There are 13 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Hangul From: Chris Peters 1b. Re: Hangul From: Padraic Brown 1c. Re: Hangul From: Padraic Brown 1d. Re: Hangul From: J. 'Mach' Wust 1e. Re: Hangul From: Jörg Rhiemeier 1f. Re: Hangul From: Daniel Bowman 1g. Re: Hangul From: J. 'Mach' Wust 1h. Re: Hangul From: R A Brown 2.1. Re: Melin's Swedish Shorthand -- for English! (was: Re: Gateway to c From: J. 'Mach' Wust 3.1. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour From: J. 'Mach' Wust 3.2. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour From: R A Brown 3.3. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour From: J. 'Mach' Wust 3.4. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour From: R A Brown Messages ________________________________________________________________________ 1a. Re: Hangul Posted by: "Chris Peters" beta_leo...@hotmail.com Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:53 am ((PDT)) > From: elemti...@yahoo.com > Subject: Re: Hangul > To: conl...@listserv.brown.edu > > It's not often one can pinpoint the date of promulgation of a whole system > of writing (let alone the author of that system). > Sorry I sent this reply directly to Padraic before when I meant to send it to the list. I'm only aware of two such examples in the Natlang world: Hangul and Cherokee. Are there any others? :Chris Messages in this topic (14) ________________________________________________________________________ 1b. Re: Hangul Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:51 am ((PDT)) Cree syllabics (invented in the 1840s) and its daughter, Inuktitut syllabics are the other two I know. Deseret alphabet is another, also from the mid 1800s. Various shorthand systems, I say, would also count. The abakada of the Philippines was organised / invented int he 1940s (to replace the previous Spanish alphabet and orthography). It uses Latin letters, though. Braille also comes to mind. Padraic >________________________________ > From: Chris Peters <beta_leo...@hotmail.com> >To: Padraic Brown <elemti...@yahoo.com> >Sent: Thursday, 10 October 2013, 11:50 >Subject: RE: Hangul > > > > > > > >> From: elemti...@yahoo.com >> Subject: Re: Hangul >> >> It's not often one can pinpoint the date of promulgation of a whole system >> of writing (let alone the author of that system). >> > > >I'm only aware of two examples of this: Hangul and Cherokee. Are there any >others in the Natlang world? > > > Messages in this topic (14) ________________________________________________________________________ 1c. Re: Hangul Posted by: "Padraic Brown" elemti...@yahoo.com Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:55 am ((PDT)) >> Are there any conlangs out there where you know, within their concultural >> context, of an exact date of promulgation like this? I can't think of any >> of mine with such exact dates. In a couple cases, the inventor is known, >> and perhaps a general date range, but nothing more specific. > >My Elves (the speakers of Old Albic) ascribe their writing system >to a cultural heroine. It is uncertain to which extent this is >true, but it is considered quite likely by modern scholars that >the script is indeed one invented by a single person, since it is >featural; also the date of promulgation is not known. One Daine writing system I know of has a similar culture heroine story behind it. Of course, there is similarly no exact date (or even a close but approximate date) of its creation or introduction to an anxiously waiting world. In the World, most writing systems go back so far in history that even the mythology that surrounds their invention came along many millenia afterwards. Some by now are surely on the third of fourth iteration of their origin myth. Padraic Messages in this topic (14) ________________________________________________________________________ 1d. Re: Hangul Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@shared-files.de Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:21 pm ((PDT)) On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:28:41 +0200, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote: >Hallo conlangers! > >On Thursday 10 October 2013 01:24:56 Padraic Brown wrote: > >> Pffff. Flash in the pan. People will get over this minor fad soon enough >> and go back to the hanja! ;)) >> >> It's not often one can pinpoint the date of promulgation of a whole system >> of writing (let alone the author of that system). >> >> Are there any conlangs out there where you know, within their concultural >> context, of an exact date of promulgation like this? I can't think of any >> of mine with such exact dates. In a couple cases, the inventor is known, >> and perhaps a general date range, but nothing more specific. > >My Elves (the speakers of Old Albic) ascribe their writing system >to a cultural heroine. It is uncertain to which extent this is >true, but it is considered quite likely by modern scholars that >the script is indeed one invented by a single person, since it is >featural; also the date of promulgation is not known. Similar with Tolkien's elves whose writing systems were invented by Rúmil and Daeron, with much refinement by Feanor. I believe there is a connection between Tolkien's Elves' invention of an alphabetic script from scratch -- without previous ideographic elements -- and their immortality. Among us mortal folk, writing was invented as a practical tool for knowledge preservation. Among immortal Elves, knowledge preservation did not require writing. I believe they had a very different reason for inventing writing: as a playful tool for phonetic analysis. -- grüess mach Messages in this topic (14) ________________________________________________________________________ 1e. Re: Hangul Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" joerg_rhieme...@web.de Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:55 pm ((PDT)) Hallo conlangers! On Friday 11 October 2013 00:20:48 J. 'Mach' Wust wrote: > On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:28:41 +0200, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote: > >Hallo conlangers! > >[...] > >My Elves (the speakers of Old Albic) ascribe their writing system > >to a cultural heroine. It is uncertain to which extent this is > >true, but it is considered quite likely by modern scholars that > >the script is indeed one invented by a single person, since it is > >featural; also the date of promulgation is not known. > > Similar with Tolkien's elves whose writing systems were invented by > Rúmil and Daeron, with much refinement by Feanor. Yes. The Old Albic alphabet is of course not a derivative of any of Tolkien's script; it is, like Tengwar, a featural alphabet, but otherwise, it is not very similar. Indeed, it appears to be a derivative of the Phoenician abjad: the letters <p>, <t> and <c>, from which all other consonant letters are derived, closely resemble Phoenician peh, taw and kaph turned counterclockwise 90 degrees, and the vowel letters are essentially `ayin with various diacritics. Indeed, there is solid evidence that the Phoenician script was sometimes used among the Elves before the invention of the Old Albic alphabet: a fragment of an inscription in Early Old Albic using Phoenician letters has been found at Guildford, Surrey. How the script ended up being written from bottom to top remains unknown ;) (Extrafictionally, it is a combination of "Why not try that out?" and the fact that I find that direction strangely natural.) > I believe there is a connection between Tolkien's Elves' invention of > an alphabetic script from scratch -- without previous ideographic > elements -- and their immortality. Among us mortal folk, writing was > invented as a practical tool for knowledge preservation. Among > immortal Elves, knowledge preservation did not require writing. I > believe they had a very different reason for inventing writing: as a > playful tool for phonetic analysis. Maybe. Questions regarding the psychology of immortal beings have repeatedly been discussed here, usually with reference to Tolkien's Elves. They may indeed get far without writing, depending on how good their memories are (one could argue that a very long-lived being would eventually "run out of storage" and face the decision between forgetting and going mad). My Elves, however, aren't immortal; they have normal human lifespans. Yet, there are some aspects to their culture that do resemble that of Tolkien's Elves, such as a high importance of beauty and sustainability. The Elves believe that they (in fact, all humans) were created to guard and enrich the world by creating and preserving beautiful things. -- ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html "Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1 Messages in this topic (14) ________________________________________________________________________ 1f. Re: Hangul Posted by: "Daniel Bowman" danny.c.bow...@gmail.com Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:27 pm ((PDT)) > > I believe there is a connection between Tolkien's Elves' invention of > an alphabetic script from scratch -- without previous ideographic > elements -- and their immortality. Among us mortal folk, writing was > invented as a practical tool for knowledge preservation. Among > immortal Elves, knowledge preservation did not require writing. I > believe they had a very different reason for inventing writing: as a > playful tool for phonetic analysis. > I am not a Tolkien scholar but this seems a bit surprising. Did the Elves have exceptionally good memories? Otherwise, I would think writing would serve a practical purpose regardless of one's mortality or lack thereof. > > -- > grüess > mach > Messages in this topic (14) ________________________________________________________________________ 1g. Re: Hangul Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@shared-files.de Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:14 pm ((PDT)) On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 20:27:17 -0400, Daniel Bowman wrote: >> >> I believe there is a connection between Tolkien's Elves' invention of >> an alphabetic script from scratch -- without previous ideographic >> elements -- and their immortality. Among us mortal folk, writing was >> invented as a practical tool for knowledge preservation. Among >> immortal Elves, knowledge preservation did not require writing. I >> believe they had a very different reason for inventing writing: as a >> playful tool for phonetic analysis. >> > >I am not a Tolkien scholar but this seems a bit surprising. Did the Elves >have exceptionally good memories? Otherwise, I would think writing would >serve a practical purpose regardless of one's mortality or lack thereof. I think that writing will serve all kinds of practical purposes after it has been invented. But before, most of these purposes cannot be a motivation to invent writing. I dislike the metaphor that our memory is like a computer hard drive that can run out of space. I think it cannot. There may be other explanations why Tolkien's Elves invented writing in a different way than humans did, namely, without any involvement of ideography. The idea that they had a whole different motivation for this invention seems plausible to me. What are human motivations for inventing writing? I have mentioned knowledge preservation. I do not think Tolkien's immortal Elves would have had that motivation. Another human motivation may have been metaphysical communication: talking to the gods. Tolkien's Elves would certainly not have had that motivation. Another human motivation I have come across with regard to Sumerian is mere book-keeping. That sounds not like a plausible motivation for Tolkien's Elves to me. And none of these human motivations could account for the lack of an involvement of ideography. Playful phonetic analysis seems like a plausible motivation. Indeed, Tolkien has mentioned that the inventors of the scripts had distinct views on the analysis of the syllable that became manifest in the scripts. -- grüess mach Messages in this topic (14) ________________________________________________________________________ 1h. Re: Hangul Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com Date: Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:33 am ((PDT)) On 10/10/2013 19:51, Padraic Brown wrote: > Cree syllabics (invented in the 1840s) Yep - the invention of a missionary called James Evans. > and its daughter, Inuktitut syllabics are the other two > I know. > > Deseret alphabet is another, Tho IMO opinion this is not in the same category as the other examples. Altho the Deseret alphabet was intended to replace the Roman alphabet for writing English, it did not catch on, any more than the later Shavian alphabet caught on (I notice that the "Deseret News" is publish in Roman script in standard American spelling). If we count this, then we must count Shavian and all the many other writing systems proposed for English, including some made up by me in my teens and, I have not the slightest doubt, many devised by other members of this list :) > also from the mid 1800s. Various shorthand systems, Why from the mid 1990s? Shorthand systems were known way back in ancient Greek times at least; and Cicero's freedman, Tiro, would be somewhat aggrieved to be passed over. But again IMO these are of a different nature. None have, nor were they ever intended, to be used as general writing systems for a community. They existed and still exist as supplementary to other systems for the express purpose of writing a language at (nearly) the same speed as speaking. >> ________________________________ From: Chris Peters [snip] >>> >>> It's not often one can pinpoint the date of >>> promulgation of a whole system of writing (let alone >>> the author of that system). >>> >> >> I'm only aware of two examples of this: Hangul and >> Cherokee. Are there any others in the Natlang world? Other examples of scripts which, like Hangul, were promulgated to replace a previous system of writing that come to my mind are: After the restoration of democracy in Athens, during the archonship of Eucleides (403-402) the Athenians voted to replace the old Attic alphabet with the alphabet of the Ionians of Asia minor; this has survived till the present day in the upper case Greek letters. The adoption of an adapted form of the Roman alphabet to replace Arabic for the writing of Turkish was promulgated on Jan. 1st 1929. Tho I concede that these examples are not exactly the same in that Hangul was a new script, hitherto unused; whereas the examples above are of adaptations of existing scripts to replace another script. Among others who devised a new script for peoples who had hitherto not had a (regular) written system - just like Sequoyah who gave the Cherokee an script (officially adopted in 1825 and James Evans who did the same for the Ojibwe and the Cree - are: St Cyril & St Methodius who devised the Glagolitic script for writing the old Slav language (the script now known as Cyrillic appears to have been developed from the contemporary Greek script at a later date and has now replaced Glagolitic). Bishop Ulfilas who devised the Gothic alphabet for old Gothic language. St Mesrop Mashtots and Isaac of Armenia devised the Armenian script (St Mesrop is also sometimes accredited with the invention of the Georgian script, but this not certain). I suspect there are other examples. -- Ray ================================== http://www.carolandray.plus.com ================================== If /ni/ can change into /ɑ/, then practically anything can change into anything. [YUEN REN CHAO] Messages in this topic (14) ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 2.1. Re: Melin's Swedish Shorthand -- for English! (was: Re: Gateway to c Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@shared-files.de Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:26 pm ((PDT)) On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:40:13 +0200, BPJ wrote: >2013-10-01 18:45, J. 'Mach' Wust skrev: ... >> Melin's Swedish Shorthand seems an unusual member of the Gabelsberger >> shorthand systems family in having almost no contrast in stroke >> thickness at all. > >Notionally thickness/pressure is used to indicate double/long >consonants -- thats why W, whick is called "dubbel-v" in Swedish >and before the modern advent of numerous English loans was only >an allograph mainly used in proper names, is a thick V -- but >that distinction is in practice mostly omitted as its low >functional load is mostly compensated for by context. Right, I could have seen Melin's use of thickness in the Wikipedia sample image. The Stolze-Schrey system also marks double consonants, but by using a third height (quadruple-height, by your counting) of consonant signs. The Deutsche Einheitskurzschrift simply omits consonant doubling. While this is kind of adequate to standard German phonology, it means not marking (leaving up to context) the distinction between "checked" and "free" vowels. ... >Thus St. Swedish _mossa_ /ˈmos:a/ 'moss' is /ˈmɞːsɑ/ >to me in dialectal mode (I code-switch a lot!) and _fågel_ >/ˈfoːgel/ 'bird' is /ˈfɞːgɛl/ to me -- and to some west Swedes >it's even /ˈfɵgːɛl/ --, sometimes written _môsa, fôgel/fûggel_ >when writing dialect. The shift of length from the vowel to the consonant between /ˈfɞːgɛl/ and /ˈfɵgːɛl/ is a very interesting phenomenon. Is this regular with all long vowels? >It was certainly no coincidence that the >westerner Melin included an enlarged Ö, officially for the prefix >"över-" 'over-', in his system! > >I'll see if I get the time and the tech to do a writeup of my >adaptation to English. I haven't given up the hope! For a short >summary in longhand (as you can see it is geared towards making >etymologically related words -- both between Swedish/English/Latin >and within English -- look similar as well as phonemic accuracy, >please refer to <http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Werling_Melin>!): > >Swedish English Phoneme(s) >------------------ -------- -------------------- >V W /w/ >B V /v/ >Br B /b/ >Fr Wh /ʍ/ >J Y /j/ >Sj J /dʒ/ >Tj Ch /tʃ/ >Z Zh[^Zh] /ʒ/, /ʒə/ >X Sh /ʃ/ >XX (enlarged X) Shr/Nsh /nʃ/, /ʃr/ >Ns Z /z/ >Ande Nz[^Nz] /nz/ >Ende Ns /ns/ >De (T-height B) Th /θ/, /ð/ >Nde (T-height X) Thr/Nth /nθ/, /θr/, /ðr/ >Hr (H-height Tv) Thw /θw/ >A A /æ/, /ɑ/ >Ö Ae /eɪ/ >E E /ɛ/ >Ä Ee /i/ >I I /ɪ/ >Isk (enlarged I) Ie /aɪ/ >O O /ɒ/, /ɔ/, /ɑ/[^O] >Å Oe /oʊ/ >U U /ʌ/ >Y Oo /u/, /ʊ/ >Över (enlarged Ö) Ow /aʊ/ >JY YOo /ju/ >OJ OY[^Oy] /ɔɪ/ >A, E, O, U, R /ə/[^Schwa] ... That is a very elaborate system. You have given the adaptation of shorthand to English much more thought than I have, seldom using an adaptation to English. In fact, I do not write in stenography on a regular basis. An adaptation of English I have used employs largely the same signs for analogous sounds (German/English: w/w, j/y, sch/sh, st/st, schm/sm, schw/sw, tsch/ch, schn/sn). Other are used in a looser analogy (German/English: z/th, kn/sk [both have a velar component], pf/v, zw/tw [etymologically correct, by coincidence]). The sign for German x (or gs) is used for English j, without any reasonable analogy. German x is a surplus letter that is not really required but is already arbitrarily chosen. My vowels signs are quite deficient, since initially and medially, I distinguish only four vowels: Front high, front low, back high, and back low. In hiat or final position, the letters for y w h are used as matres lectionis so distinctiveness in these positions is better. Occasionally, I use a system of diacritics that allow for a phonemic transcription. A description of my English usage is still online: http://tengwar.lima-city.de/calligraphizable_stenography/description/ --------- On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:07:47 +0200, BPJ wrote: >2013-10-03 23:34, J. 'Mach' Wust skrev: >> On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:40:13 +0200, BPJ wrote: >> >>> 2013-10-01 18:45, J. 'Mach' Wust skrev: >> >>>> The vowels' representation is different from the >>>> Faulmann system that is used in the more modern German systems (like >>>> Stolze-Schrey or deutsche Einheitskurzschrift) which operate with the >>>> script's baseline (which can be kept, raised or lowered). It yields a >>>> very similar overall aspect, though. I wonder whether Melin came up >>>> with his system independently form the Faulman system. >>> >>> He got the idea from Arends' system, but the implementation is his >>> own. >>> I've looked in vain for an illustration of Arends' system, including >>> looking through my several binders and folders of photocopies, >>> knowing that >>> I used to have something, but the general principle is well >>> _described_ >>> at <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Arends> >> >> Thanks for the hint. Indeed, the similarity is obvious. Here is a >> picture: >> >> http://fotogalerie.herr-der-ringe-film.de/data/7977/arends.png >> >> There is one big difference, though: In Arends' system, the lower end >> of the consonant signs is not significative for the consonants >> themselves, but is a part of the following vowel. >> > >I know. In fact I used to experiment with both schemes when >dabbling as a shorthand constructor and I must say that I prefer >Melin's solution. I think Melin's solutin is closer to the Faulmann system as in Stolze-Schrey or in the Deutsche Einheitskurzschrift, with two different lengths (sometimes three, but very close connection is only used for indicating vowelless yuxtaposition and is always same-height) and three different heights. However, the shape of the connecting upstroke may vary since the height distinction is not a feature of the connecting upstroke itself (as in Melin's system), but of the difference in height between the preceding and the following consonant's groundline. A third feature that contributes to vowel distinctions is the thickness of the following consonant, so there are 2 × 3 × 2 = 12 different vowel signs. Melin's way of using the connecting upstroke as real vowel letters may well be more natural and practical than Faulmann's system. I will not learn it, though, until after I have learnt Gregg's shorthand. This system has always intrigued me as the most elegant of Western shorthand systems. ... >It all showed me that Melin's choices were quite good: > >* Consonants with similar PoA and MoA have similar signs: > - Most sonorants -- the most frequent -- are dots or rings, > - The most frequent suffix consonants are rings/dots or low > ('half-grade' T and De) stems, and //g// in _-ig_ is > usually silent, and thus not written, > - All labials have a rightward bend or a rightward > bowl, or both! With the exception of b? > - All dentals which are not rings/dots have a leftward bowl > or a leftward loop for the clusters, The regular formation of the consonant+T clusters is a nice solution. The German systems use a triple-height upwards stroke -- and drop the +T in "Eilschrift". > - All velars have a rightward loop, and the single glottal > H, has a leftward loop, > - The two palatals have a leftward bowl *and* a leftward > loop, indicating their position between the dentals > and velars, > - All the triple-height consonants are clusters -- Ng, Sj, > Tj did at least develop from clusters, and are digraphs > in longhand! > - All S+Consonant(onsonant) clusters are triple-height > versions of the corresponding C, That is indeed very elegant. -- grüess mach Messages in this topic (30) ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 3.1. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@shared-files.de Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:55 pm ((PDT)) On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 09:06:52 +0100, R A Brown wrote: ... >On 03/10/2013 22:34, J. 'Mach' Wust wrote: >[snip] >> >> On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 17:36:33 +0100, R A Brown wrote: >> >>> I think most of us here will agree that the *primary* >>> form of any natlang is the spoken form. The written >>> form is secondary and derived from the spoken; indeed, >>> the same language can have more than one written form. >> >> I disagree. Affirming the primate of either the written >> or the spoken forms seem like extremist positions to me. > >Oh? Then what about those poor souls who were speaking to >one another for millennia before writing was developed? It >seems self-evident to me that speech came first - that's >what _primary_ means! > >I find it a little offensive to be called an extremist >simply because I hold that for millennia people had language >and spoke it, and that writing developed later. I am sorry if I have been offensive. That was not my intention. I am used to thinking that there is a continuum between the affirmations "spoken language is first" and "written language is first". That is why I have used the word extremist: for referring to the extremes of this continuum. I agree that spoken language is first most of the times, but not always. As you have implied, most conlangs are an exception. And in languages with a fixed orthography, the written form is first in a certain sense, because it influences the spoken form. >> The primate of the written form used to be affirmed for >> most of the 19th century; > >I assume you mean *primacy* - that may have been the case >among many pedagogues, but even in the 19th century there >were linguists who realized that spoken language came first >and that written form developed afterwards, i.e. spoken is >primary and the written is secondary. > >In any case, I am not talking about _primacy_, I said >_primary_. The two words are not synonymous. They are easily confounded, and I imagine that even for native English speakers, a use of the word "primary" calls the conceptual metaphor 'first is better'. -- grüess mach Messages in this topic (30) ________________________________________________________________________ 3.2. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:48 pm ((PDT)) On 10/10/2013 22:55, J. 'Mach' Wust wrote: > On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 09:06:52 +0100, R A Brown wrote: [snip] >> >> In any case, I am not talking about _primacy_, I said >> _primary_. The two words are not synonymous. > > They are easily confounded, and I imagine that even for > native English speakers, a use of the word "primary" > calls the conceptual metaphor 'first is better'. > We attend primary school from the age of five, and then move onto secondary school at about eleven years old. If we stay on in education after this, we go onto tertiary education. There is IME no conceptual metaphor that primary education is better than secondary or tertiary - not, for that matter, that tertiary education is worse than primary or secondary. The US primary elections are not AFAIK considered to be conceptually better than the elections which follow them. The Palaeozoic Era was once termed Primary not because it was considered better than any subsequent geological era. Et cetera. I learnt how to speak English sometime before I learnt how to write it. For natlangs the primary form is the spoken one. -- Ray ================================== http://www.carolandray.plus.com ================================== If /ni/ can change into /ɑ/, then practically anything can change into anything. [YUEN REN CHAO] Messages in this topic (30) ________________________________________________________________________ 3.3. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour Posted by: "J. 'Mach' Wust" j_mach_w...@shared-files.de Date: Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:34 am ((PDT)) On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 07:48:26 +0100, R A Brown wrote: >On 10/10/2013 22:55, J. 'Mach' Wust wrote: >> On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 09:06:52 +0100, R A Brown wrote: >[snip] >>> >>> In any case, I am not talking about _primacy_, I said >>> _primary_. The two words are not synonymous. >> >> They are easily confounded, and I imagine that even for >> native English speakers, a use of the word "primary" >> calls the conceptual metaphor 'first is better'. >> > >We attend primary school from the age of five, and then move >onto secondary school at about eleven years old. If we stay >on in education after this, we go onto tertiary education. > There is IME no conceptual metaphor that primary education >is better than secondary or tertiary Why should there be? The conceptual metaphor, in the Lakoffian sense, is not about primary education, but simply about 'first is better'. It is a widely used conceptual metaphor as in "first-class", "first place", "prince", "first-hand", "first-order", "first-world", "you're my number one", "second-rate", "priority" etc. etc., all of which were coined on the grounds of that conceptual metaphor. ObConlang: In the coining of conlangs, the assumption or rejection of specific conceptual metaphors may be interesting. >I learnt how to speak English sometime before I learnt how >to write it. For natlangs the primary form is the spoken one. In your case, spoken English may have been first in the sense that you have learnt it first. But is it first now? I do not doubt that your English has been influenced by written English. And in my case, I learnt written English first. -- grüess mach Messages in this topic (30) ________________________________________________________________________ 3.4. Re: Spoken French Orthography (was Re: "Re: Colloquial French resour Posted by: "R A Brown" r...@carolandray.plus.com Date: Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:05 am ((PDT)) On 11/10/2013 10:34, J. 'Mach' Wust wrote: > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 07:48:26 +0100, R A Brown wrote: [snip] >>> They are easily confounded, and I imagine that even >>> for native English speakers, a use of the word >>> "primary" calls the conceptual metaphor 'first is >>> better'. >>> >> >> We attend primary school from the age of five, and >> then move onto secondary school at about eleven years >> old. If we stay on in education after this, we go onto >> tertiary education. There is IME no conceptual >> metaphor that primary education is better than >> secondary or tertiary > > Why should there be? There should not be. It was you who wrote "I imagine that even for native English speakers, a use of the word "primary" calls the conceptual metaphor 'first is better"; I was merely pointing out with this and two other examples that it was not so. > The conceptual metaphor, in the Lakoffian sense, is not > about primary education, but simply about 'first is > better'. ... which you maintained that primary also implied. I say it does not. > It is a widely used conceptual metaphor as in > "first-class", We don't say "primary class' with this meaning! > "first place", "prince", "first-hand", "first-order", > "first-world", "you're my number one", "second-rate", > "priority" etc. etc., all of which were coined on the > grounds of that conceptual metaphor. Yes, no one disputes that. But I note that in your list of examples the words _primary_ and _secondary_ do not figure. [snip] > >> I learnt how to speak English sometime before I learnt >> how to write it. For natlangs the primary form is the >> spoken one. > > In your case, spoken English may have been first in the > sense that you have learnt it first. But is it first > now? It clearly depends on what you mean by first. It still remains that for natlangs the spoken form is primary. Written representations depend upon the spoken one. I can write English in various secondary forms: Roman script, Gregg Shorthand, Pittman Shorthand, Shavian alphabet, Tengwar, Runes etc. Primary and secondary do not imply better or worse; it is not IMHO the job of a linguist to make value judgments on the "goodness" or otherwise of spoken or written language. We record language as it is; we may note that certain forms of a language are used in different situations or by different strata of society or by people in different regions etc. We may note that some people consider one register of English (Spanish, German etc) is "better" than another. It is not the linguist's job to pronounce whether, for example, southern British "Received Pronunciation" is "better" than Standard American or, for that matter, Standard Australian or any other variety. > I do not doubt that your English has been influenced by > written English. And in my case, I learnt written > English first. Both truisms - but, with respect, it has no bearing on the fact that English was put into a written form as a consequence of its being spoken. The written form is secondary. -- Ray ================================== http://www.carolandray.plus.com ================================== If /ni/ can change into /ɑ/, then practically anything can change into anything. [YUEN REN CHAO] Messages in this topic (30) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------