Re: YAC: Widse -- a conlang based on Ygyde

John Cowan wrote:

>Tristan scripsit:
>
>
>>I'd be happy enough for it to be BSD-style. I've seen some sort of study
>>that suggested the BSD licence was more likely to create forks than the
>>GPL (for whatever reason).
>>
>>
>Trivially so.  If you fork a BSD-licensed project, you can make all sorts of
>improvements, distribute binary-only versions, and keep the other fork from
>getting any of those improvements.  The GPL requires you to distribute source
>in such a case, and so the other fork can add your improvements at will.
>
Yes, but that doesn't explain why you have FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD
(which are all open) compared with just Linux... It'd be perfectly
logical if it were just BSDI and 386BSD, but it's not.
And I have 26 folders in /usr/portage/sys-kernel/, of which I think
about 20 are non-not-x86 platform variations of the Linux kernel.

A fork can only add anothers' improvements if it wants to. Linus doesn't
want all of Gentoo's improvements when Gentoo make them, so there's
going to be at least two forks.

>>I knew I had it right the first time.. I kept switching between
>>'wanders' and 'wonders'. Why is it so confusing? /wand@/ is spelt
>><wonder> and /wOnder/ <wander>. Grr, I hate that pair of words in
>>combination with my knowledge of the IPA.
>>
>>
>/wOnd@/ presumably.
>
Yeah. Thanks.

>That's what you get for speaking a Deviant Dialect, my fren.
>
You yourself aren't innocent from deviations... unrounding rounded
vowels indeed... And its not the fault of the dialect I speak. If the
people who created the IPA had chosen to use <g> for a low, front
unrounded vowel, this problem would never have existed! (Although
'wonder' might be confusing, the presence of 'wander' would fix it up
and correct everything.)

>I make "wonder" [wVndr\=] and "wander" [wAndr\=], very sensibly.
>Of course that means I have to employ low back vowels, which Ozites seem
>to consider ugly.
>
At least we know how to round our /O/s (even if that's what caused half
the problem in the first place...).

>>I'm debating bringing in some Hanzi to spice things up a bit, but they
>>don't mix terribly well with the Roman alphabet; and anyway, I'd have to
>>work out whether it'd make more sense to use Kanji, Simplified or
>>Traditional characters, and I dunno if you can mix them in Unicode,
>>
>>
>Simplified and traditional characters are not unified in Unicode.
>
Thanks, I thought you'd probably know.

>Kanji and hanzi (and Korean hanja) are unified if they look the same and
>have the same historical origin, *and* they are not distinguished in the
>national standard of a single language (for the sake of round-tripping).
>
>
What do you mean by the last one? If you have two characters that look
the same and have the same historical origin, but (say) Japan says that
there's two versions: one Chinese and the other Japanese? How can you
distinguish between two identical charcters?

Tristan.

http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Movies
- What's on at your local cinema?

Reply