaling
From: Carsten Becker
2d. Re: conlanging and journaling
From: Jan van Steenbergen
2e. TRANS: Borges (fi: conlanging and journaling)
From: Jan van Steenbergen
2f. Re: conlanging and journaling
From: caeruleancentaur
2g. Re: conlanging and journaling
From: Carsten Becker
2h. Re: conlanging and journaling
From: Carsten Becker
2i. Re: conlanging and journaling
From: Jim Henry
2j. Re: conlanging and journaling
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
2k. Re: TRANS: Borges (fi: conlanging and journaling)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3a. Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)
From: ROGER MILLS
3b. Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)
From: Jeffrey Jones
3c. Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)
From: R A Brown
3d. Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)
From: Andreas Johansson
3e. Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)
From: R A Brown
3f. Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)
From: R A Brown
3g. Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
4. Sonority hierarchy (was: Radical-Metathesis)
From: Mr Veoler
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Old draconic grammar and such
Posted by: "Geijss Streijde" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:54 am ((PST))
Hello, I've finished most of the grammar of the old draconic language,
and would like to hear your comments on it.
http://stridercorp.gethost.be/wiki/CW:Old_Draconic
Geijss
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Old draconic grammar and such
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:45 am ((PST))
Hallo!
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:51:56 +0100, Geijss Streijde wrote:
> Hello, I've finished most of the grammar of the old draconic language,
> and would like to hear your comments on it.
>
> http://stridercorp.gethost.be/wiki/CW:Old_Draconic
Quite nice overall; it is highly regular but that's not necessarily
a bad thing. Does the name "Old Draconic" mean that it is spoken
by some kind of dragons? What kind of world is it spoken in?
One nitpick: slashes are for phonemic transcription, not for orthography.
Use boldface or italic instead. (And using the letter _m_ for /N/ is
quite odd. So is having /N/ but not /m/.)
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Old draconic grammar and such
Posted by: "Geijss Streijde" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:37 pm ((PST))
On zo, 2008-02-10 at 21:07 +0100, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:51:56 +0100, Geijss Streijde wrote:
>
> > Hello, I've finished most of the grammar of the old draconic language,
> > and would like to hear your comments on it.
> >
> > http://stridercorp.gethost.be/wiki/CW:Old_Draconic
>
> Quite nice overall; it is highly regular but that's not necessarily
> a bad thing. Does the name "Old Draconic" mean that it is spoken
> by some kind of dragons? What kind of world is it spoken in?
Yes, it is supposed to be the ancestor language of all draconic
languages. The world it is spoken in is stil in development, but is most
likely going to be used as a backdrop for at least a couple of short
stories.
> One nitpick: slashes are for phonemic transcription, not for orthography.
> Use boldface or italic instead.
Fixed that.
> (And using the letter _m_ for /N/ is
> quite odd. So is having /N/ but not /m/.)
Wished to stay away from using multiple letters for single consonants,
and using a letter not usually used for a nasal seemed worse to me.
Geijss
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Old draconic grammar and such
Posted by: "Jeffrey Jones" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:06 pm ((PST))
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:07:00 +0100, Jörg Rhiemeier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hallo!
>
>On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:51:56 +0100, Geijss Streijde wrote:
>
>> Hello, I've finished most of the grammar of the old draconic language,
>> and would like to hear your comments on it.
>>
>> http://stridercorp.gethost.be/wiki/CW:Old_Draconic
>
>Quite nice overall; it is highly regular but that's not necessarily
>a bad thing. Does the name "Old Draconic" mean that it is spoken
>by some kind of dragons? What kind of world is it spoken in?
>
>One nitpick: slashes are for phonemic transcription, not for orthography.
>Use boldface or italic instead. (And using the letter _m_ for /N/ is
>quite odd. So is having /N/ but not /m/.)
>
>... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Having /N/ but not /m/ isn't too strange, except that it does have /p/. I think
languages lacking /m/ also lack other pure bilabials, as in Iroquoian (the
reverse isn't true however; Arabic and ProtoCeltic have /m/ but not /p/). Of
course, if this is spoken by dragons, not humans, anything goes.
As for the orthography, the only thing I wouldn't do myself is use |x| for /ks/
and |c| for /x/.
Jeff
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Old draconic grammar and such
Posted by: "Ollock Ackeop" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:18 pm ((PST))
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:37:26 +0100, Geijss Streijde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On zo, 2008-02-10 at 21:07 +0100, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>> Hallo!
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:51:56 +0100, Geijss Streijde wrote:
>>
>> > Hello, I've finished most of the grammar of the old draconic language,
>> > and would like to hear your comments on it.
>> >
>> > http://stridercorp.gethost.be/wiki/CW:Old_Draconic
>>
>> Quite nice overall; it is highly regular but that's not necessarily
>> a bad thing. Does the name "Old Draconic" mean that it is spoken
>> by some kind of dragons? What kind of world is it spoken in?
>
>Yes, it is supposed to be the ancestor language of all draconic
>languages. The world it is spoken in is stil in development, but is most
>likely going to be used as a backdrop for at least a couple of short
>stories.
>
Looks like it will be interesting. You have a good start. I hope to see
some development.
>> One nitpick: slashes are for phonemic transcription, not for orthography.
>> Use boldface or italic instead.
>
>Fixed that.
>
Ah, no you didn't. the slashes are still there. where you have /slashes/
now, best to use <angle brackets> or some kind of formatting. What you have
in [square brackets] looks like it should be in /slashes/ (square is for the
phonetic realization, slashes are for the phonemic representation in the
mind of a native speaker).
>> (And using the letter _m_ for /N/ is
>> quite odd. So is having /N/ but not /m/.)
>
>Wished to stay away from using multiple letters for single consonants,
>and using a letter not usually used for a nasal seemed worse to me.
>
Perhaps a diacritic would work. Or you could use <ŋ> -- which is also the
IPA symbol for /N/.
What about the fact that you don't have /m/ in the first place. Judging
from the rest of your inventory, it would seem that your dragons are, in
fact, capable of pronouncing it. Nothing wrong with having a weird hole,
but it's good to know when it's weird.
I'd like to see the description of the number system expanded a little bit
-- maybe with glosses for your examples to clarify. For example you have:
>(Fetfet would be multiply by 279936 (decimal)
And then an example
>Skius fet'fet'fum dek'pius: The eleven (less literal translation, soccer team)
Obviously 279936 !<= 11. So i'm wondering exactly how this construction
works. And where the extra "-pius" comes from on "dek"
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Old draconic grammar and such
Posted by: "John Vertical" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:29 am ((PST))
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:00:21 -0500, Ollock Ackeop wrote:
>What about the fact that you don't have /m/ in the first place. Judging
>from the rest of your inventory, it would seem that your dragons are, in
>fact, capable of pronouncing it. Nothing wrong with having a weird hole,
>but it's good to know when it's weird.
But is it a weird hole for dragons? :) I'd assume labial stops to be highly
marked sounds for long-snouted animals.
I posted before on how the phonotax seems weird, so I won't repeat that...
John Vertical
Messages in this topic (6)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. conlanging and journaling
Posted by: "Rick Harrison" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:32 pm ((PST))
I have this vague, shapeless feeling that conlanging and writing a
diary/journal are similar
activities in some ways.
If you're just doing it for yourself, you can sort of do whatever you want;
there is no right
or wrong, no preferred practice or unpopular options.
But there is a potential audience in the shadows of the mind of many
journal-keepers.
Grandchildren? Future historians? My future self? For some of us the potential
audience is
not clearly defined.
And the existence of a potential audience limits your options.
Erm... that's all I can put into words at the moment, the rest of my thoughts
are too
amorphous to enwordulate at this stage.
Has anyone blogged, posted or essayed about similarities between conlanging and
journaling?
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: conlanging and journaling
Posted by: "Parker Glynn-Adey" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:21 pm ((PST))
On 10/02/2008, Rick Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have this vague, shapeless feeling that conlanging and writing a
> diary/journal are similar
> activities in some ways.
I have a similar intuition. I think it's best expressed in a part of Borges'
Dreamtigers.
"A man sets himself the task of portraying the world. Through the years he
peoples a space with images of provinces, kingdoms, mountains, bays, ships,
islands, fishes, rooms, tools, stars, horses, and people. Shortly before his
death, he discovers that that patient labyrinth of lines traces the image of
his face."
This is a very conworld perspective, but I think the same is equally true of
conlanging. We're trying to portray the world.
If you're just doing it for yourself, you can sort of do whatever you want;
> there is no right
> or wrong, no preferred practice or unpopular options.
>
> But there is a potential audience in the shadows of the mind of many
> journal-keepers.
> Grandchildren? Future historians? My future self? For some of us the
> potential audience is
> not clearly defined.
>
> And the existence of a potential audience limits your options.
>
> Erm... that's all I can put into words at the moment, the rest of my
> thoughts are too
> amorphous to enwordulate at this stage.
>
> Has anyone blogged, posted or essayed about similarities between
> conlanging and
> journaling?
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: conlanging and journaling
Posted by: "Carsten Becker" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:12 pm ((PST))
Good morning,
Matahaniya ang Rick Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Has anyone blogged, posted or essayed about similarities
> between conlanging and journaling?
Not directly, except that I am writing journal entries in my
conlang from time to time, either to see whether it's
doable, or in case of very, very private things.
Matahaniya ang Parker Glynn-Adey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have a similar intuition. I think it's best expressed
> in a part of Borges' Dreamtigers.
>
> "A man sets himself the task of portraying the world.
> Through the years he peoples a space with images of
> provinces, kingdoms, mountains, bays, ships, islands,
> fishes, rooms, tools, stars, horses, and people. Shortly
> before his death, he discovers that that patient
> labyrinth of lines traces the image of his face."
That would make a nice Translation Challenge :-P
Regards,
Carsten
--
Siruena, Sanam 24, 2317 ya 13:02:31 pd
Monday, February 11, 2008 at 07:58:22 am
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: conlanging and journaling
Posted by: "Jan van Steenbergen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:59 pm ((PST))
--- Rick Harrison skrzypszy:
> I have this vague, shapeless feeling that conlanging and writing a
> diary/journal are similar activities in some ways.
>
> If you're just doing it for yourself, you can sort of do whatever
> you want; there is no right or wrong, no preferred practice or
> unpopular options.
>
> But there is a potential audience in the shadows of the mind of
> many journal-keepers. Grandchildren? Future historians? My future
> self? For some of us the potential audience is not clearly
> defined.
>
> And the existence of a potential audience limits your options.
>
> Erm... that's all I can put into words at the moment, the rest of
> my thoughts are too amorphous to enwordulate at this stage.
>
> Has anyone blogged, posted or essayed about similarities between
> conlanging and journaling?
Interesting thoughts! My personal feeling is slightly different,
however. I would rather compare conlanging to all those kinds of
creative activity, that people most likely perform in private, just
for themselves... Writing poetry, writing stories, writing music,
drawing, painting, sculpturing, photography, etc. Not by definition
something to be secretive about, but on the other hand, the reactions
of a potential audience, be it the internet community, be it future
generations within your own family, are not the primary reason for
doing it.
Writing a diary is in my opinion a slightly different story. I'm not
much of a diary-writer myself, but I would say writing a diary is a
far more private kind of activity. Of course, I'm not speaking about
blogs and the like. I believe most people who write a diary rather
wouldn't want their children to read them after their death.
I used to write music for a couple of years, quite intensively. Most
of my work was performed, but I can't say there was a real
breakthrough. Once I got a full-time job and a family, I couldn't
uphold it any longer, and changed my path to conlanging. Although
conlanging is something I had done before, I can say it really took
the place of my composing.
Those of us who have websites for their conlangs must surely be aware
of the fact that there may actually be people reading them. I'm not
sure how this affects conlanging itself, though. Sometimes I have
made modifications in my work as a result of feedback by readers. But
conlanging is still something I do for my own fun (or call it a
calling, if you like). Pleasing the audience is certainly not my
primary reason.
I have the impression that nowadays there are a lot of conlangers who
actually started conlanging AFTER they saw conlangs online. They
start conlanging because there are others doing it as well. In other
ways, a bit of the opposite from Tolkien's Secret Vice story. I can't
speak for them, but it may very well be that they are very much
guided by the opinions of other conlangers.
Regards,
Jan
__________
"The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be
born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future
or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain."
G'Kar quoting G'Quon, Babylon 5
http://steen.free.fr/
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. TRANS: Borges (fi: conlanging and journaling)
Posted by: "Jan van Steenbergen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:36 am ((PST))
--- Carsten Becker skrzypszy:
> Matahaniya ang Parker Glynn-Adey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I have a similar intuition. I think it's best expressed
> > in a part of Borges' Dreamtigers.
> >
> > "A man sets himself the task of portraying the world.
> > Through the years he peoples a space with images of
> > provinces, kingdoms, mountains, bays, ships, islands,
> > fishes, rooms, tools, stars, horses, and people. Shortly
> > before his death, he discovers that that patient
> > labyrinth of lines traces the image of his face."
>
> That would make a nice Translation Challenge :-P
That's an idea! In Wenedyk (UTF-8):
"WomieÅ punie si mÄdu, prokód portretar mÄ
d. Par onie iÅ popÅa
szpac ku imażeni prowiÄczar, rzeniór, mÄciór, bajar, nakÅar,
izÅar, pieszczór, kÄbrar, wyciÄźlar, ÅcioÅar, kawaÅór i
ludzi. Kart prze mrocie, iÅ dziekoprze, kód labirynt paciÄci
liniar szekwie imażeÅ Åu faczeje."
Jan
__________
"The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be
born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future
or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain."
G'Kar quoting G'Quon, Babylon 5
http://steen.free.fr/
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: conlanging and journaling
Posted by: "caeruleancentaur" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:12 am ((PST))
>Carsten Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...I am writing journal entries in my conlang from time to time,
>...in case of very, very private things.
Miss Manners gave some advice concerning love letters which I think
applies in many other situations: never commit to writing what you
don't want to appear in court! :-)
Charlie
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2g. Re: conlanging and journaling
Posted by: "Carsten Becker" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:29 am ((PST))
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:56:12 -0000, caeruleancentaur
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> never commit to writing what you don't want to appear in court! :-)
Nilyang ang tahaya arilinya gumoas ikaning sihiruyam adanyaley si matahyang -
- naranoyatiyeang nároy, máy? ;-P
Krisyán
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2h. Re: conlanging and journaling
Posted by: "Carsten Becker" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:08 am ((PST))
I wrote:
>Nilyang
Typo, should've been _Niloyyang_.
c.
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2i. Re: conlanging and journaling
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:56 am ((PST))
On Feb 10, 2008 5:32 PM, Rick Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have this vague, shapeless feeling that conlanging and writing a
> diary/journal are similar
> activities in some ways.
>
> If you're just doing it for yourself, you can sort of do whatever you want;
> there is no right
> or wrong, no preferred practice or unpopular options.
This was true at one time, and is still true for some people, but I think over
time a greater and greater number of conlangers are creating not just
for themselves but at least partly for an audience of fellow conlangers.
There's another way conlanging and journaling may be connected:
the use of a conlang as a medium for writing a journal. Javant Biarujia
famously did, I do, and so do a number of others (though apparently
a small minority among conlangers).
> But there is a potential audience in the shadows of the mind of many
> journal-keepers.
> Grandchildren? Future historians? My future self? For some of us the
> potential audience is
> not clearly defined.
My primary audience is certainly my future self; but I don't mind if
any number of relatives or friends or historians read it after I'm dead.
To read the whole thing they would need to know English, Esperanto,
toki pona and gjâ-zym-byn. (There are occasional sentences here
and there in other languages, but I think those are the only languages
I've written extensive passages in.)
My choice of languages is partially conditioned by consideration of
these potential secondary audiences; for instance, I'm most likely
to write about an Esperanto convention or local meeting in Esperanto,
and about a family reunion in English, and about specially private
matters (but also about routine stuff) in gzb.
> And the existence of a potential audience limits your options.
Can you expand on that?
I see how, if you're primarily intending your journal for your friends and
relations or for future historians, you would avoid crypticity and
ellipticity of all kinds, especially but not limited to writing in a conlang,
conscript or cypher. It would influence your writing style, maybe making
it more formal but hopefully at least making it clearer.
And if you're intending your conlang for an audience, you'll spend
relatively more time working on the documentation of the language
and relatively less time developing the language itself. But how or why
would that limit your options about the design and implementation
of the language, per se? The conlangs that are not made at all
for an audience are not documented or published and, except for
our own, we don't know anything about them; but I don't know of
any reason to suppose that the unpublished conlangs are more
various or complex or irregular than the published conlangs.
If by "for an audience" you mean "hoping that others will actually
learn and use your conlang", yes, that indeed limits your options,
but only as any set of goals and design criteria naturally limits your options
once chosen.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/review/log.htm
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2j. Re: conlanging and journaling
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:59 am ((PST))
Hallo!
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:59:43 +0000, Jan van Steenbergen wrote:
> --- Rick Harrison skrzypszy:
>
> > I have this vague, shapeless feeling that conlanging and writing a
> > diary/journal are similar activities in some ways.
> >
> > If you're just doing it for yourself, you can sort of do whatever
> > you want; there is no right or wrong, no preferred practice or
> > unpopular options.
> >
> > But there is a potential audience in the shadows of the mind of
> > many journal-keepers. Grandchildren? Future historians? My future
> > self? For some of us the potential audience is not clearly
> > defined.
> >
> > And the existence of a potential audience limits your options.
> >
> > Erm... that's all I can put into words at the moment, the rest of
> > my thoughts are too amorphous to enwordulate at this stage.
> >
> > Has anyone blogged, posted or essayed about similarities between
> > conlanging and journaling?
>
> Interesting thoughts! My personal feeling is slightly different,
> however. I would rather compare conlanging to all those kinds of
> creative activity, that people most likely perform in private, just
> for themselves... Writing poetry, writing stories, writing music,
> drawing, painting, sculpturing, photography, etc. Not by definition
> something to be secretive about, but on the other hand, the reactions
> of a potential audience, be it the internet community, be it future
> generations within your own family, are not the primary reason for
> doing it.
I see it the same way as you, Jan. Conlanging, to most of us,
is not so much like writing a diary, it is rather like writing
poetry or making music for oneself, i. e. making stuff that
*could* be presented to an audience, but is made mainly for
one's own pleasure - if others read and appreciate it, only
the better, but it is primarily made for the author's own
enjoyment.
Then, of course, there are those who conlang with an explicit
intention to publish it - be it that the conlang is to go into
a commercial media product, to be proposed as an international
auxiliary language, or whatever.
> Writing a diary is in my opinion a slightly different story. I'm not
> much of a diary-writer myself, but I would say writing a diary is a
> far more private kind of activity. Of course, I'm not speaking about
> blogs and the like. I believe most people who write a diary rather
> wouldn't want their children to read them after their death.
Yes. A diary (as opposed to a weblog, which is personal but public)
is a very private affair which is explicitly *NOT* meant to be
presented to anyone else, while most of us would feel no objection
to publishing their conlangs on a web site (any many of us do).
> I used to write music for a couple of years, quite intensively. Most
> of my work was performed, but I can't say there was a real
> breakthrough. Once I got a full-time job and a family, I couldn't
> uphold it any longer, and changed my path to conlanging. Although
> conlanging is something I had done before, I can say it really took
> the place of my composing.
I sometimes write music myself, which I intend to perform some day.
Like my conlangs, my music is intended to be shared with an audience,
though my main reason for making both is personal - my music and my
conlangs are meant to express my thoughts and feelings, and made for
my own pleasure.
> Those of us who have websites for their conlangs must surely be aware
> of the fact that there may actually be people reading them. I'm not
> sure how this affects conlanging itself, though. Sometimes I have
> made modifications in my work as a result of feedback by readers. But
> conlanging is still something I do for my own fun (or call it a
> calling, if you like). Pleasing the audience is certainly not my
> primary reason.
It is the same to me. I am not at all like a pop music composer
who writes songs with dollar signs in his eyes. The culture of
the Elves of Inis Albion is a very personal work; it is made the
way it is because it is meant to reflect my personal worldview
and nothing else. I *will* publish it on a web site which is now
under construction, but it does not really matter that much how
many people will visit that web site. While I appreciate feedback,
and may pick up a suggestion from a reader, I do it entirely for
my own enjoyment.
> I have the impression that nowadays there are a lot of conlangers who
> actually started conlanging AFTER they saw conlangs online. They
> start conlanging because there are others doing it as well. In other
> ways, a bit of the opposite from Tolkien's Secret Vice story. I can't
> speak for them, but it may very well be that they are very much
> guided by the opinions of other conlangers.
Yes. Old Albic would not be the way it is now without the online
conlanging community. Many of its features are inspired by what
I saw in other people's conlangs. Well, nobody exists in isolation;
we are all influenced by what we see around us.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
2k. Re: TRANS: Borges (fi: conlanging and journaling)
Posted by: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:29 am ((PST))
In a message dated 2/11/2008 03:47:56 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > "A man sets himself the task of portraying the world.
> > > Through the years he peoples a space with images of
> > > provinces, kingdoms, mountains, bays, ships, islands,
> > > fishes, rooms, tools, stars, horses, and people. Shortly
> > > before his death, he discovers that that patient
> > > labyrinth of lines traces the image of his face."
> >
> > That would make a nice Translation Challenge :-P
>
> That's an idea! In Wenedyk (UTF-8):
>
> "WomieÅ" punie si mÄTMdu, prokód portretar mÄ...d. Par onie iÅ` popÅ`a
> szpac ku imażeni prowiÄTMczar, rzeniór, mÄTMciór, bajar, nakÅ`ar,
> izÅ`ar, pieszczór, kÄTMbrar, wyciÄTMźlar, Å>cioÅ`ar, kawaÅ`ór i
> ludzi. Kart prze mrocie, iÅ` dziekoprze, kód labirynt paciÄTMci
> liniar szekwie imażeÅ" Å`u faczeje."
>
> Jan
>
This doesn't look like what you intended.
stevo </HTML>
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)
Posted by: "ROGER MILLS" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:00 pm ((PST))
This is OT w.r.t. this thread, but--
Over the last several weeks, there has been an interesting and rather
astounding thread on Spanish "Ideolengua" (yahoo groups) regarding a recent
(?) book by one Yves Cortez, Le français ne vient pas du latin. (And by
implication, neither do the other Romance languages). Have any of you been
following it, or has anyone else heard of this book?
His theory, as I understand it without having seen the book (only the
Prologue has been quoted), seems to be, that the bulk of the Roman
population spoke not a colloquialized form of what we call Classical Latin,
but a separate IE language _closely related to_ Classical Latin but which
was already headed toward being a more analytic language. He calls this
"Ancient Italian", and it, not CL, is the source of the Romance languages.
The amazing thing is that some of the respondents are taking this seriously
!!! and are immune to all arguments to the contrary.
Well, slap my ass and call me Cato-- has M. Cortez never heard of
Proto-Romance? It would almost be worthwhile, and certainly amusing, to
actually get the book, to see how he dismisses almost 200 years of scholarly
research.........
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)
Posted by: "Jeffrey Jones" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:15 pm ((PST))
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:00:29 -0500, ROGER MILLS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>This is OT w.r.t. this thread, but--
>
>Over the last several weeks, there has been an interesting and rather
>astounding thread on Spanish "Ideolengua" (yahoo groups) regarding a recent
>(?) book by one Yves Cortez, Le français ne vient pas du latin. (And by
>implication, neither do the other Romance languages). Have any of you been
>following it, or has anyone else heard of this book?
>
>His theory, as I understand it without having seen the book (only the
>Prologue has been quoted), seems to be, that the bulk of the Roman
>population spoke not a colloquialized form of what we call Classical Latin,
>but a separate IE language _closely related to_ Classical Latin but which
>was already headed toward being a more analytic language. He calls this
>"Ancient Italian", and it, not CL, is the source of the Romance languages.
>
>The amazing thing is that some of the respondents are taking this seriously
>!!! and are immune to all arguments to the contrary.
>
>Well, slap my ass and call me Cato-- has M. Cortez never heard of
>Proto-Romance? It would almost be worthwhile, and certainly amusing, to
>actually get the book, to see how he dismisses almost 200 years of scholarly
>research.........
Well, the difference between a dialect (or sociolect in this case) and a
language is almost purely political, so I suppose he could call VL a "separate
IE
language", if he really wants to. I don't know why he'd call it "Ancient
Italian",
unless he's reinventing the wheel (otherwise he's just remarketing old
information). It might be interesting to compare what he reconstructs ....
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:32 am ((PST))
Jeffrey Jones wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:00:29 -0500, ROGER MILLS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> This is OT w.r.t. this thread, but--
>>
>> Over the last several weeks, there has been an interesting and rather
>> astounding thread on Spanish "Ideolengua" (yahoo groups) regarding a recent
>> (?) book by one Yves Cortez, Le français ne vient pas du latin. (And by
>> implication, neither do the other Romance languages). Have any of you been
>> following it, or has anyone else heard of this book?
>>
>> His theory, as I understand it without having seen the book (only the
>> Prologue has been quoted), seems to be, that the bulk of the Roman
>> population spoke not a colloquialized form of what we call Classical Latin,
>> but a separate IE language _closely related to_ Classical Latin but which
>> was already headed toward being a more analytic language.
Well, yes, Vulgar Latin was not " a colloquialized form of what we call
Classical Latin." Indeed, I find that description somewhat misleading.
The relationship of Vulgar Latin vis-a-vis Classical Latin was very much
like that of Dimotiki vis-a-vis Katharevousa in modern Greek since the
19th cent. Indeed, both Classical Latin and Katharevousa were conscious
literary constructs: both - as it happens - constructing a 'purer' form
of the language under the influence of Classical Attic Greek.
I doubt that Classical Latin was ever anyone's L1 any more than
Katharevousa was, as I understand it. Clearly, however, the speech of
the educated members of the Equestrian & Senatorial ranks would be
likely to approach the Classical norm when speaking among peers. I have
no doubt, moreover, that just as with modern Greek diglossia, so in
Latin the Vulgar (i.e. demotic) and Classical varieties influenced one
another.
>>He calls this
>> "Ancient Italian", and it, not CL, is the source of the Romance languages.
This is, I agree, rather odd, to say the least.
>> The amazing thing is that some of the respondents are taking this seriously
>> !!! and are immune to all arguments to the contrary.
Without actually reading the book, it is difficult to comment
meaningfully on this point.
>> Well, slap my ass and call me Cato-- has M. Cortez never heard of
>> Proto-Romance?
Isn't Proto-Romance late Vulgar Latin?
[snip]
> Well, the difference between a dialect (or sociolect in this case) and a
> language is almost purely political, so I suppose he could call VL a
> "separate IE
> language", if he really wants to.
Yep - like calling Dimotiki and Katharevousa different languages rather
than different dialects of Greek. It depends how one defines 'language'
and 'dialect'. As I said above, I do not consider VL to be a
colloquialized CL - colloquialized CL is surely the sort of thing one
finds in Cicero's letters (as opposed to the CL of is speeches and his
philosophic writings).
I consider Vulgar Latin and Classical Latin to be dialects of an
abstract language 'Latin' - both being derived from Early Latin (a
continuum of dialects spoken by the Latins, the inhabitants of Latium
[modern Lazio]) in Italy.
> I don't know why he'd call it "Ancient Italian",
> unless he's reinventing the wheel (otherwise he's just remarketing old
> information).
I don't know why he calls it "Ancient Italian," if, indeed, it is early
or Proto-Latin he is calling "Ancient Italian.
By 'Ancient Italian' I understand the Proto-language from which not only
Early Latin but also Venetic, Umbrian, Oscan, Sabellian and Sabine are
derived - if indeed Yves Cortez is calling Proto-Romance "Ancient
Italian" what does he call the Proto-language of all the related IE
Italian languages?
> It might be interesting to compare what he reconstructs ....
Yes, I think one would need to read his book to see whether, in fact, he
is proposing something substantially different from accepted wisdom, or
is just playing around with names and, possibly, making some political
point.
If all that M. Cortez is doing is to say "French ain't descended from
Classical Latin," then I go along with that. But if he's saying
something radically different, i.e. that Proto-Romance was not related
to any sort of Latin then, of course, I disagree. But, as I said,
methinks one needs to read the book.
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Entia non sunt multiplicanda
praeter necessitudinem.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)
Posted by: "Andreas Johansson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:44 am ((PST))
Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
> By 'Ancient Italian' I understand the Proto-language from which not only
> Early Latin but also Venetic, Umbrian, Oscan, Sabellian and Sabine are
> derived - if indeed Yves Cortez is calling Proto-Romance "Ancient
> Italian" what does he call the Proto-language of all the related IE
> Italian languages?
I don't know what Mr Cortez calls it, but isn't this stage usually refered as
(ancient, proto-) Ital*ic* rather than Ital*ian*?
Andreas
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:01 am ((PST))
Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> [snip]
>> By 'Ancient Italian' I understand the Proto-language from which not only
>> Early Latin but also Venetic, Umbrian, Oscan, Sabellian and Sabine are
>> derived - if indeed Yves Cortez is calling Proto-Romance "Ancient
>> Italian" what does he call the Proto-language of all the related IE
>> Italian languages?
>
> I don't know what Mr Cortez calls it, but isn't this stage usually refered as
> (ancient, proto-) Ital*ic* rather than Ital*ian*?
Yes.
But if someone started talking about _Ancient_ Italian, I would, unless
there was further clarification, assume s/he meant 'Ancient Italic.'
OTOH I would understand 'Old Italian' to mean an older stage of the
present Italian language, possibly Dante or slightly earlier.
Cortez, from what we have been told, calls Proto-Romance "Ancient
Italian" - but I guess this is probably on reflexion poor translation,
i.e. translating 'italien ancien' as "Ancient Italian."
The trouble is that French 'ancien' and English "ancient" do _not_ have
the same range of meanings.
As I said in my original mail, I don't think we can get much forwarder
in this discussion without actually knowing seeing Cortez's book (or at
least having a fuller account of his thesis).
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Entia non sunt multiplicanda
praeter necessitudinem.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
3f. Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)
Posted by: "R A Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:03 am ((PST))
SORRY! Forgot to change the 'reply to' line in my previous posting :(
Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting R A Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> [snip]
>> By 'Ancient Italian' I understand the Proto-language from which not only
>> Early Latin but also Venetic, Umbrian, Oscan, Sabellian and Sabine are
>> derived - if indeed Yves Cortez is calling Proto-Romance "Ancient
>> Italian" what does he call the Proto-language of all the related IE
>> Italian languages?
>
> I don't know what Mr Cortez calls it, but isn't this stage usually
refered as
> (ancient, proto-) Ital*ic* rather than Ital*ian*?
Yes.
But if someone started talking about _Ancient_ Italian, I would, unless
there was further clarification, assume s/he meant 'Ancient Italic.'
OTOH I would understand 'Old Italian' to mean an older stage of the
present Italian language, possibly Dante or slightly earlier.
Cortez, from what we have been told, calls Proto-Romance "Ancient
Italian" - but I guess this is probably on reflexion poor translation,
i.e. translating 'italien ancien' as "Ancient Italian."
The trouble is that French 'ancien' and English "ancient" do _not_ have
the same range of meanings.
As I said in my original mail, I don't think we can get much forwarder
in this discussion without actually knowing seeing Cortez's book (or at
least having a fuller account of his thesis).
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Entia non sunt multiplicanda
praeter necessitudinem.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
3g. Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:01 am ((PST))
Hallo!
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:33:37 +0000, R A Brown wrote:
> I don't know why he calls it "Ancient Italian," if, indeed, it is early
> or Proto-Latin he is calling "Ancient Italian.
>
> By 'Ancient Italian' I understand the Proto-language from which not only
> Early Latin but also Venetic, Umbrian, Oscan, Sabellian and Sabine are
> derived - if indeed Yves Cortez is calling Proto-Romance "Ancient
> Italian" what does he call the Proto-language of all the related IE
> Italian languages?
No, that's Ital*ic*. "Ancient Italian" I would understand to refer
to the oldest stage of the Italian language that can be called "Italian",
namely the Vulgar Latin dialect of Italy in late Imperial times, as
opposed to other Vulgar Latin dialects.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Sonority hierarchy (was: Radical-Metathesis)
Posted by: "Mr Veoler" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:15 am ((PST))
Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> No, but they have a hierarchy of salience. I'm a bit foggy
> on the details ATM, but can look them up tomorrow.
>
> IIRC (which I might as well not) the order is
> something like t - p - k for voiceless stops and
> b - d -g for voiced stops. Vcl vs. vcd and stop vs.
> fricative also vary in salience; thus k is more
> salient than g, which is least salient of all stops.
Something like [t b p d k g]?
I'm trying to combine it with the order Wikipedia gives
[p t k] [b d g] [f θ] [v ð z] [s] [m n] [l] [r]
> This hierarchy also governs the relative frequency
> of various sounds across vocabulary.
Never heard about it. So consonants that are close to each
other in salience generally have a similar frequency?
-- Veoler
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:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
