There are 14 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: Dscript for conlangers
From: Matthew DeBlock
2.1. Re: Real names
From: Brian Woodward
2.2. Re: Real names
From: Adam Walker
2.3. Re: Real names
From: Sam Stutter
2.4. Re: Real names
From: Fenhl
2.5. Re: Real names
From: Roger Mills
2.6. Re: Real names
From: Joseph Gilbert
2.7. Re: Real names
From: Charles W Brickner
3a. Rebellious Case Markings
From: Arthaey Angosii
3b. Re: Rebellious Case Markings
From: Arthaey Angosii
3c. Re: Rebellious Case Markings
From: David McCann
4a. Re: monotransitive verb : antipassive voice :: ditransitive verb : ?
From: David McCann
5a. Re: Melchizedekan Romance: Two Alternatives for Nasal Harmony
From: Adam Walker
6. What Color Is This?
From: Logan Kearsley
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: Dscript for conlangers
Posted by: "Matthew DeBlock" vas...@dscript.ca
Date: Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:42 am ((PDT))
I disagree with alot of what you just said, to summarize I think we differ
grately on a couple definitions
speficially
What you describe yourself as doing could best be defined as research
Engineering never comes into the question
Its what you would do after you have come to conlcusions on all these
maters you are clearly still musing.
Of course all conlangs are engineered in some manner, the ones that satify
the STRICT interpretation of engineering are meant to fall under it, the
fact that you are now resorting on re-defining engineering means you are
disqualified.
If you want it to be an englang, i suppose it would be an experimental
language (one designed for use as experiment)
which is an englang... so actually, you are I guess
I stil think its more of an artlang, the whole "flow of motion" and hand
movement is art alone, and this seems most central to the end product.
> Matthew DeBlock, On 30/08/2012 03:45:
>>> 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.
>
> I thought I had, but maybe I wasn't clear enough (-- after all, Livagian
> script got mentioned only in passing). Would you like me to lay them out
> again?
>
>> 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?
>
> I can see that it could be possible to define a trade-off equation, where
> the equation would circumscribe a space of 'acceptable' solutions, but I
> don't define a trade-off equation, and I don't think engedesign generally
> does either -- there are all sorts of different cars, different mobile
> phones, and so on, differentiated by the different trade-offs they choose,
> and not working to any common explicit trade-off equation.
>
> Your question is interesting, but it only really becomes pertinent when
> one is weighing up alternative potentially-acceptable candidate designs
> against each other.
>
>> 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.
>
> I didn't evangelize anything; I merely mentioned Livagian, in the context
> of talking about Dscript. Did it feel like evangelizing to you because you
> feel that any con-script is competing with Dscript for market share? I
> promise you, I don't care about market share.
>
> As for the idea of there being a circle of compromises, that's the nature
> of engedesign; the solution to one goal has to fall short in order to
> prevent solutions to other goals falling even shorter, and the overall
> solution is one that is a good compromise among the different goals, the
> aggregate best solution.
>
> --And.
>
Messages in this topic (80)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Real names
Posted by: "Brian Woodward" alarj...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:11 pm ((PDT))
On Aug 29, 2012, at 16:04, Jim Henry <jimhenry1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/
I agree there are some hobbies/interests that some would want to conceal from
others e.g. political opinion and such. But something such as conlanging I
don't see as too detrimental. However, as I admit below I am lacking in certain
social areas that may inhibit my perception.
On Aug 30, 2012, at 2:05, "A. da Mek" <a.da_m...@ufoni.cz> wrote:
>> 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
>
> It would weed out not those whom I don't have _anything_ in common, but those
> whom I don't have _everything_ in common.
> If I share with someone common interests in some art or sport, I do not want
> to spoil this relation by the knowledge that in some other dimension of life
> we are regarding each other to be an idiot.
This was actually part of my point. Just because you don't share conlanging
with a specific friend doesn't mean you can't be friends but it also doesn't
mean you should have to hide the fact that you're into it. Whether or not a
friend likes it shouldn't dictate a friendship.
On Aug 30, 2012, at 2:47, BPJ <b...@melroch.se> wrote:
> On 2012-08-30 09:05, A. da Mek wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> It would weed out not those whom I don't have _anything_ in
>> common, but those whom I don't have _everything_ in common.
>> If I share with someone common interests in some art or sport, I
>> do not want to spoil this relation by the knowledge that in some
>> other dimension of life we are regarding each other to be an idiot.
>
> Exactly! When I was on Facebook I got friendship (is that the
> term they use in English) requests from clients, colleagues,
> kids' teachers, old schoolmates, in-laws and such as well as
> from acquaintances from conlanging and fandom and from friends
> outside these fields, and inevitably some in the non-nerdy
> categories wondered what the hell I was up to/what an idiot
> I was. A total disaster in fact. I know for a fact that I
> lost clients, and some colleagues ceased to recommend me to
> clients they hadn't time to serve. Not to speak of the
> attitude the kids' teachers got...
>
> /bpj
I'll admit I can't relate to any of that. The people I associate with all know
I love conlanging and the ones that think it's weird just ignore that part of
me. Also, I'm not in a business that entails clients or anything. My kids'
teachers are my old schoolmates so they already know me and my in-laws started
off hating me even before they knew anything about my hobbies. So I don't see
it as having any affect on my social or professional relationships.
On Aug 30, 2012, at 3:46, taliesin the storyteller <taliesin-conl...@nvg.org>
wrote:
> On 2012-08-29 20:46, Brian Woodward wrote:
>> 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)
>
> Whoo are we getting philosophical here! Am I to interpret this as that you
> consider a name given when too young to protest is more real than the name
> you have built your reputation on? That the name on an id is more real than
> the name a person actually uses? That the cards you have been dealt by
> accidents of fate are more real than the cards you have acquired later on and
> have chosen to put in play? That history is destiny? (Ok, getting carried
> away again, deep breaths...)
>
> I don't think you understand where at least some of us pseudonymous people
> come from, /at all/. I could spend some hours googling up the research that
> has been done on this, but I'm not gonna.
>
>
> t., who just realized that particular pseudo has been in use for almost half
> of /me's lifetime. Ugh how time flies.
Whether it is by the name you were given at birth or by the name you made for
yourself you have an identity associated with that name. All I'm suggesting is
that one single identity should be enough. Why have split personalities if you
don't need to?
Brian
Messages in this topic (83)
________________________________________________________________________
2.2. Re: Real names
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:07 pm ((PDT))
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Brian Woodward <alarj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whether it is by the name you were given at birth or by the name you made
> for yourself you have an identity associated with that name. All I'm
> suggesting is that one single identity should be enough. Why have split
> personalities if you don't need to?
>
> Brian
>
Well, I use my real name here and for the most part on-line, but I have
used pseudonyms/handles in on-line fora before and will again. But beyond
that, I have published my fiction under a different name than my real
name. I am in no wise ashamed of my fiction. I am, in fact, rather proud
of it, but there is a long tradition of publishing under pen names and I
don't necessarily want my fiction tied to the same name I have used with my
non-fiction articles and my academic work (which I am currently taking a
simi-permanet break from). In fact, if I publish anything about my
alt-history, I might well publish it under a different name from the one I
have used for my sci-fi work, just because the audiences for the two types
of work are different enough that I feel it might warrant such. It is
quite a common practice for writers to publish every genre they write under
a different pseudonym. J.D. Robb publishes near future detective stories,
while Nora Roberts publishes romance novels, but she is one and the same
person. Richard Bachman and Stephen King are the same person, but writing
in the same genre as an experiment reguarding the question of talent vs.
luck. Actors are another group that often use stage names, and singers
often do as well. There are many reasons for not using ones real name.
Not to mention the fact that some people hate their real names so much that
they don't even use it in real life but always go by a nick name.
Sometimes it isn't even a matter of hating a name but of confusion within a
family. My grandfather had a borther named Robert Henry after an uncle. I
don't know why the family didn't just call him by his middle name or one fo
the many possible nicknames of either Robert or Henry, but they didn't. To
family and friends Robert Henry was "Mike," he even shows up on census
records as Mike some years, only to be recorded as Robert or Robert Henry
the next time.
Adam
Messages in this topic (83)
________________________________________________________________________
2.3. Re: Real names
Posted by: "Sam Stutter" samjj...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:53 am ((PDT))
To get really philosophical, Brian, do you believe a name is something one is
given, or something one has in oneself? Names, in Celtic mythology certainly,
and so presumably elsewhere, have always been something dreadfully important:
knowing someone's true name is a method of control. And if you've ever read
Jean Rhyss' _Wide Sargasso Sea_ you'll know how Rochester changes Antoinette's
name in order to have some degree of control over her. In modern society, along
the your national security number (or whatever), your name is something used to
keep track of you and, for the more paranoid amongst us, a method of direct
control.
If you were born, alone on a desert island, with no one to talk to, ignoring
the question of whether you would have an internal language to orchestrate your
thoughts, would you give yourself a name? How would you make sense of the "me"
living in your head? Cue Doctor Who references such as "Stormagedon, Dark Lord
of All" and a Farside cartoon entitled "Names we give dogs and the names dogs
give themselves".
If a name is something you give yourself, something consensual, then it's a way
of defining yourself and selling yourself - hence it's probably useful in the
modern world to be able to use different names to sell yourself differently in
different spheres / communities. I know judging a book by it's cover is
supposedly Bad, but a cover usually tells you everything you need to know about
how a person interacts with the world or wants to be perceived by the world: a
name is just part of a person's dust jacket.
If it's something people impose upon you, then it's a method by which other
people attempt to control who you are - particularly as names have actual
encoded meanings, rather than just being "suggestive" of a meaning.
If it's the former, pseudonyms are a human right and, from speaking to Sai on
Google+, I learn that self definition is part of common law. If it's the
latter, then that's really unfair and needs to be changed. Hence, you've got
two types of pseudonym: the first disguises your true identity - to prevent
control, and the second reveals what you believe your true identity actually is
- to gain control over your identity.
*Actually*, if anyone thinks this is going OT, well, ha, because this is
exactly the right place to bring it back to conlanging. In many cultures, one
is given a name at birth and then chooses one oneself when you come of age. How
does your conlang:
a) coin names?
b) give them to people?
c) are there differences / similarities between names for each gender?
d) use names for genetic continuity / heritage (if at all)?
e) etc
Sam Stutter (pretty much my legal name)
samjj...@gmail.com
"No e na'l cu barri"
On 31 Aug 2012, at 00:07, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Brian Woodward <alarj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Whether it is by the name you were given at birth or by the name you made
>> for yourself you have an identity associated with that name. All I'm
>> suggesting is that one single identity should be enough. Why have split
>> personalities if you don't need to?
>>
>> Brian
>>
>
> Well, I use my real name here and for the most part on-line, but I have
> used pseudonyms/handles in on-line fora before and will again. But beyond
> that, I have published my fiction under a different name than my real
> name. I am in no wise ashamed of my fiction. I am, in fact, rather proud
> of it, but there is a long tradition of publishing under pen names and I
> don't necessarily want my fiction tied to the same name I have used with my
> non-fiction articles and my academic work (which I am currently taking a
> simi-permanet break from). In fact, if I publish anything about my
> alt-history, I might well publish it under a different name from the one I
> have used for my sci-fi work, just because the audiences for the two types
> of work are different enough that I feel it might warrant such. It is
> quite a common practice for writers to publish every genre they write under
> a different pseudonym. J.D. Robb publishes near future detective stories,
> while Nora Roberts publishes romance novels, but she is one and the same
> person. Richard Bachman and Stephen King are the same person, but writing
> in the same genre as an experiment reguarding the question of talent vs.
> luck. Actors are another group that often use stage names, and singers
> often do as well. There are many reasons for not using ones real name.
>
> Not to mention the fact that some people hate their real names so much that
> they don't even use it in real life but always go by a nick name.
>
> Sometimes it isn't even a matter of hating a name but of confusion within a
> family. My grandfather had a borther named Robert Henry after an uncle. I
> don't know why the family didn't just call him by his middle name or one fo
> the many possible nicknames of either Robert or Henry, but they didn't. To
> family and friends Robert Henry was "Mike," he even shows up on census
> records as Mike some years, only to be recorded as Robert or Robert Henry
> the next time.
>
> Adam
Messages in this topic (83)
________________________________________________________________________
2.4. Re: Real names
Posted by: "Fenhl" fe...@fenhl.net
Date: Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:26 am ((PDT))
On 2012-08-31 10:52, Sam Stutter <samjj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How does your conlang:
>
> a) coin names?
> b) give them to people?
> c) are there differences / similarities between names for each gender?
> d) use names for genetic continuity / heritage (if at all)?
> e) etc
I have two concultures, which handle these differently. Let's start with the
Isiko, where the law imposes extensive regulation:
a,b) Names consist of two parts: the first part was traditionally the name of a
person's hometown, it is now required to be the name of the constituency in
which they were born. The second part is any amount of syllables chosen by
one's 3 legal guardians. There are no further restrictions here the name can
mean anything or nothing, as long as it fits the syllable structure of any of
the official languages but it is quite common for each guardian to choose one
syllable (making 3-syllable names quite common).
c) Names do not give any indication on gender.
d) one of the syllables is sometimes taken from the mother's name. This is an
old practice and rarely found today.
The etc section will be about name changes.
e) Names do not change after the birth ceremony. However, most people with
multisyllabic names acquire an informal nickname throughout their childhood,
which is simply one syllable from their personal name, and only used by close
friends and relatives.
As for my other, unnamed conculture (whose inhabitants speak Wanya):
a) A person's name is usually a noun phrase, consisting of real nouns and
adjectives.
b) Names are assigned by one's mother shortly after (or before) birth. They may
change later.
c) Regular nouns in Wanya end on -a, which comes from a female gender suffix in
the protolang. Girls' names are usually these. Boys' names may also be regular
nouns, but are more commonly nouns which have retained the old male gender
suffix -on.
d) Many parents give their children a patronymic adjective, which is often
dropped during adolescence.
e) Names change fairly frequently. In theory, there are no restrictions on name
changes, and some people abuse that, but most name changes reflect an event in
one's life. They can represent academical or political titles, religions,
marriages, etc etc. Names which become unimportant are dropped, which prevents
overly long lists of titles (think Daenerys Targaryen).
Messages in this topic (83)
________________________________________________________________________
2.5. Re: Real names
Posted by: "Roger Mills" romi...@yahoo.com
Date: Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:56 am ((PDT))
Sam Stutter wrote:-
*Actually*, if anyone thinks this is going OT, well, ha, because this is
exactly the right place to bring it back to conlanging. In many cultures, one
is given a name at birth and then chooses one oneself when you come of age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in some cultures, AIUI, you are given a "secret" name, usually when boys
reach puberty or are inducted into manhood (not sure about the girls...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does your conlang:
a) coin names?
b) give them to people?
c) are there differences / similarities between names for each gender?
d) use names for genetic continuity / heritage (if at all)?
e) etc
================================
I explained Kash naming in another post-- given names are usually derived from
adjectives, nouns or verbs but MUST be changed in some way, e.g. minda 'smile;
be happy' > mina (F), mita (M) and so on. They may reflect some characteristic
of the newborn, the day he/she was born on, or express a hope that the child
will grow to fit the name. Thus there can be certain resemblances between M and
F names, but they would never be the same; if nothing else, the F name will end
in /e/. It is also possible for parents to make up a name that they think
sounds euphonious. There is a "naming ceremony" when the child is presented to
relatives and to the world in general.
A child can also be named for a non-living ancestor (there are no Juniors, or
John Jones II or III etc., as we can have). They are not named for a living
parent, gd.parent. (or g-gr-parent if still alive). There are certain
mythological figures whose names are not given, usually because that figure
violated some taboo or other (in particular Vuruna-- now the name of the larger
moon and a weekday-- a noble girl who ran off with a drunken reprobate called
Lalap--now the name of the smaller moon and another weekday; also Tamar and
Nipa, a brother/sister who committed incest and were banished.)
If at puberty or in adulthood you decide you don't like your name, it is
permtted to change it, either officially or unofficially. If you join one of
the religious monastic orders, you will probably be given another name.
Surnames are different-- they may reflect place of origin, profession of an
early ancestor or some other feature. Many begin with _an-_ 'child of;;;'.
They are not deformed, as given names must be. Royalty carry the name of the
nation they rule; titled nobles carry the name of the region they (used to)
control.
These are the customs in modern society. There are a few tribal groups where
the customs may differ.
Writers, artists and performers may adopt pseudonyms
I have written all this up, but not yet added it to the website...........
Gwr names consist of Clan name + Family name (these usually just one word) +
given name (usually a single word or two word phrase that has meaning, like
"cheerful" or "bright dawn" etc. These usually reflect the circumstances of
their time of birth, or nature as a baby. Gwrs have the habit of playing with
peoples' names, either in private or to their face-- it is considered fun to
find a homophone or tonal variant that has a nasty, silly or obscene meaning.
Girls tend to be given "pretty" names, boy's given names tend to be "strong".
Lañ-lañ (Prevli speakers) also have a Clan name + Family name (only used
officially) and a given name that may or may not have meaning. When the child
reaches puberty and is officially inducted into adult society they are given
another name, which may be kept secret or used openly from that time on. The
tendency is for people to be known by just one name.
Messages in this topic (83)
________________________________________________________________________
2.6. Re: Real names
Posted by: "Joseph Gilbert" joeg...@roadrunner.com
Date: Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:52 am ((PDT))
Have you considered the effects of our vocal sounds on our emotional
states? If one realizes that we are,in fact, affected by the sounds
of our voice, then what is the nature of that effect and how are our
perceptions of our world affected by it? This question, if pursued,
would make available a crucial understanding regarding human spoken-
word language. The vocal apparatus evolved specifically to vibrate
according to the general condition of the whole organism. The
vibrations of the vocal apparatus represents the general condition.
The auditory apparatus, driven by the vibrations of the vocal
apparatus, vibrates in sympathy with the auditory apparatus and
supplies the receiving organism with a vibrational pattern analogous
to the vibrational pattern of the sending/driving organism. In this
manner, emotional states - states that we sense due to motion - are
transmitted from driving organisms to driven organisms. This process
constitutes the primal foundation of all vocal and therefore verbal
communication. Vocalizing transmits emotions and verbalizing, being a
special case of vocalizing, likewise transmits emotions. Coupled with
its referential function, verbalizing subliminally informs us of the
affects on us - the meanings of - the things that make up our world.
Words simultaneously create emotional effects and refer to specific
things. We associate the emotional effects with the things named
rather than with the sounds of the namers - the words. Obviously, to
a thinker, the emotional effects of words result from words' sounds,
not from the things named. Words are sounds made by the body and
relate primarily to the body. The referential function of words is
secondary to the emotionally communicative function. By this process,
we humans receive our culture.
Joseph Gilbert Aug. 31, 2012, at 8:23 am, pacific.
On Aug 31, 2012, at 3:52 AM, Sam Stutter wrote:
> To get really philosophical, Brian, do you believe a name is
> something one is given, or something one has in oneself? Names, in
> Celtic mythology certainly, and so presumably elsewhere, have
> always been something dreadfully important: knowing someone's true
> name is a method of control. And if you've ever read Jean Rhyss'
> _Wide Sargasso Sea_ you'll know how Rochester changes Antoinette's
> name in order to have some degree of control over her. In modern
> society, along the your national security number (or whatever),
> your name is something used to keep track of you and, for the more
> paranoid amongst us, a method of direct control.
>
> If you were born, alone on a desert island, with no one to talk to,
> ignoring the question of whether you would have an internal
> language to orchestrate your thoughts, would you give yourself a
> name? How would you make sense of the "me" living in your head? Cue
> Doctor Who references such as "Stormagedon, Dark Lord of All" and a
> Farside cartoon entitled "Names we give dogs and the names dogs
> give themselves".
>
> If a name is something you give yourself, something consensual,
> then it's a way of defining yourself and selling yourself - hence
> it's probably useful in the modern world to be able to use
> different names to sell yourself differently in different spheres /
> communities. I know judging a book by it's cover is supposedly Bad,
> but a cover usually tells you everything you need to know about how
> a person interacts with the world or wants to be perceived by the
> world: a name is just part of a person's dust jacket.
>
> If it's something people impose upon you, then it's a method by
> which other people attempt to control who you are - particularly as
> names have actual encoded meanings, rather than just being
> "suggestive" of a meaning.
>
> If it's the former, pseudonyms are a human right and, from speaking
> to Sai on Google+, I learn that self definition is part of common
> law. If it's the latter, then that's really unfair and needs to be
> changed. Hence, you've got two types of pseudonym: the first
> disguises your true identity - to prevent control, and the second
> reveals what you believe your true identity actually is - to gain
> control over your identity.
>
> *Actually*, if anyone thinks this is going OT, well, ha, because
> this is exactly the right place to bring it back to conlanging. In
> many cultures, one is given a name at birth and then chooses one
> oneself when you come of age. How does your conlang:
>
> a) coin names?
> b) give them to people?
> c) are there differences / similarities between names for each gender?
> d) use names for genetic continuity / heritage (if at all)?
> e) etc
>
> Sam Stutter (pretty much my legal name)
> samjj...@gmail.com
> "No e na'l cu barri"
>
> On 31 Aug 2012, at 00:07, Adam Walker <carra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Brian Woodward
>> <alarj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Whether it is by the name you were given at birth or by the name
>>> you made
>>> for yourself you have an identity associated with that name. All I'm
>>> suggesting is that one single identity should be enough. Why have
>>> split
>>> personalities if you don't need to?
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>
>> Well, I use my real name here and for the most part on-line, but I
>> have
>> used pseudonyms/handles in on-line fora before and will again.
>> But beyond
>> that, I have published my fiction under a different name than my real
>> name. I am in no wise ashamed of my fiction. I am, in fact,
>> rather proud
>> of it, but there is a long tradition of publishing under pen names
>> and I
>> don't necessarily want my fiction tied to the same name I have
>> used with my
>> non-fiction articles and my academic work (which I am currently
>> taking a
>> simi-permanet break from). In fact, if I publish anything about my
>> alt-history, I might well publish it under a different name from
>> the one I
>> have used for my sci-fi work, just because the audiences for the
>> two types
>> of work are different enough that I feel it might warrant such.
>> It is
>> quite a common practice for writers to publish every genre they
>> write under
>> a different pseudonym. J.D. Robb publishes near future detective
>> stories,
>> while Nora Roberts publishes romance novels, but she is one and
>> the same
>> person. Richard Bachman and Stephen King are the same person, but
>> writing
>> in the same genre as an experiment reguarding the question of
>> talent vs.
>> luck. Actors are another group that often use stage names, and
>> singers
>> often do as well. There are many reasons for not using ones real
>> name.
>>
>> Not to mention the fact that some people hate their real names so
>> much that
>> they don't even use it in real life but always go by a nick name.
>>
>> Sometimes it isn't even a matter of hating a name but of confusion
>> within a
>> family. My grandfather had a borther named Robert Henry after an
>> uncle. I
>> don't know why the family didn't just call him by his middle name
>> or one fo
>> the many possible nicknames of either Robert or Henry, but they
>> didn't. To
>> family and friends Robert Henry was "Mike," he even shows up on
>> census
>> records as Mike some years, only to be recorded as Robert or
>> Robert Henry
>> the next time.
>>
>> Adam
Messages in this topic (83)
________________________________________________________________________
2.7. Re: Real names
Posted by: "Charles W Brickner" tepeyach...@embarqmail.com
Date: Fri Aug 31, 2012 10:01 am ((PDT))
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:conl...@listserv.brown.edu] On
Behalf Of Sam Stutter
>Names, in Celtic mythology certainly, and so presumably elsewhere, have
always been
>something dreadfully important: knowing someone's true name is a method of
control.
"...and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever
the man called each of them would be its name. The man gave names to all
the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none
proved to be the suitable partner for the man." Genesis 1:19b-20.
"The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the
living." Genesis 2:20.
>...Farside cartoon entitled "Names we give dogs and the names dogs give
themselves".
I have a fuzzy remembrance of reading the following dialog in a novel:
A: "What is your cat's name?"
B: "I call her XYZ. I don't know what her mother called her."
Charlie
Messages in this topic (83)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Rebellious Case Markings
Posted by: "Arthaey Angosii" arth...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:23 am ((PDT))
I have a rebellion of case markings on my hands here.
My new unnamed conlang has lots of case, both of the relational and
locational variety. At least, they STARTED OUT as case markings. But
they now have two odd behaviors that I'd like some comment on. I don't
know that I can still call them "case markers", given their
behavior...
First, the locational noun suffixes migrated over to additionally
being motion verb prefixes, which I quite like:
vorn khútha-syo
man  house-in
"the man is in the house"
(normal zero-copula sentence)
vorn khútha-syo sannsum-ok
man  house-in   stand-not
"the man does not stand in the house"
(normal verbal sentence, location marked on the noun)
vorn khútha-é  syo-ékh-ok
man  house-LOC into-go-not
"the man does not go into the house"
(normal verbal sentence, generic location on the noun, motion on the verb)
Second, the agglutinating verbal affixes have up and demanded that
they can stand alone, without any dummy verb to attach to! Unlike the
location/motion duality above, I don't know if I'll let this weirdness
stand:
vorn khútha-syo ok
man  house-in   not
"the man is not in the house"
(zero-copula negated sentence!)
vorn khútha-é  syo-k
man  house-LOC into-not
"the man is not (moving/going) into the house"
(zero-copula sentence for motion, verb only implied by motion prefix!)
Any ANADEW? If I re-analyze this as something other than noun cases &
verbal affixes, can I keep the behavior? Or is this just too unnatural
and I'd better insert a dummy verb in there?
--
AA
http://conlang.arthaey.com
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Rebellious Case Markings
Posted by: "Arthaey Angosii" arth...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:32 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Arthaey Angosii <arth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First, the locational noun suffixes migrated over to additionally
> being motion verb prefixes, which I quite like:
>
> vorn khútha-syo
> man house-in
> "the man is in the house"
> (normal zero-copula sentence)
>
> vorn khútha-syo sannsum-ok
> man house-in stand-not
> "the man does not stand in the house"
> (normal verbal sentence, location marked on the noun)
>
> vorn khútha-é syo-ékh-ok
> man house-LOC into-go-not
> "the man does not go into the house"
> (normal verbal sentence, generic location on the noun, motion on the verb)
I forgot to demonstrate that this pattern of "noun-LOCATION => noun
MOTION-verb" also holds for the more grammatical-relation case
markings too:
vorn khúthana  téll
vorn khútha-na téll
man  house-ACC see
"the man sees the house"
vorn téll
vorn na-téll
man  ANTIPASS-see
"the man sees (something)"
Dunno if this helps or complicates any sane analysis. ;)
--
AA
http://conlang.arthaey.com
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Rebellious Case Markings
Posted by: "David McCann" da...@polymathy.plus.com
Date: Fri Aug 31, 2012 9:19 am ((PDT))
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:21:41 -0700
Arthaey Angosii <arth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First, the locational noun suffixes migrated over to additionally
> being motion verb prefixes, which I quite like:
>
> vorn khútha-syo
> man house-in
> "the man is in the house"
> (normal zero-copula sentence)
>
> vorn khútha-é syo-ékh-ok
> man house-LOC into-go-not
> "the man does not go into the house"
> (normal verbal sentence, generic location on the noun, motion on
> the verb)
This is standard Indo-European, as in Latin
in domum "in the house"
inire "enter" = in+go
> Second, the agglutinating verbal affixes have up and demanded that
> they can stand alone, without any dummy verb to attach to! Unlike the
> location/motion duality above, I don't know if I'll let this weirdness
> stand:
>
> vorn khútha-é syo-k
> man house-LOC into-not
> "the man is not (moving/going) into the house"
> (zero-copula sentence for motion, verb only implied by motion
> prefix!)
syo here seems a perfectly proper adposition here. The only special
thing is suffixing the negative affix. But negative affixes do have a
habit of sticking to things: no < nought < ne + áwiht "no thing",
Latin negare "deny" from a negative adverb with a verbal suffix added.
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: monotransitive verb : antipassive voice :: ditransitive verb : ?
Posted by: "David McCann" da...@polymathy.plus.com
Date: Fri Aug 31, 2012 9:38 am ((PDT))
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:39:51 -0700
Arthaey Angosii <arth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So if antipassive voice is decreasing a monotransitive verb's valency
> by removing the object, what's the term for decreasing a ditransitive
> verb's valency by removing the indirect object? Or by removing both
> the direct *and* indirect objects?
>
A bit late, but
The rare applicative voice converts the indirect object into a
direct object and deletes the original one, as in the American "I wrote
my sister". Chamorro has a form for this.
The equally rare circumstantial voice converts the indirect object into
a subject and deletes or demotes the agent: 'I was given it". Malagasy
has a special form.
You can then combine these with the passive, as in the Kinyarwanda
ikíbáaho ki-ra-andik-w-á-ho imibáre
blackboard 3-PRES-write-PASS-PROG-LOC maths
the blackboard is having maths written on it
Yet another voice here: the locative!
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Melchizedekan Romance: Two Alternatives for Nasal Harmony
Posted by: "Adam Walker" carra...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Aug 31, 2012 9:58 am ((PDT))
I like option 2 or 3. Option 1 is cool, but not really supportable in your
context.
Adam
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Anthony Miles <mamercu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> In the properly thought-out version of the Melchizedekan branch of
> Romance, spoken along the Amazon in the FIU, there are two possibilities
> for nasal harmony:
> Option 1: The Guarani Option
> Guarani nasal harmony is fairly simple.
> Does the stressed syllable have a nasal vowel? If yes, does the stressed
> syllable start with a voiced consonant? If yes, the voiced consonant uses
> its nasal allomorph. The nasal harmony spreads both directions until it hit
> a voiceless consonant (and therefore one which lacks a nasal allomorph.
> Simple but pervasive.
> So this option is a simple flow chart. The Guarani, however, did not live
> at the head of the Amazon in OTL.
> Option 2: The Tupinamba Option (this may look familiar to the creator of
> Fairylang)
> 1. /m/ and /n/ are realized as nasal allophones /m_b/ and /n_d/ when it is
> followed by a stressed syllable without any other nasal.
> 2. in stressed word-initial position, /m/ and /n/ are realized as nasal
> allophones if and only if there is not any other nasal after them in the
> word.
> 3. /m/ and /n/ always nasalize the preceding vowel.
> 4. /i^/ and /nh/ are oral and nasal allophones of the same archiphoneme.
> 5. /u^/ is realized /gu^/ in word-initial postion: /'venit/ > /'guedy/
> So Option 2 is initially complex, but lacks the pervasive effect on the
> phonology that Option 1 produces. It does, however, have the advantage that
> the Tupi did live at the mouth of the Amazon in OTL.
> linguam Romanam >
> Option 1: nri~ngua~ robada(~)
> Option 2: nri~gua~ ro~mbanda~
> Option 3, of course, is to take the principle but tweak the rules. Advice
> from Ill Bethisad hands would be beneficial here IMO.
>
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6. What Color Is This?
Posted by: "Logan Kearsley" chronosur...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Aug 31, 2012 9:58 am ((PDT))
This is a nice visual representation (plus downloadable raw data) on
how a large sample of people speaking nine different languages divide
up color space:
http://blog.crowdflower.com/2012/08/what-color-is-this-in-9-languages/
-l.
Messages in this topic (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
conlang-nor...@yahoogroups.com
conlang-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
conlang-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
