CONLANG Digest - 5 Jun 2000 to 6 Jun 2000 (#2000-155)
|From:||Muke Tever <alrivera@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, June 7, 2000, 6:30|
> From: James Campbell <james@...>
> Subject: Re: Arthropoda
> > The usual word for 'insect', _nasekomoye_, formerly a scientific term
> > calquing L. _insectum_ and Gr. _entomon_, can be applied colloquially
> > to any non-aquatic arthropod (a spider, a millipede, etc.), which is
> > considered incorrect... by too few people who care at all ;)
> Ah, usage just like English 'insect' then. I'm interested to know how
> _insectum_ and _entomon_ could get combined into _nasekomoye_ though. Ican
> see them both in there, but what's the mechanism by which that word was
I'm tempted to read that as "inséctomon" (gotta squash 'em all!)... um.
> From: Christophe Grandsire <Christophe.Grandsire@...>
> Subject: Re: A'stou part III: the Personal System and the Verb (LONG)
> >> - "vos": this person refers to a group to which the listener belongs,but
> >> to which the speaker wants to be excluded from. It never refers to agroup
> >> of listeners (the "non-ego" is used instead) but to the general groupthey
> >> belong to.
> >The gloss "them" seems impossible for this one too.
> To understand the "vos", you must take it as a "them" "tainted" with "you"
> (something that is impossible in English, I know).
Is it like where an English speaker _wouldn't_ use the phrase "present
MAN (to wealthy colleagues): All rich people are lunatics.
> From: Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...>
> Subject: Syllabic resonants,
> was Re: Gweinic Description: Phonology and Roots (Corrections)
> >On a similar note, I once designed an alien language (Klln [kl<syl>:n] or
> >some such name) that used syllabics much as other vowels, including
> >[a]+[l<syl>] as a diphthong <...>
> A natlang parallel is provided by Lithuanian. It has no syllabic
> resonants, but combinations 'short vowel + [r], [l], [n] or [m]'
> function like diphthongs (and are termed 'diphthongic combinations'):
> they can carry two different accents, like ordinary diphthongs and
> long vowels, and unlike combinations with obstruents.
Hmm, maybe daimyo language is something like that--[r] and [l] are written
(and perceived, I'd guess, because of the phonotactics) as a diacritic to
the vowels, just like i/y/hightone/lowtone/long are.
> From: John Mietus <sirchuck@...>
> Subject: Brainstorming a Fantasy Language
> Since I want something of a pseudo-Celtic/Druidic feel, I've alreadydecided
> on magic being a balance of forces, especially the four classical Elements
> (Earth, Fire, Air, Water), with Spirit thrown in as well. And it occurredto
> me that these five Forces of Magic could also be the five Genders used in
> the Faerie language. And perhaps they're also used in verb conjugation.
> So my definitions for each Gender are:
> Earth = Static, or Stable. Nouns. Things in the physical world. Passive,
> rather than active.
> Air = Active, Chaos, Verbs. Things in motion. Use these two to define
> Verb/Noun deviations and physical world.
> Fire = Destruction/reduction. Violent emotion. Use to describe decreasing
> quantity, negative comparison/connotations, etc.
> Water = Creative. Positive comparisons, pleasant connotations. Use thesetwo
> for adjectivial deviations and emotions.
> Spirit = Abstract/Mental/Conceptual.
Hmm, daimyo language has something like this, but not part of the gender
system [it's more like in the phonosemantics]. Earth is /d/, air is /g/,
fire is /b/, water is /d`/, and what you call 'spirit' (/m/) _is_ a gender
(with the added sense of 'personal' and 'family').
[The other actual genders are /n/ for inanimate/sensible, /n`/ for female,
/N/ for male...]
> From: Robert Hailman <robert@...>
> Subject: Re: "organic/non-organicintelligencegender"<wasRe:Ladanandwoman's
> > But rare is not the same as impossible! There's no reason to make your
> > language be average. Developing on its own is far more plausible, I
> > think, than being borrowed from an artificial language. Besides, I have
> > a hard time imagining the designers of an auxlang deliberately putting
> > in gender.
> I don't think it would be likely for them to put in the male/female
> systems that we have in the European languages, but a system whereby
> everything is modified due to the whether it is technology related or
> not isn't like the male/female system, in that the gender that words
> should be put in is very clear from the topic itself. It's easier to
> decide if a computer, for example, uses or technology or not, then
> whether it's male or female.
Well, not necessarily. If you have a _very_ technologically advanced
society [advanced enough that a techno-gender had time to form] ;) then it
might not be so clear-cut.
One might contrast _dmaba_ 'man' with _dmab._ 'android/cyborg' for example.
"Nr eckco imab. a ne" ,rgne x. go.ugn yr dak. i.be.p cbw cu rbnf yr
.ncmcbay. yd. b..e urp yd. lprxcmayck.zrxkcayck. lprbrgbovvv
> Of course, for them to intentionally put it in, there would have to be
> some confusion about it in the already existing language, which could be
> a problem. Maybe certain words about the natural world were reused with
> a different meaning in the electronic world.
Hehe, maybe like _dprooa_ 'horse', and _dproo._ 'iron horse, railroad'...