Conlang: Re: auxlang for "foreign telephone operators" (Frank George Valoczy, Apr 6 '01, 20:15)

> [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] > ========================================= >

From:	Frank George Valoczy <valoczy@...>
Date:	Friday, April 6, 2001, 20:15