There are 16 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
From: Gary Shannon
1b. Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
From: R A Brown
1c. Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
From: Gary Shannon
1d. Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
From: Roger Mills
1e. Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
From: Gary Shannon
1f. Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
From: R A Brown
2a. 30-Day Conlang: Day Seven
From: Gary Shannon
2b. Re: 30-Day Conlang: Day Seven
From: Roger Mills
2c. Re: 30-Day Conlang: Day Seven
From: Gary Shannon
3a. Ejective distributions
From: Patrick Dunn
3b. Re: Ejective distributions
From: Matthew Boutilier
3c. Re: Ejective distributions
From: Wm Annis
3d. Re: Ejective distributions
From: Alex Fink
3e. Re: Ejective distributions
From: Matthew Boutilier
3f. Re: Ejective distributions
From: Alex Fink
3g. Re: Ejective distributions
From: David McCann
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" fizi...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 9:54 am ((PST))
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:53 AM, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
>
> The main problem about any such reanalysis, it seems to me, is that altho
> the language is declared to be VOS, _we haven't had any examples of such a
> sentence to see how it works_.
>
> All Gary's examples have so far been of complement-copula-subject.
My apologies. I assumed that since this concerned my 30-day conlang
project people would know to look at my 30-day project website for
many, many examples of normal VOS sentences in the conlang.
http://fiziwig.com/conlang/thirty_day.html
But you know what they say about when you ASSUME....
--gary
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 12:00 pm ((PST))
On 07/11/2010 17:51, Gary Shannon wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:53 AM, R A
> Brown<r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The main problem about any such reanalysis, it seems to
>> me, is that altho the language is declared to be VOS,
>> _we haven't had any examples of such a sentence to see
>> how it works_.
>>
>> All Gary's examples have so far been of
>> complement-copula-subject.
>
> My apologies. I assumed that since this concerned my
> 30-day conlang project people would know to look at my
> 30-day project website for many, many examples of normal
> VOS sentences in the conlang.
>
> http://fiziwig.com/conlang/thirty_day.html
>
> But you know what they say about when you ASSUME....
Yep - sorry.
Just got back from holiday & I sort of missed the earlier
bits. Yep, they do indeed contain examples of transitive
verbs with objects and one can see the VOS typology.
But on Day 6, I maintain that "And while the principle word
order is still VOS when the verb is the copula the word
order has become OVS with an irregular copula.." is
linguistically incorrect. If we're dealing with a copula
then we do not have an object. The order is
Complement-X-Subject.
The question is what the X is. I still do not understand
why, when the copula is dropped, those words become regarded
as an irregular copula. Why hasn't the language
simply joined the many others that have a 'zero copula'?
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
[J.G. Hamann, 1760]
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" fizi...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 1:18 pm ((PST))
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:57 AM, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
>
> But on Day 6, I maintain that "And while the principle word order is still
> VOS when the verb is the copula the word order has become OVS with an
> irregular copula.." is linguistically incorrect. If we're dealing with a
> copula then we do not have an object. The order is Complement-X-Subject.
>
> The question is what the X is. I still do not understand why, when the
> copula is dropped, those words become regarded as an irregular copula. Why
> hasn't the language
> simply joined the many others that have a 'zero copula'?
>
I think my post was premature and ill-advised.
A this point in the evolution of the language I should only be
descriptive and not prescriptive. The language is going through a lot
of changes very rapidly, due to the 30-day deadline and my desire to
just "let it happen" without any analytical thought or planning.
So at this point I'm not sure the grammar makes any sense yet, nor
does it need to until it "stabilizes" and becomes more consistent. So
question like "why..." and "how..." I can't really answer yet.
After the 30-days of un-planned translation, THEN I will look back on
the result and parse the sentences to see if I can extract a
consistent grammar.
So, to tell the truth, my observations about the copula were very
premature, and I really had no business being analytical this early
into the project. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of trying to
"blindly stumble" without the benefit (or prejudice) of forethought,
and to simply allow the grammar to happen, more or less accidentally.
--gary
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 3:54 pm ((PST))
--- On Sun, 11/7/10, R A Brown <r...@carolandray.plus.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The main problem about any such reanalysis, it
> seems to
> >> me, is that altho the language is declared to be
> VOS,
> >> _we haven't had any examples of such a sentence to
> see
> >> how it works_.
> >>
> >> All Gary's examples have so far been of
> >> complement-copula-subject.
> >
(Gary:)
> > My apologies. I assumed that since this concerned my
> > 30-day conlang project people would know to look at
> my
> > 30-day project website for many, many examples of
> normal
> > VOS sentences in the conlang.
> >
> > http://fiziwig.com/conlang/thirty_day.html
> >
> > But you know what they say about when you ASSUME....
>
> Yep - sorry.
Sorry to say, I too have not read the website fully. But I assume there are
sentences of the type "X is/was a Y" which apparently come out as _Y + Tense +
X_
>
(snipalot)
> If we're dealing with a
> copula then we do not have an object. The order is
> Complement-X-Subject.
Translating my ex. into Ray, my "Tense" is his "X"
>
> The question is what the X is.
Perhaps I'm wrong in calling it "tense"?
> I still do not
> understand why, when the copula is dropped, those words
> become regarded as an irregular copula. Why hasn't the
> language
> simply joined the many others that have a 'zero copula'?
>
Hear hear. Furthermore, why not simply say that predicative adjectives behave
like (or indeed _are_) verbs? And if the little X words (Tense?) are indeed
tense indicators (in addition to being time indicators*) why not juxtapose them
directly after the Verb/Adj form? That would be a good way, in some future
development, to have them attach directly to the verb form, and voilà,
conjugation.
----------------------------
*but surely you can have other time indicators that would be more truly
adverbial-- e.g. "We will go" vs. "we will go tomorrow". Or is it that in the
present state of the language, "tomorrow" would simply replace the little CV
"tense" marker??
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" fizi...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 4:41 pm ((PST))
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...snip...
>> I still do not
>> understand why, when the copula is dropped, those words
>> become regarded as an irregular copula. Why hasn't the
>> language
>> simply joined the many others that have a 'zero copula'?
>>
> Hear hear. Furthermore, why not simply say that predicative adjectives behave
> like (or
> indeed _are_) verbs? And if the little X words (Tense?) are indeed tense
> indicators (in
> addition to being time indicators*) why not juxtapose them directly after the
> Verb/Adj
> form? That would be a good way, in some future development, to have them
> attach
> directly to the verb form, and voilà, conjugation.
> ----------------------------
> *but surely you can have other time indicators that would be more truly
> adverbial-- e.g.
> "We will go" vs. "we will go tomorrow". Or is it that in the present state of
> the
> language, "tomorrow" would simply replace the little CV "tense" marker??
If this were a conventional conlang being designed int he conventional
way I might be able to answer those questions. But my methodology so
far is to translate whatever sentences come next in the text I
selected before beginning the project. As a consequence, the only
things I know how to do are things that have already been encountered
in those sentences. I don't look ahead.
So the question "How would conlang-X do ..." can only be answered
AFTER a sentence of that type has been encountered and translated.
Before encountering such a sentence I can only say "I don't know." I
do like the possibility that the predicates are verb-ish, and that the
particles could become conjugations.
On a slightly related tangent: I'm already feeling the need to
introduce case endings for accusative pronouns. It's not some
intellectual idea that I "ought to" do so, but rather a semi-conscious
visceral feeling of wrongness about pronouns in accusative roles, a
feeling of something missing that seems to be begging for case
marking.
--gary
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com
Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 11:50 pm ((PST))
On 07/11/2010 21:16, Gary Shannon wrote:
[snip]
>
> A this point in the evolution of the language I should
> only be descriptive and not prescriptive. The language is
> going through a lot of changes very rapidly, due to the
> 30-day deadline and my desire to just "let it happen"
> without any analytical thought or planning.
I think this is spot on. This is an interesting way of
evolving a conlang and I think "just let it happen" is the
right approach.
[snip]
>
> After the 30-days of un-planned translation, THEN I will
> look back on the result and parse the sentences to see if
> I can extract a consistent grammar.
Yep - and you'll probably be surprised at one or two of the
developments that have taken place :)
-------------------------------------------------------
On 07/11/2010 23:45, Roger Mills wrote:
> --- On Sun, 11/7/10, R A Brown<r...@carolandray.plus.com>
> wrote:
[snip]
>> If we're dealing with a copula then we do not have an
>> object. The order is Complement-X-Subject.
>
> Translating my ex. into Ray, my "Tense" is his "X"
>>
>> The question is what the X is.
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong in calling it "tense"?
It could be a particle marking tense. Such particles are
common enough in creoles.
>> I still do not understand why, when the copula is
>> dropped, those words become regarded as an irregular
>> copula. Why hasn't the language simply joined the many
>> others that have a 'zero copula'?
>>
> Hear hear. Furthermore, why not simply say that
> predicative adjectives behave like (or indeed _are_)
> verbs?
Yep - stative verbs, like in Chines & Japanese other langs.
Also, one has to bear in mind that even if a language does
have a copula, it need not be a verb. See Thomas Payne,
"Describing Morphosyntax", pages 114 and following.
Indeed, Payne's book is subtitled "A guide for field
linguists." If Gary waits until the end of the 30 days
before trying to extract a consistent grammar, he will, in
effect, be working like a field linguist who encounters a
hitherto unknown language. He may find Thomas Payne's book a
useful tool :)
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
[J.G. Hamann, 1760]
"A mind that thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language".
Messages in this topic (13)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. 30-Day Conlang: Day Seven
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" fizi...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 1:22 pm ((PST))
Day seven marks the completion of 798 words of translation out of
2198, or 36%. At this rate of 114 words per day I should complete the
translation by day 20, leaving 10 days for editing and revising the
earlier translations. Then begins the fun of parsing the sentences of
the translation and seeing if a consistent grammar has emerged, and
what that grammar looks like.
I'm not sure if the grammar has begun to stabilize yet. It still seems
to me that some sentences have the wrong structure and word order.
Hopefully, as I do more translations the sentence structure will
become more consistent so that by the end of the project I can
re-translate the poorly structured sentences and arrive at a
consistent grammar and syntax.
http://fiziwig.com/conlang/thirty_day.html
--gary
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: 30-Day Conlang: Day Seven
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 3:54 pm ((PST))
--- On Sun, 11/7/10, Gary Shannon <fizi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure if the grammar has begun to stabilize yet. It
> still seems
> to me that some sentences have the wrong structure and word
> order.
> Hopefully, as I do more translations the sentence structure
> will
> become more consistent so that by the end of the project I
> can
> re-translate the poorly structured sentences and arrive at
> a
> consistent grammar and syntax.
Maybe some of the sentences with "wrong" structure are "stylistic variants"?
:-)) Certainly in English a narrative consisting entirely of S -V - O
sentences is usually viewed as rather uninspired.
>
> http://fiziwig.com/conlang/thirty_day.html
>
> --gary
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: 30-Day Conlang: Day Seven
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" fizi...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 10:30 pm ((PST))
Out of curiosity I tried parsing some of my translated sentences. I
built parse trees in a way that seems to make sense, and the most
recent sentences seem to parse in a consistent way. The earlier
sentence, however, don't parse so neatly. And in fact some of the very
earliest sentences end up with a very ugly parse tree that,
intuitively, just can't possibly be right.
This seems to indicate that what started out as random and chaotic is
beginning to become orderly. A consistent grammar is emerging. Of
course this means the first few days worth of translation will have to
be re-done, but I expected that from the beginning.
I included some parse trees at the very bottom of the web page:
http://fiziwig.com/conlang/thirty_day.html
--gary
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Sun, 11/7/10, Gary Shannon <fizi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if the grammar has begun to stabilize yet. It
>> still seems
>> to me that some sentences have the wrong structure and word
>> order.
>> Hopefully, as I do more translations the sentence structure
>> will
>> become more consistent so that by the end of the project I
>> can
>> re-translate the poorly structured sentences and arrive at
>> a
>> consistent grammar and syntax.
>
> Maybe some of the sentences with "wrong" structure are "stylistic variants"?
> :-)) Certainly in English a narrative consisting entirely of S -V - O
> sentences is usually viewed as rather uninspired.
>>
>> http://fiziwig.com/conlang/thirty_day.html
>>
>> --gary
>>
>
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Ejective distributions
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" pwd...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 4:44 pm ((PST))
I've been looking around for this, but haven't found much on it.
What is the usual distribution of ejective consonants? I'd like to have a
conlang with ejective stops (at least /k'/ and maybe /t'/), but no voiced
consonants. Is that plausible? And is it plausible to have /k'/ /t'/ /s'/
but no other ejectives? I know /p'/ is pretty uncommon.
--
I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window to
window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance. --Arthur Rimbaud
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Ejective distributions
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" mbout...@nd.edu
Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 5:00 pm ((PST))
from wiki:
> In strict, technical terms, ejectives are glottalic
> egressive<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiation_%28phonetics%29>consonants.
> The most common ejective is
> [kʼ], not because it is easier to produce than other ejectives like [tʼ]or
> [pʼ] (it isn't) but because the auditory distinction between [kʼ] and [k]is
> greater than with other ejectives and voiceless consonants of the same
> place of
> articulation.[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejective_consonant#cite_note-ReferenceA-1>In
> proportion to the frequency of uvular
> consonants <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvular_consonant>, [qʼ] is even
> more common, as would be expected from the very small oral cavity used to
> pronounce a voiceless uvular
> plosive<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_uvular_plosive>
> .[*citation needed<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed>
> *] [pʼ], on the other hand, is quite rare. This is the opposite pattern to
> what is found in the implosive
> consonants<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implosive_consonant>,
> in which the bilabial is common and the velar is
> rare.[3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejective_consonant#cite_note-2>Ejective
> fricatives are rare for presumably the same reason: with the air
> escaping from the mouth while the pressure is being raised, like inflating a
> leaky bicycle tire, it is harder to distinguish the resulting sound as
> salient as a [kʼ].
>
this seems like a pretty accurate representation, at least as far as the
natlangs i have experience in, and the reasoning seems sound.
akkadian, like proto-semitic before it, had /k'/, /t'/, and /s'/ with no
other ejectives.
best of luck with the conlang!
matt
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Patrick Dunn <pwd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been looking around for this, but haven't found much on it.
>
> What is the usual distribution of ejective consonants? I'd like to have a
> conlang with ejective stops (at least /k'/ and maybe /t'/), but no voiced
> consonants. Is that plausible? And is it plausible to have /k'/ /t'/ /s'/
> but no other ejectives? I know /p'/ is pretty uncommon.
>
>
>
> --
> I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window to
> window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance. --Arthur Rimbaud
>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Ejective distributions
Posted by: "Wm Annis" wm.an...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 5:03 pm ((PST))
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Patrick Dunn <pwd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is the usual distribution of ejective consonants? I'd like to have a
> conlang with ejective stops (at least /k'/ and maybe /t'/), but no voiced
> consonants. Is that plausible?
Very very common. Many Athabascan languages, as well as plenty of
languages in California (of various families) and the Pacific Northwest
often have plain vs. ejective stops, or a three-way, plain, aspirated and
ejective series.
> And is it plausible to have
> /k'/ /t'/ /s'/
> but no other ejectives? I know /p'/ is pretty uncommon.
If you have /s'/ I expect other fricatives to get the same treatment (/x'/,
say see Tlingit, for example). Ejective fricatives aren't especially
*common*, but so long as the ejective stops are already there, I can't
think of any reason for /s'/ to be problematic.
--
William S. Annis
www.aoidoi.org www.scholiastae.org
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: Ejective distributions
Posted by: "Alex Fink" 000...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 5:43 pm ((PST))
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 19:58:28 -0500, Matthew Boutilier <mbout...@nd.edu> wrote:
>akkadian, like proto-semitic before it, had /k'/, /t'/, and /s'/ with no
>other ejectives.
By the conventional interpretation, anyway. It's my understanding that
there's a better case that, for a lot of the languages written in cuneiform,
what are conventionally transcribed as <s z s-underdot s-hachek> and
understood as /s z s_(>,?\) S/ should better be /ts dz ts_> s/ -- this
propagates back to the reconstruction of Proto-Semitic, too. By this
reconstruction they both had /k_> t_> ts_>/ and PSem also /(t)T_> (t)K_>/,
which is a more normal thing.
In any case, /k_> t_> s_>/ as ejective system seems quite reasonable to me.
It would be surprising to me if your lang has /ts/, as I'd expect the /s_>/
to have come from /ts_>/ and then /ts/ should have lost its stopping in
parallel. But even this isn't impossible; Tlingit fricated a whole lot of
its ejectives across all POAs (I forget the conditions, or whether it's
thought conditions existed), but did nothing comparable to its plain stops.
Alex
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: Ejective distributions
Posted by: "Matthew Boutilier" mbout...@nd.edu
Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 6:23 pm ((PST))
>
> It's my understanding that
> there's a better case that, for a lot of the languages written in
> cuneiform,
> what are conventionally transcribed as <s z s-underdot s-hachek> and
> understood as /s z s_(>,?\) S/ should better be /ts dz ts_> s/ -- this
> propagates back to the reconstruction of Proto-Semitic, too.
>
really? hmm, interesting, i hadn't heard about that. as far as i know,
neither /ts/ nor /dz/ is reconstructed in proto-semitic. out of curiosity,
do you have a source for this that i can check out?
matt
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Alex Fink <000...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 19:58:28 -0500, Matthew Boutilier <mbout...@nd.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >akkadian, like proto-semitic before it, had /k'/, /t'/, and /s'/ with no
> >other ejectives.
>
> By the conventional interpretation, anyway. It's my understanding that
> there's a better case that, for a lot of the languages written in
> cuneiform,
> what are conventionally transcribed as <s z s-underdot s-hachek> and
> understood as /s z s_(>,?\) S/ should better be /ts dz ts_> s/ -- this
> propagates back to the reconstruction of Proto-Semitic, too. By this
> reconstruction they both had /k_> t_> ts_>/ and PSem also /(t)T_> (t)K_>/,
> which is a more normal thing.
>
> In any case, /k_> t_> s_>/ as ejective system seems quite reasonable to me.
> It would be surprising to me if your lang has /ts/, as I'd expect the
> /s_>/
> to have come from /ts_>/ and then /ts/ should have lost its stopping in
> parallel. But even this isn't impossible; Tlingit fricated a whole lot of
> its ejectives across all POAs (I forget the conditions, or whether it's
> thought conditions existed), but did nothing comparable to its plain stops.
>
> Alex
>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3f. Re: Ejective distributions
Posted by: "Alex Fink" 000...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 8:53 pm ((PST))
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:20:33 -0500, Matthew Boutilier <mbout...@nd.edu> wrote:
>>
>> It's my understanding that
>> there's a better case that, for a lot of the languages written in
>> cuneiform,
>> what are conventionally transcribed as <s z s-underdot s-hachek> and
>> understood as /s z s_(>,?\) S/ should better be /ts dz ts_> s/ -- this
>> propagates back to the reconstruction of Proto-Semitic, too.
>>
>
>really? hmm, interesting, i hadn't heard about that. as far as i know,
>neither /ts/ nor /dz/ is reconstructed in proto-semitic. out of curiosity,
>do you have a source for this that i can check out?
I don't remember where I first heard it. At any rate, as a starting point,
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Semitic#Fricatives
delivers pp. 32--33 of
Dolgopolsky, Aron (1999). From Proto-Semitic to Hebrew. Milan: Centro
Studi Camito-Semitici di Milano.
An "Alice Faber (1981)" is also mentioned, but I don't know what work that is.
Alex
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
3g. Re: Ejective distributions
Posted by: "David McCann" da...@polymathy.plus.com
Date: Mon Nov 8, 2010 4:33 am ((PST))
On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 21:20 -0500, Matthew Boutilier wrote:
> really? hmm, interesting, i hadn't heard about that. as far as i know,
> neither /ts/ nor /dz/ is reconstructed in proto-semitic. out of curiosity,
> do you have a source for this that i can check out?
The reconstruction of ProtoSemitic was done in the 19th century on the
basis of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. Study of the South Semitic
languages, and of the AfroAsiatic languages, shows that the original
reconstruction had the right number of phonemes but the wrong values:
e.g. /Å¡ s Å/ for /s c ɬ/. A good source is the Cambridge Encyclopedia of
the World's Ancient Languages. Most Semiticists keep the old
transcription, on the grounds that otherwise when someone wrote "s"
they'd be wondering if they were a modernist and meant the old "Å¡" or a
traditionalist and meant the new "c"! AfroAsiatic studies seems to use
the new version, just to make life more interesting.
Messages in this topic (7)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
