Re: auxlang for "foreign telephone operators"
| From: | Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, April 6, 2001, 20:01 |
|---|
[monotype font essential to read this properly]
At 11:14 am -0700 6/4/01, jesse stephen bangs wrote:
>Pavel A. da Mek sikayal:
>
>> >This reminds me of something I read in a book on an auxlang:
>>
>> >> The units begin with G, decades with J, and higher orders with Z.
>> >> The ten vowels are (in order)
>> >> ay, ee, eye, aw, ow. ah, eh, ih, a (as in cat) and oh.
>> [snip]
>
>This language is unbelievably awful. What a terrible idea for an auxlang.
I agree; and I've seen some pretty terrible ideas for auxlang in my time -
but this has to be one of the worst.
>Doesn't this person know anything about redundancy?
Clearly not.
[snip]
>
>> Well, imagine following language:
>[snip]
>
>This one is even worse.
Indeed it is!
[snip]
>
>> But this is real-world auxlang used in many countries.
>> The "foreign telephone operators" will understand,
>> if you will carefully pronounce vowels with these formants:
>
>Unfortunately, I'm not in conscious control of my formants, and I'm not in
>the habit of recording my own speech for analysis.
Jesse's response is politer than my immediate response when I read those
words :)
Some 40 or more years ago I came across a number system devised by one G.
de Kolovrat. I regret I remember nothing more about who he was, when &
where he lived or why the system was invented. But I have kept notes on
the system. All the numbers from 0 to 99 are represented by a simple open
syllable of the type CV, thus:
ba = 00 da = 10 ga = 20 ja = 30
be = 01 de = 11 ge = 21 je = 31
bi = 02 di = 12 gi = 22 ji = 32
bo = 03 do = 13 go = 23 jo = 33
bu = 04 du = 14 gu = 24 ju = 34
ca = 05 fa = 15 ha = 25 ka = 35
ce = 06 fe = 16 he = 26 ke = 36
ci = 07 fi = 17 hi = 27 ki = 37
co = 08 fo = 18 ho = 28 ko = 38
cu = 09 fu = 19 hu = 29 ku = 39
la = 40 na = 50 ra = 60 ta = 70
le = 41 ne = 51 re = 61 te = 71
li = 42 ni = 52 ri = 62 ti = 72
lo = 43 no = 53 ro = 63 to = 73
lu = 44 nu = 54 ru = 64 tu = 74
ma = 45 pa = 55 sa = 65 va = 75
me = 46 pe = 56 se = 66 ve = 76
mi = 47 pi = 57 si = 67 vi = 77
mo = 48 po = 58 so = 68 vo = 78
mu = 49 pu = 59 su = 69 vu = 79
wa = 80 ya = 90
we = 81 ye = 91
wi = 82 yi = 92
wo = 83 yo = 93
wu = 84 yu = 94
xa = 85 za = 95
xe = 86 ze = 96
xi = 87 zi = 97
xo = 88 zo = 98
xu = 89 zu = 99
Altho it's fairly clear how most syllables would be pronounced, I have no
info about {c}, {j} or {x}.
To express longer numbers, break the numeral up into groups of two digits,
prefixing a zero if necessary; e.g.
164 750 --> 16-47-50 = femina
50 462 --> 05-04-62 = caburi
Splitting numbers up into two-digit groups reminds me of the French
telephone system. I wonder if de Kolovrat was thinking of that.
Leibniz, apparently, also had a scheme for writing numerals as CV
syllables. In his schem the consonants represent the digits:
b = 1 h = 6
c = 2 l = 7
d = 3 m = 8
f = 4 n = 9
g = 5
Adding a vowel multiplies the digit thus:
a = * 1
e = * 10
i = * 100
o = * 1000
u = * 10000
Thus, e.g. 81 374 = mubodilefu
However, unlike de Kolovrat's system, Leibniz's system has the doubtful
advantage that the syllables may be written (and, presumably, pronounced)
in any order without change of meaning! So 81374 could be written
_bodifalemu_, _lemudibofa_ etc, etc.
Umm - doesn't seem a good idea to me - and, suprisingly, his system has no
representation for zero (which de Kolovrat's system does).
Ray.
=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
[J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================
Replies