There are 16 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang
From: Gary Shannon
1b. Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang
From: Miles Forster
1c. Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang
From: Gary Shannon
1d. Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang
From: Douglas Koller
2a. Re: OT (and TECH): Annoyances
From: David McCann
2b. Re: OT (and TECH): Annoyances
From: Lee
3a. Computer-generated vocabulary (was: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang)
From: Jörg Rhiemeier
3b. Re: Computer-generated vocabulary (was: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conla
From: Wm Annis
3c. Re: Computer-generated vocabulary (was: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conla
From: Jim Henry
3d. Re: Computer-generated vocabulary
From: <deinx nxtxr>
3e. Re: Computer-generated vocabulary (was: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conla
From: Lars Finsen
4a. Re: changes of liquids
From: Eric Christopherson
4b. Re: changes of liquids
From: Roman Rausch
5a. Re: OT (and TECH): another question (was: Annoyances)
From: Roger Mills
5b. Re: OT (and TECH): another question
From: <deinx nxtxr>
5c. Re: OT (and TECH): another question (was: Annoyances)
From: Lee
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" fizi...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 7:21 am ((PDT))
A computer generated lexicon really seems like cheating to me. :) I'm
going to go with entirely hand-made on both lexicon and grammar.
My daily journal will be here: http://fiziwig.com/conlang/thirty_day.html
--gary
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 6:40 AM, <deinx nxtxr> <deinx.nx...@sasxsek.org> wrote:
...snip...
>
> I don't see why you can't create a conlang in 30 days. It would be
> especially easy if the lexicon was either a recoding of something a
> posteriori, or a computer generated a priori one.
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang
Posted by: "Miles Forster" m...@plasmatix.com
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 7:40 am ((PDT))
I agree. A computer generated lexicon feels kind of "wrong" to me, it is
as if someone else did all the work. Plus, it feels much less peronal
that way.
That site looks awesome! I'm really excited to see this evolving. Will
you document every detail of new grammar you create, too, or just the
translation with some explanations?
I will probably try something similar one day. Maybe next year, once my
"life project"-conlang is done :)
Am 31.10.2010 15:19, schrieb Gary Shannon:
> A computer generated lexicon really seems like cheating to me. :) I'm
> going to go with entirely hand-made on both lexicon and grammar.
>
> My daily journal will be here: http://fiziwig.com/conlang/thirty_day.html
>
> --gary
>
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 6:40 AM,<deinx nxtxr> <deinx.nx...@sasxsek.org>
> wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>> I don't see why you can't create a conlang in 30 days. It would be
>> especially easy if the lexicon was either a recoding of something a
>> posteriori, or a computer generated a priori one.
>>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" fizi...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:24 am ((PDT))
I probably won't create any more grammar than what is needed to
translate the sentences of the day. I will explain how the grammar
applies to the translations at hand, but I'm not sure I will even know
anything about the grammar beyond each day's translation quota, so I'm
not sure how "detailed" my description of the grammar can be until
after the whole project is done.
But I'm not even going to start thinking about grammar until the
starting day, tomorrow. The only prep work I've done is to take my
text selection and sort out a list of the English words it contains.
Of course the semantic range of each conlang word won't necessarily
match that of the English word, but it gives me a rough idea of how
many unique words I will need to coin; approximately 650. That means
coining an average of 22 new words a day.
--gary
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Miles Forster <m...@plasmatix.com> wrote:
> I agree. A computer generated lexicon feels kind of "wrong" to me, it is as
> if someone else did all the work. Plus, it feels much less peronal that way.
>
> That site looks awesome! I'm really excited to see this evolving. Will you
> document every detail of new grammar you create, too, or just the
> translation with some explanations?
> I will probably try something similar one day. Maybe next year, once my
> "life project"-conlang is done :)
>
> Am 31.10.2010 15:19, schrieb Gary Shannon:
>>
>> A computer generated lexicon really seems like cheating to me. :) I'm
>> going to go with entirely hand-made on both lexicon and grammar.
>>
>> My daily journal will be here: http://fiziwig.com/conlang/thirty_day.html
>>
>> --gary
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 6:40 AM,<deinx nxtxr> <deinx.nx...@sasxsek.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...snip...
>>>
>>> I don't see why you can't create a conlang in 30 days. It would be
>>> especially easy if the lexicon was either a recoding of something a
>>> posteriori, or a computer generated a priori one.
>>>
>
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang
Posted by: "Douglas Koller" lao...@comcast.net
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:14 pm ((PDT))
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Shannon" <fizi...@gmail.com>
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 11:22:55 AM
Subject: Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang
>But I'm not even going to start thinking about grammar until the
>starting day, tomorrow. The only prep work I've done is to take my
>text selection and sort out a list of the English words it contains.
>Of course the semantic range of each conlang word won't necessarily
>match that of the English word, but it gives me a rough idea of how
>many unique words I will need to coin; approximately 650. That means
>coining an average of 22 new words a day.
I haven't attempted such a project, nor do I intend to, but for my Lebenswerk
lang, that pace of word coinage is brutal. I certainly couldn't maintain that
for an extended period. Good luck and keep up on the vitamin B. :)
Kou
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: OT (and TECH): Annoyances
Posted by: "David McCann" da...@polymathy.plus.com
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:53 am ((PDT))
On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 09:51 -0400, wrote:
> Personally, I'd like to see Flash
> disappear into computing history. There's nothing more distracting than
> some animated garbage running alongside a text that I'm trying to read.
You might like Opera. With that, pressing F12 produces a pop-up menu to
override the current preferences and block any or all of pop-ups,
animation, sound, plug-ins (including Flash), Java, or Javascript.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: OT (and TECH): Annoyances
Posted by: "Lee" waywardwre...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 12:52 pm ((PDT))
Using Lynx pretty much guarantees you'll be spared of any such annoyances. ;)
Lee
--- On Sun, 10/31/10, David McCann <da...@polymathy.plus.com> wrote:
From: David McCann <da...@polymathy.plus.com>
Subject: Re: OT (and TECH): Annoyances
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Date: Sunday, October 31, 2010, 10:52 AM
On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 09:51 -0400, wrote:
> Personally, I'd like to see Flash
> disappear into computing history. There's nothing more distracting than
> some animated garbage running alongside a text that I'm trying to read.
You might like Opera. With that, pressing F12 produces a pop-up menu to
override the current preferences and block any or all of pop-ups,
animation, sound, plug-ins (including Flash), Java, or Javascript.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Computer-generated vocabulary (was: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang)
Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" joerg_rhieme...@web.de
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:22 am ((PDT))
Hallo!
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 07:19:06 -0700, Gary Shannon wrote:
> A computer generated lexicon really seems like cheating to me. :) I'm
> going to go with entirely hand-made on both lexicon and grammar.
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:37:22 +0100, Miles Forster wrote:
> I agree. A computer generated lexicon feels kind of "wrong" to me, it is
> as if someone else did all the work. Plus, it feels much less peronal
> that way.
Agreed with both of you. While I find making lexicon difficult work
which progresses only rather slowly, I feel that a computer generated
lexicon would not cut it. It indeed feels like cheating to me, like
using a rhythm machine in music; also, I want the words sound "right"
to me, and that is something a computer cannot achieve. I want to
make languages that are genuinely hand-crafted, and that rules out
automatizing artistic decisions. Computers are useful tools for
writing and managing documents, but they should not decide what a
conlang looks and sounds like.
--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Computer-generated vocabulary (was: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conla
Posted by: "Wm Annis" wm.an...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:20 am ((PDT))
Most of my language creation efforts go into lexical
morphology, syntax and increasingly "pragmatics" (i.e.,
the linguistic stuff going on beyond the propositional
content of an utterance). Nonetheless, I usually do
settle on a phonetic feel before starting in on the rest
of a language.
I find automatic word generation very useful. First, it
lets me verify that my description of syllable and word
shapes are consistent with what I think it will actually
produce. Second, it helps keep from overusing certain
sounds, while also preventing me from accidentally
producing a language with a perfectly balanced and
perfectly unnatural evenness in phoneme distribution.
Once I'm sure I've got the rules that match my intent,
I generate way too many words without any meaning
attached. Then, when I go on a vocabulary creation
binge, I can quickly pick out word shapes I like for this
or that meaning. About 15-20% of the time I may make
slight changes to the shape I pick. So, my computer
isn't deciding what my conlang looks like I am. But
I've let the computer save me a little time and tedium.
--
wm
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Computer-generated vocabulary (was: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conla
Posted by: "Jim Henry" jimhenry1...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:18 pm ((PDT))
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Wm Annis <wm.an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I find automatic word generation very useful. First, it
> lets me verify that my description of syllable and word
> shapes are consistent with what I think it will actually
> produce.
This is an important point. Usually, a first-draft spec of a
conlang's phonotactics leaves out some implicit, subconscious rules;
seeing the unfitting words generated by Boris shows me where I went
wrong in describing the phonotactics. But I rarely use many of the
randomly generated words as-is, without tweaking them further.
> Second, it helps keep from overusing certain
> sounds, while also preventing me from accidentally
What also helps is lexicon and corpus analysis, showing what sounds
and syllable structures I've used most and least often so far.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: Computer-generated vocabulary
Posted by: "<deinx nxtxr>" deinx.nx...@sasxsek.org
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:32 pm ((PDT))
On 10/31/10 1:18 PM, Wm Annis wrote:
> Most of my language creation efforts go into lexical
> morphology, syntax and increasingly "pragmatics" (i.e.,
> the linguistic stuff going on beyond the propositional
> content of an utterance). Nonetheless, I usually do
> settle on a phonetic feel before starting in on the rest
> of a language.
>
> I find automatic word generation very useful. First, it
> lets me verify that my description of syllable and word
> shapes are consistent with what I think it will actually
> produce. Second, it helps keep from overusing certain
> sounds, while also preventing me from accidentally
> producing a language with a perfectly balanced and
> perfectly unnatural evenness in phoneme distribution.
>
> Once I'm sure I've got the rules that match my intent,
> I generate way too many words â without any meaning
> attached. Then, when I go on a vocabulary creation
> binge, I can quickly pick out word shapes I like for this
> or that meaning. About 15-20% of the time I may make
> slight changes to the shape I pick. So, my computer
> isn't deciding what my conlang looks like â I am. But
> I've let the computer save me a little time and tedium.
I've done something like that in the past. I made a script to generate
a list of possible morphemes based upon the phonology and phonotactics I
give it, then later assign definitions to those morphemes.
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: Computer-generated vocabulary (was: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conla
Posted by: "Lars Finsen" lars.fin...@ortygia.no
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:36 pm ((PDT))
Den 31. okt. 2010 kl. 17.18 skreiv Jörg Rhiemeier:
> Agreed with both of you. While I find making lexicon difficult work
> which progresses only rather slowly, I feel that a computer generated
> lexicon would not cut it. It indeed feels like cheating to me, like
> using a rhythm machine in music; also, I want the words sound "right"
> to me, and that is something a computer cannot achieve. I want to
> make languages that are genuinely hand-crafted, and that rules out
> automatizing artistic decisions. Computers are useful tools for
> writing and managing documents, but they should not decide what a
> conlang looks and sounds like.
I like to do it manually myself, but if you have a set of
phonotactical rules laid out detailed enough for a machine to
understand, I wouldn't object to using the computer to generate
words, either from scratch or from some proto language basis. You
should always have the option to throw out those attempts of the
machine that don't feel right yourself afterwards. I have been hoping
to find the time to do something like this myself, but no luck so far...
LEF
...PS.: Way off-topic, but I just have to mention how cute I think it
is that the modern Greeks are presently celebrating the 2499th
anniversary of the battle of Marathon. Apparently they aren't as
great mathematicians as the ancient ones...
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: changes of liquids
Posted by: "Eric Christopherson" ra...@charter.net
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:47 am ((PDT))
On Oct 30, 2010, at 10:51 PM, Alex Fink wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 07:08:09 -0400, Roman Rausch <ara...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
>> What are the typical diachronic changes of liquid consonants?
>
> A type that hasn't been mentioned yet is direct frication of [l] and kin. I
> can't call to mind an example of [l] > [K\] just now that I'm sure of, but
> Mongolian sure looks like one. Armenian experienced [5] > [R]; some
> Albanian dialects show [5] ~ [D]; Scottish Gaelic has dialect areas where
> its [5_d] becomes [D_G] or even [t_d_G] (note that unlike fricatives there's
> no voicing contrast in stops, just aspiration).
>
> Coronal liquids > [n] also needs another vote. This e.g. is prevalent in
> codas in Southeast Asia (e.g. the Thai script attests it), and Korean takes
> initial borrowed [4] to [n] (or zero before [i j]). There're Pacific
> Northwest examples of it as well that I can't remember (I do remember
> borrowings like "school" > [skun]).
>
> Oh yeah, the proto-Mayan *[r] went to [j] universally in one subbranch, and
> onset [tS] coda [t] in another.
I've been intrigued for a while by relationships between liquids (esp. rhotics)
on one hand and affricates on another, especially synchronicly. I believe
Chukchi has both for the same phoneme, with realization mostly determined by
gender of the speaker. I seem to recall another North American language like
that too, but it escapes me just now. (Pacific Northwest? Southwest?)
>
> As well, it shouldn't be overlooked that if you're just trying to eliminate
> them from the inventory and not change them to something, liquids just get
> lost all the time. Esp. when intervocalic (e.g. Portuguese [l]) or in coda
> position (e.g. some Englishes' [r\]), but even everywhere (e.g. Egyptian <3>
> was once some liquid but is mostly zero by Middle Egyptian).
>
> I'd take a leap and summarise by saying that liquids can basically become
> anything within a feature and change of them.
>
>> It somehow seems to me that liquids are among the most stable consonants
>
> Hardly. I'd say things like nasals and the unmarked stop series are far
> stabler (in strong positions at least). IMO the historic west Eurasian
> languages are a bit unrepresentative this way; if one was raised on East
> Asian diachrony, say, I doubt one would have gotten your impression.
>
> Alex
Some other thoughts:
- liquid + another consonant can easily assimilate, partially or totally. The
liquid can assimilate to the other C, or vice versa.
- sometimes languages have a constraint against initial liquids. I'm not sure
there's firm evidence of a language which *already* had initial liquids
developing a constraint against them, but Greek seems to show a lot of
epenthetic vowels before /r_h/ where other IE languages show /r/. At least some
of those represent PIE laryngeals though, probably. (In one of my langs, I have
/l/ and /r/ merge medially, but initial /r/ becomes /Vr/, while initial /l/
becomes /r/.)
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: changes of liquids
Posted by: "Roman Rausch" ara...@mail.ru
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 1:29 pm ((PDT))
> Hardly. I'd say things like nasals and the unmarked stop series are far
> stabler (in strong positions at least). IMO the historic west Eurasian
> languages are a bit unrepresentative this way; if one was raised on East
> Asian diachrony, say, I doubt one would have gotten your impression.
At least they represent the west of Eurasia which is already a lot. :-) But
how common are liquids among those East-Asian languages which like to change
them, and how consonantal are they in general? Most of the mentioned changes
are intervocalic or initial, but I'm also interested in clusters. Here I
found a paper on consonant clusters in Tai: http://www.jstor.org/pss/410135
But the changes there lead to many homophones and very similar results
across the daughter languages.
What I'm specifically looking for is a broad differentiation of liquids (in
particular in combination with stops, since my proto-language doesn't really
have single liquids), just like a labialized k may result in a whole palette
[k], [kv], [W], [p], [f], [t] or a palatalized k may result in [k], [tS],
[s], [T], [C], [ts], [t].
Let's take [kl], [kr]. So far I get [kl] > [k], [kw]/[kj], [K], [tS], [l]
and [kr] > [k], [r_0], [x], [kz`], [r] (excluding mergers between the two).
> Armenian experienced [5] > [R]; some
> Albanian dialects show [5] ~ [D]; Scottish Gaelic has dialect areas where
> its [5_d] becomes [D_G] or even [t_d_G] (note that unlike fricatives there's
> no voicing contrast in stops, just aspiration).
> Oh yeah, the proto-Mayan *[r] went to [j] universally in one subbranch, and
> onset [tS] coda [t] in another.
Those are.. weird.
Messages in this topic (11)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: OT (and TECH): another question (was: Annoyances)
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:55 pm ((PDT))
First of all, thanks for the replies about my problems. Aside from poky Yahoo
mail, I've managed to sort stuff out.
Secondly, a big request:
My sister has had oral cancer, and radiation has pretty much wrecked her
tongue. It has become basically immobile, thus it is increasingly very
difficult for her to talk coherently. She and her son in Fla. are going to look
around for some kind of hand-held device that she could write on-- and I-Pad?
notebook? something e-mail capable, too. It has to be pretty idiot-proof as she
is a technophobe; a few years back we tried to introduce her to the computer,
which simply didn't work. (It was a lousy old Win98 machine to boot).
One alternative also, is a cellphone with IM or texting ability-- I know
nothing about such devices; her present cell phone (via ATT) IIRC does not have
it. It should have a normal keyboard, preferably with decent size keys. (I'd
have to get one too, in order to respond I guess.)
Another thought: is there any device that can translate print into voice, for
use over the telephone? I'm sure they exist, but probably expensive. It has
occurred to us that if she went to a speech therapist, he/she might know; also,
if it were a medical necesssity, her Medicare and insurance would cover the
cost.
Any thoughts? All help appreciated.
Roger
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: OT (and TECH): another question
Posted by: "<deinx nxtxr>" deinx.nx...@sasxsek.org
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:29 pm ((PDT))
On 10/31/10 5:54 PM, Roger Mills wrote:
> First of all, thanks for the replies about my problems. Aside from
> poky Yahoo mail, I've managed to sort stuff out.
>
> Secondly, a big request:
>
> My sister has had oral cancer, and radiation has pretty much wrecked
> her tongue. It has become basically immobile, thus it is increasingly
> very difficult for her to talk coherently. She and her son in Fla.
> are going to look around for some kind of hand-held device that she
> could write on-- and I-Pad? notebook? something e-mail capable, too.
> It has to be pretty idiot-proof as she is a technophobe; a few years
> back we tried to introduce her to the computer, which simply didn't
> work. (It was a lousy old Win98 machine to boot).
>
> One alternative also, is a cellphone with IM or texting ability-- I
> know nothing about such devices; her present cell phone (via ATT)
> IIRC does not have it. It should have a normal keyboard, preferably
> with decent size keys. (I'd have to get one too, in order to respond
> I guess.)
These days I'd recommend anyone wanting a PDA/Phone get something with
Android 2.x. There are several nice choices from HTC and Samsung. I'm
still stuck with my iPhone, and yes the touchscreen keyboard is a hassle
but I don't text and rarely use it for e-mailso it's fine for my purposes.
> Another thought: is there any device that can translate print into
> voice, for use over the telephone? I'm sure they exist, but probably
> expensive. It has occurred to us that if she went to a speech
> therapist, he/she might know; also, if it were a medical necesssity,
> her Medicare and insurance would cover the cost.
You may want to check the available apps for the Android to see if they
have something like that. The phone company used to have operators to
manage TDD-to-voice conversations so maybe someone has automated that
process. It's all kind of obsolete now that you could just send text
messages back and forth.
FWIW: I've been using Google voice for a while now and one nice feature
is that it will convert voice messages into text so you can just read
them without having to hear the recording.
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
5c. Re: OT (and TECH): another question (was: Annoyances)
Posted by: "Lee" waywardwre...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:16 pm ((PDT))
She may want to consider looking into a TTY/TDD. Sure they were invented by
Deaf for Deaf, but don't let that stop her/you. They are used by people with
speech problems as well. It's all about being able to communicate.
I'm not sure where you are located, but a trip to a local Deaf/Hard of Hearing
equipment shop may be a huge help. If you have none close by, Harris
Communications will be helpful http://www.harriscomm.com/. (I only give the
recommendation because they are the #1 supporter of the local community web
site, and others have recommended them.)
There is TTY/TDD software. Harris doesn't have much for TTY/TDD that, so you'll
have to look elsewhere for that. However, she will probably find life much
easier having a dedicated device without having to worry about dealing with an
app on a computer. While the idea sounds attractive, we all know what a PITA
that can turn out to be... Besides, finding a compatible modem may turn out to
be way more trouble than it's worth.
Finally, 711 should work everywhere in the US and Canada for sending/receiving
TTY/TDD calls. All phone companies are required to support 711 and route the
calls through a qualified relay center. (All routed calls are treated
confidentially.)
Lee
--- On Sun, 10/31/10, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Another thought: is there any device that can translate print into voice, for
use over the telephone? I'm sure they exist, but probably expensive. It has
occurred to us that if she went to a speech therapist, he/she might know; also,
if it were a medical necesssity, her Medicare and insurance would cover the
cost.
Any thoughts? All help appreciated.
Roger
Messages in this topic (13)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
