There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Leipzig Valency Classes Project
From: Roger Mills
1b. Re: Leipzig Valency Classes Project
From: Arthaey Angosii
1c. Re: Leipzig Valency Classes Project
From: Wm Annis
2a. Who invented this? (Alũbetah)
From: George Corley
2b. Re: Who invented this? (Alũbetah)
From: David Peterson
2c. Re: Who invented this? (Alũbetah)
From: George Corley
3.1. Re: Real names (was: Re: [CONLANG] Of cubes & triangles)
From: Brian Woodward
3.2. Re: Real names (was: Re: [CONLANG] Of cubes & triangles)
From: Jim Henry
4a. Re: Unker non-linear writing system - relay induced progress
From: Sai
4b. Re: Unker non-linear writing system - relay induced progress
From: Matthew DeBlock
5.1. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: And Rosta
5.2. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: Matthew DeBlock
6.1. pronoun forms (was: Re: True Blood Language?
From: And Rosta
6.2. Re: pronoun forms (was: Re: True Blood Language?
From: Anthony Miles
7a. Re: OT: caffeine (was Re: Names)
From: Mechthild Czapp
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Leipzig Valency Classes Project
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:58 am ((PDT))
This does not seem too dissimilar to Chas. Fillmore's "Case Grammar" system
(which I liked a lot!!) back in the 70s, where verbs were characterized by the
arguments they could take, e.g. LOVE [A, P], GIVE [A, IO, P], RUN [A (L)], HIT
[A, P (I) (L)]--at least as best I recall it after all these years :-( I don't
remember how he handled impersonal verbs like RAIN, or reflexives like BATHE,
SHAVE, as opposed to transitive BATHE [A,P] etc.
What do X and T stand in these examplese? They aren't in the list of
abbreviations.
--- On Wed, 8/29/12, Arthaey Angosii <arth...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Arthaey Angosii <arth...@gmail.com>
Subject: Leipzig Valency Classes Project
To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 10:35 AM
While researching valency, I came across the Leipzig Valency Classes Project:
http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/valency/
They are gathering (natlang) data on "role frames" for verb valency.
They include a questionnaire of 70 verbs to elicit valency patterns. I
thought this would make a useful wordlist for conlangers, so I typed
up the relevant portions of their PDF and put it on my website:
http://www.arthaey.com/conlang/valency-verbs.html
--
AA
http://conlang.arthaey.com
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Leipzig Valency Classes Project
Posted by: "Arthaey Angosii" arth...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:51 am ((PDT))
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What do X and T stand in these examplese? They aren't in the list of
> abbreviations.
Your guess is as good as mine; the abbreviations weren't defined in
the original PDF, so I'm just guessing on the others too. ;)
--
AA
http://conlang.arthaey.com
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Leipzig Valency Classes Project
Posted by: "Wm Annis" wm.an...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:13 am ((PDT))
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Roger Mills <romi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What do X and T stand in these examplese?
T, I would guess, is from this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditransitive_verb#Ditransitive.2Fmonotransitive_alignment
I look forward to using this verb list in the future.
--
William S. Annis
www.aoidoi.org � www.scholiastae.org
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Who invented this? (Alũbetah)
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:16 am ((PDT))
Does anyone know who invented Alũbetah? link:
http://www.kotane.org/alubetah/
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Who invented this? (Alũbetah)
Posted by: "David Peterson" deda...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:56 am ((PDT))
Kilian Hekhuis.
David Peterson
LCS President
presid...@conlang.org
www.conlang.org
On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:16 AM, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone know who invented Alũbetah? link:
> http://www.kotane.org/alubetah/
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Who invented this? (Alũbetah)
Posted by: "George Corley" gacor...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Aug 29, 2012 3:08 pm ((PDT))
Do you have contact info, David?
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:56 PM, David Peterson <deda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kilian Hekhuis.
>
> David Peterson
> LCS President
> presid...@conlang.org
> www.conlang.org
>
> On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:16 AM, George Corley <gacor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know who invented Alũbetah? link:
> > http://www.kotane.org/alubetah/
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.1. Re: Real names (was: Re: [CONLANG] Of cubes & triangles)
Posted by: "Brian Woodward" alarj...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:46 am ((PDT))
On Aug 27, 2012, at 13:43, BPJ <b...@melroch.se> wrote:
> On 2012-08-27 18:51, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>> One could call it "Mil's Box". I don't know the real name of
>> "Mil", though. I hate it when people don't disclose their real
>> name in situations where it would do no harm to do so.
>> (I understand well that people prefer to stay anonymous when
>> they speak out against injustice and would risk their life or
>> freedom if they disclosed their identity, but in an innocent
>> discussion about conlang classification systems, I consider
>> this unwarranted.)
>
> There may be people who are in a position to affect you
> aversely who may do so because of a prejudice against
> conlanging in particular or nerdy pursuits in general. In
> the simplest case people may cease to respect you,
> reclassifying you as a weirdo or crank. In the worst case
> you may lose job opportunities, career options, clients or
> friends. That risk of course applies to all non-mainstream
> interests. If you can avoid that by using a handle, why not?
>
> /bpj
While I respect people's uses of different monikers, handles, pseudonyms, etc.
I don't see the above reasons as sufficient for using them. So what if others
reject you for your hobbies, interests, passions, etc. Expressing who you are
and definitively tying your interests to your "real name" (i.e. who you are) is
one of the many ways of weeding out those whom you don't have anything in
common with and finding those whom you do. Even as far as jobs and friends. If
your friends can't accept you then they're not your friends. If a job doesn't
want you because of who you are you probably wouldn't be hired to begin with.
I do understand that some people would want to avoid the risk and using a
moniker aides in this but I see this as avoiding who you are and living in lies.
Brian
P.S. Please don't take this to mean that I have any problems with those who
don't use their real names, it's not a prejudice I have it's just something
that doesn't make sense to me.
Messages in this topic (73)
________________________________________________________________________
3.2. Re: Real names (was: Re: [CONLANG] Of cubes & triangles)
Posted by: "Jim Henry" jimhenry1...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:04 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Brian Woodward <alarj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> whom you do. Even as far as jobs and friends. If your friends can't accept
> you then they're not your friends. If a job doesn't want you because of who
> you are you probably wouldn't be hired to begin with.
Not all unpopular interests are worn on one's sleeves or listed on
one's resume. It's entriely plausible you might not want your
employer to know about things you do in your off hours which are none
of their business. It's easy enough to say that an employer who would
fire you for conlanging when off-duty is not an employer one would
want to work for long-term, but under current circumstances finding
another job with a more understanding employer is not trivial. And
although the employers who would conceivably fire someone for
conlanging are probably very few, some people might have other
unpopular interests that *do* warrant using a handle, and might as
well use the same handle in multiple online fora for the sake of
consistency. Or they might prefer to be safe rather than sorry; maybe
their current employer is tolerant of employees with weird hobbies,
but their next one might not be, and they don't want to have a
googleable track record that such a potential employer might find.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (73)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Unker non-linear writing system - relay induced progress
Posted by: "Sai" s...@saizai.com
Date: Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:03 pm ((PDT))
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Matthew DeBlock <vas...@dscript.ca> wrote:
> Otherwise arent ALL languages optimized against human
> cognition?
No more than appendices (the organ) are optimized for human health.
Natural language is accidental. It isn't optimized for anything; it
merely suffices. Evolution is about being good enough, not about being
the best, and certainly not about being the best by our criteria.
- Sai
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
4b. Re: Unker non-linear writing system - relay induced progress
Posted by: "Matthew DeBlock" vas...@dscript.ca
Date: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:31 pm ((PDT))
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Matthew DeBlock <vas...@dscript.ca>
> wrote:
>> Otherwise arent ALL languages optimized against human
>> cognition?
>
> No more than appendices (the organ) are optimized for human health.
>
The human body and its organs are interdependant, sharing responsibilties,
, with a large amount of work being done or dependant on work by non-human
symbots which outnumber human cells roughly 10:1.
The human body and its organs is a beter analogy for a natlang I think
but I do see what you mean.
> Natural language is accidental. It isn't optimized for anything; it
> merely suffices.
This seems a little strong. I would say it does more than just "suffice",
but i guess that depends what you measure it against.
Evolution is about being good enough, not about being
> the best, and certainly not about being the best by our criteria.
>
> - Sai
>
it is about being best. Its just that best is a relative term, not an
absolute term.
Again, this all keeps coming back to my original question which I am
trying to find an answer for. I only meant ot ask "how do you optimize
against human cognition?". I like UNLWS, just most curious about this
aspect.
to do this dont you first need to isolate "human cognition" from other
variables? at least to some degree?
Messages in this topic (17)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5.1. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:13 pm ((PDT))
Matthew, it's hard to respond to you point by point, because I don't see how
your points pertain to the questions of mine that you quoted.
I make claims about engelanging, but not about engineering. I am an engelanger,
but don't claim to be an engineer. I opine that science has relatively little
to do with linguistics or with conlanging. (I draw a distinction between
(empirical) science and (natural) philosophy, and locate linguistics mostly
within the latter.) Nothing I do is pseudoscience, but to the very limited
extent that science pertains to my work in linguistics and conlanging, I stick
strictly to armchair science (no experimentation, no gathering of data beyond
what can be easily gathered from within the comfort of one's own armchair;
ideally somebody else does the empirical work and I just use the results).
The script is an engescript because it has objectively assessable goals -- i.e.
the extent to which the design satisfies the goals can be objectively assessed.
(And it's fully enge because all elements of its design are driven by such
goals.) That's the definition of enginess.
I think you must be under the misapprehension that I was making an empirical --
scientific -- claim about the Livagian script (-- that it's easier to write
than any other? than any other not formable from a single unbroken line?): but
I make no such claim. I was -- pretty incidentally and casually -- making an
armchair-scientific claim that direction-changing penlifts impede ease of
writing, a claim based on the balance of the available evidence, but, as with
all scientific claims, it is open to revision and repudiation if the available
evidence increases. Whatever evidence can come the way of my armchair, I'm
eager to get hold of.
--And.
Matthew DeBlock, On 27/08/2012 05:49:
> you bring up many things I wish to address, but one in particular
>
> Quoting And:
> " Is that just because engineering and science normally go together, so that
> you're surprised to see something looking like the one without much of the
> other? Or do you see a logical reason why it would be contradictory for an
> engelang's goals to not be scientifically sound?"
>
>
> As an engineer (mostly software and electronics) I find this statement to
> be strange.
>
> Engineering:
> Engineering is the science, skill, and profession of acquiring and
> applying scientific, economic, social, and practical knowledge, in order
> to design and also build structures, machines, devices, systems, materials
> and processes.
>
> You cannot have engineering without science, it is a "subset" of science,
> all engineering must be based on science.
>
> Science is a 'funny' word, you can find many a definitions of what science
> is, but ask people in the scientific community, and you will hear a
> resounding consensus
>
> The key element of science is the scientific method
>
> Methodology is everything!
> Are you trying to prove yourself right or wrong?
>
> The scientific method, simply put, is the process of doubting yourself,
> and seeking to prove yourself wrong.
>
> Pseudo-science is the 'art' of appearing scientifc while seeking
> supporting evidence, and disregarding contrary evidence
>
> Everything you have said so far is pure 'pseudo-science', you are relying
> on intutions and assumptions. You say you will assimilate "better
> information" if it comes along, btu that is NOT science, that is
> 'psuedo-science'.
>
> I rather dislike the way so many people apply restrictive and biased
> definitoins to words like science or evolution, evolution for example, is
> a proven process, but many say 'its just a theory'. Evolution is a
> process, the evolution of man is a theory.
>
> I think it you should reconsider your deifniton of science.
> Engineering - Science = Art/Design
> Science - Scientific Method = Pseudo-Science
> Progress - Scientific Method = Evolution
>
> I am not sure where you got your definitions of engineering and science.
>
> So.. in conclusion.. this is does not appear to be an ENGLANG(or
> engscript)... it seems to be more of an ARTLANG(or artscript)
>
>
>
>
>> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets, On 26/08/2012 20:15:
>>> On 26 August 2012 20:20, And Rosta<and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I stil dont understand your "prejudice against pen-lifting"
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps a penlift without a change in trajectory during the lift is
>>>> okay.
>>>> But otherwise I observe in the handwriting of me and others that the
>>>> hastier the writing the less the pen lifts.
>>>
>>> Without an actual scientific study done on this, your claim is purely
>>> anecdotal, and thus has little truth value. As I wrote before, the
>>> faster I
>>> write the more pen lifts I do. Naturally, that's also just anecdotal,
>>> but
>>> so is your claim.
>>>
>>> In other words, why are you so focussed on pen lifts and trying to
>>> minimise
>>> them, when you have no compelling evidence that they have any influence
>>> on
>>> writing speed? The plural of anecdote is not data.
>>
>> Anecdotes are data, just not very clean and reliable data.
>>
>> But to answer your question: I do have evidence about pen lifts, of
>> course, because I've described it in previous discussions, so I guess what
>> you really mean to ask is how come I believe there's a tendency for pen
>> lifts to reduce with speed, when this belief is consistent neither with
>> your handwriting practice nor with any scientific study we know of.
>> (Right?) If I were designing the script for you, then of course I'd give
>> paramount weight to your preferences; that is, the design goals would be
>> tailored to your preferences. But (of course) I'm designing it for me, to
>> ergonomically fit me, but with a wish to make it available to all should
>> it ever reach a state where it can be. Livagian is intended to be
>> ideal/optimal/perfect (which is while it's normally in a state of rubble
>> and ruin, collapsed under the weight of its own insupportable
>> perfectionism), relative to my notions of what goals are desirable. With
>> regard to the writability of the script, I judge, or deem, it desir
>> able that it should be easily writable for people in general, not just for
>> me; but the only source of information on what is easily writable for
>> people in general is my own observation of my and others' handwriting (and
>> stuff like your report of yours). If there were scientific studies
>> squarely addressing writability and/or readability of pen-writable symbols
>> in a generalized way, I'd consume them with great interest and take them
>> into account.
>>
>>> You seem to try and design things from a strict engineering point of
>>> view.
>>> But your goals are less than scientifically sound. Looks contradictory
>>> to
>>> me...
>>
>> Is that just because engineering and science normally go together, so that
>> you're surprised to see something looking like the one without much of the
>> other? Or do you see a logical reason why it would be contradictory for an
>> engelang's goals to not be scientifically sound?
>>
>> To the limited extent that science has any pertinence to linguistics and
>> conlanging, I'm interested in what it has to tell us, but in setting
>> design goals I'm content to be guided by whatever information I have
>> available to me; I don't demand of myself that I go forth and conduct
>> proper scientific experiments to provide better information. Rather, if I
>> came by better information that would warrant the alteration of design
>> goals, I'd just alter the design goals and redo the design.
>>
>>>> I designed the script to be as easy as possible to write (measured by
>>>> characters per minute or suchlike) as well as to be compact. I might
>>>> also
>>>> have designed it to be easy to read, but had no intuitions or data on
>>>> what
>>>> makes scripts in general easy to read.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You might want to look into this:
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-font-helps-dyslexics-read
>>> It's about a font designed for dyslexic people
>> [...]
>>> Now, this is all about the Roman alphabet, so the principles may not
>>> work
>>> on other scripts, but it's still interesting to know about it. I
>>> personally
>>> find the resulting font not that pleasing aesthetically, but I must
>>> admit
>>> that reading a full article in it was easier than reading it in my
>>> normal
>>> screen font (DejaVu Sans, which is already slightly larger than Arial,
>>> for
>>> instance), even in the same point size.
>>
>> I've come across this sort of stuff -- what is (alleged to be) more
>> readable for dyslexics and what is less -- in my day job, as a result of
>> the duty to make reasonable adjustments for the disabled. I didn't know of
>> this interesting-looking (and yes, ugly!) font. When I looked at Shwa
>> script I had the impression that it was designed to be dyslexia-friendly,
>> without contrastive rotations and reflections.
>>
>> --And.
>>
Messages in this topic (78)
________________________________________________________________________
5.2. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "Matthew DeBlock" vas...@dscript.ca
Date: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:45 pm ((PDT))
> Matthew, it's hard to respond to you point by point, because I don't see
> how your points pertain to the questions of mine that you quoted.
>
> I make claims about engelanging, but not about engineering. I am an
> engelanger, but don't claim to be an engineer. I opine that science has
> relatively little to do with linguistics or with conlanging. (I draw a
> distinction between (empirical) science and (natural) philosophy, and
> locate linguistics mostly within the latter.) Nothing I do is
> pseudoscience, but to the very limited extent that science pertains to my
> work in linguistics and conlanging, I stick strictly to armchair science
> (no experimentation, no gathering of data beyond what can be easily
> gathered from within the comfort of one's own armchair; ideally somebody
> else does the empirical work and I just use the results).
>
> The script is an engescript because it has objectively assessable goals --
> i.e. the extent to which the design satisfies the goals can be objectively
> assessed. (And it's fully enge because all elements of its design are
> driven by such goals.) That's the definition of enginess.
this was my point
you goals can be objectivly assesed and approached
but you have not laid out a clear goals it seems. from our discussions you
goals were many, and when weakness in acheiving one goal are brought up,
they are justified by some other quality.
How do you define the "trade-off" equation between aspects?
is there a list of the "desired qualities"?
Without that, it just appears that you are evangelizing a construct by
using one quality to defend another, in a "cirle-jerk" of justifications
for status quo.
This methodolgy can argue anyting against anything.. and it is never
"wrong" because it never actually makes a claim or sets a clear goal
>
> I think you must be under the misapprehension that I was making an
> empirical -- scientific -- claim about the Livagian script (-- that it's
> easier to write than any other? than any other not formable from a single
> unbroken line?): but I make no such claim. I was -- pretty incidentally
> and casually -- making an armchair-scientific claim that
> direction-changing penlifts impede ease of writing, a claim based on the
> balance of the available evidence, but, as with all scientific claims, it
> is open to revision and repudiation if the available evidence increases.
> Whatever evidence can come the way of my armchair, I'm eager to get hold
> of.
>
> --And.
>
> Matthew DeBlock, On 27/08/2012 05:49:
>> you bring up many things I wish to address, but one in particular
>>
>> Quoting And:
>> " Is that just because engineering and science normally go together, so
>> that
>> you're surprised to see something looking like the one without much of
>> the
>> other? Or do you see a logical reason why it would be contradictory
>> for an
>> engelang's goals to not be scientifically sound?"
>>
>>
>> As an engineer (mostly software and electronics) I find this statement
>> to
>> be strange.
>>
>> Engineering:
>> Engineering is the science, skill, and profession of acquiring and
>> applying scientific, economic, social, and practical knowledge, in order
>> to design and also build structures, machines, devices, systems,
>> materials
>> and processes.
>>
>> You cannot have engineering without science, it is a "subset" of
>> science,
>> all engineering must be based on science.
>>
>> Science is a 'funny' word, you can find many a definitions of what
>> science
>> is, but ask people in the scientific community, and you will hear a
>> resounding consensus
>>
>> The key element of science is the scientific method
>>
>> Methodology is everything!
>> Are you trying to prove yourself right or wrong?
>>
>> The scientific method, simply put, is the process of doubting yourself,
>> and seeking to prove yourself wrong.
>>
>> Pseudo-science is the 'art' of appearing scientifc while seeking
>> supporting evidence, and disregarding contrary evidence
>>
>> Everything you have said so far is pure 'pseudo-science', you are
>> relying
>> on intutions and assumptions. You say you will assimilate "better
>> information" if it comes along, btu that is NOT science, that is
>> 'psuedo-science'.
>>
>> I rather dislike the way so many people apply restrictive and biased
>> definitoins to words like science or evolution, evolution for example,
>> is
>> a proven process, but many say 'its just a theory'. Evolution is a
>> process, the evolution of man is a theory.
>>
>> I think it you should reconsider your deifniton of science.
>> Engineering - Science = Art/Design
>> Science - Scientific Method = Pseudo-Science
>> Progress - Scientific Method = Evolution
>>
>> I am not sure where you got your definitions of engineering and science.
>>
>> So.. in conclusion.. this is does not appear to be an ENGLANG(or
>> engscript)... it seems to be more of an ARTLANG(or artscript)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets, On 26/08/2012 20:15:
>>>> On 26 August 2012 20:20, And Rosta<and.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I stil dont understand your "prejudice against pen-lifting"
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps a penlift without a change in trajectory during the lift is
>>>>> okay.
>>>>> But otherwise I observe in the handwriting of me and others that the
>>>>> hastier the writing the less the pen lifts.
>>>>
>>>> Without an actual scientific study done on this, your claim is purely
>>>> anecdotal, and thus has little truth value. As I wrote before, the
>>>> faster I
>>>> write the more pen lifts I do. Naturally, that's also just anecdotal,
>>>> but
>>>> so is your claim.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, why are you so focussed on pen lifts and trying to
>>>> minimise
>>>> them, when you have no compelling evidence that they have any
>>>> influence
>>>> on
>>>> writing speed? The plural of anecdote is not data.
>>>
>>> Anecdotes are data, just not very clean and reliable data.
>>>
>>> But to answer your question: I do have evidence about pen lifts, of
>>> course, because I've described it in previous discussions, so I guess
>>> what
>>> you really mean to ask is how come I believe there's a tendency for pen
>>> lifts to reduce with speed, when this belief is consistent neither with
>>> your handwriting practice nor with any scientific study we know of.
>>> (Right?) If I were designing the script for you, then of course I'd
>>> give
>>> paramount weight to your preferences; that is, the design goals would
>>> be
>>> tailored to your preferences. But (of course) I'm designing it for me,
>>> to
>>> ergonomically fit me, but with a wish to make it available to all
>>> should
>>> it ever reach a state where it can be. Livagian is intended to be
>>> ideal/optimal/perfect (which is while it's normally in a state of
>>> rubble
>>> and ruin, collapsed under the weight of its own insupportable
>>> perfectionism), relative to my notions of what goals are desirable.
>>> With
>>> regard to the writability of the script, I judge, or deem, it desir
>>> able that it should be easily writable for people in general, not just
>>> for
>>> me; but the only source of information on what is easily writable for
>>> people in general is my own observation of my and others' handwriting
>>> (and
>>> stuff like your report of yours). If there were scientific studies
>>> squarely addressing writability and/or readability of pen-writable
>>> symbols
>>> in a generalized way, I'd consume them with great interest and take
>>> them
>>> into account.
>>>
>>>> You seem to try and design things from a strict engineering point of
>>>> view.
>>>> But your goals are less than scientifically sound. Looks contradictory
>>>> to
>>>> me...
>>>
>>> Is that just because engineering and science normally go together, so
>>> that
>>> you're surprised to see something looking like the one without much of
>>> the
>>> other? Or do you see a logical reason why it would be contradictory for
>>> an
>>> engelang's goals to not be scientifically sound?
>>>
>>> To the limited extent that science has any pertinence to linguistics
>>> and
>>> conlanging, I'm interested in what it has to tell us, but in setting
>>> design goals I'm content to be guided by whatever information I have
>>> available to me; I don't demand of myself that I go forth and conduct
>>> proper scientific experiments to provide better information. Rather, if
>>> I
>>> came by better information that would warrant the alteration of design
>>> goals, I'd just alter the design goals and redo the design.
>>>
>>>>> I designed the script to be as easy as possible to write (measured by
>>>>> characters per minute or suchlike) as well as to be compact. I might
>>>>> also
>>>>> have designed it to be easy to read, but had no intuitions or data on
>>>>> what
>>>>> makes scripts in general easy to read.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You might want to look into this:
>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-font-helps-dyslexics-read
>>>> It's about a font designed for dyslexic people
>>> [...]
>>>> Now, this is all about the Roman alphabet, so the principles may not
>>>> work
>>>> on other scripts, but it's still interesting to know about it. I
>>>> personally
>>>> find the resulting font not that pleasing aesthetically, but I must
>>>> admit
>>>> that reading a full article in it was easier than reading it in my
>>>> normal
>>>> screen font (DejaVu Sans, which is already slightly larger than Arial,
>>>> for
>>>> instance), even in the same point size.
>>>
>>> I've come across this sort of stuff -- what is (alleged to be) more
>>> readable for dyslexics and what is less -- in my day job, as a result
>>> of
>>> the duty to make reasonable adjustments for the disabled. I didn't know
>>> of
>>> this interesting-looking (and yes, ugly!) font. When I looked at Shwa
>>> script I had the impression that it was designed to be
>>> dyslexia-friendly,
>>> without contrastive rotations and reflections.
>>>
>>> --And.
>>>
>
Messages in this topic (78)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6.1. pronoun forms (was: Re: True Blood Language?
Posted by: "And Rosta" and.ro...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:24 pm ((PDT))
Alex Fink, On 18/08/2012 15:05:
> I've also heard the notion that the sound-symbolically best pronoun
> system has a back-of-mouth self-pointing velar for 1st person, and a
> front-of-mouth forward-pointing labial or dental for 2nd person. Thus
> e.g. Sino-Tibetan.
Do you remember where you've heard the notion? It seems intuitively right, but
I wonder why the pattern isn't more prominent in languages. Livagian does it:
all the various 1st person forms have a phonologically dorsal segment (k-type
consonants, i-type vowels), all the various 2nd person forms have a
phonologically labial segment (p-type consonants, u-type vowels), and the
inclusive me+thee forms have segments from the phonological series that
contains t-type consonants and the y vowel.
--And.
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
6.2. Re: pronoun forms (was: Re: True Blood Language?
Posted by: "Anthony Miles" mamercu...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:44 pm ((PDT))
I don't know where he heard it, but when I was designing Na'gifi Fasu'xa (the
/g/ is the velar nasal), I had an urge to switch the 1st-2nd-3rd person pronoun
system PUMAFA-NATUFI-GASIPU to GASIPU-NATUFI-PUMAFA and I didn't know why. Now
I do, but sadly GASIPU is firmly set as the 3rd person.
Messages in this topic (30)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7a. Re: OT: caffeine (was Re: Names)
Posted by: "Mechthild Czapp" rejista...@me.com
Date: Wed Aug 29, 2012 1:09 pm ((PDT))
Having forgotten to organize a reliable source of caffeine before work starts
counts as undercaffeinated. Also, I use "undercaffeinated" as a general excuse
for brain wonkitude. Even if it is unrelated to caffeine as most people I deal
with are caffeine junkies as well.
On 29.08.2012, at 10:13, taliesin the storyteller wrote:
> On 2012-08-29 05:11, Mechthild Czapp wrote:
>> Out of self-preservation I will not talk a lot about it, except that
>> it is part of a webaddress, I have to dictate several times a week.
>> And I feel that if I coined that word, sooner or later, I'd say
>> something like "Please enter the following: $NatoSpelling, that is
>> $word like "access" in rejistanian" to a customer. Especially when
>> undercaffeinated.
>
> You might be overcaffeinated actually. Tried cutting down?
>
>
> t.
Messages in this topic (14)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
