archives of the CONLANG mailing list ------------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 13:03 EDT From: Ronald Hale-Evans Subject: Protong and Islandian To: conlang@buphy.bu.edu X-Vms-To: CONLANG X-Vms-Cc: EVANS Well, this list has been sort of dead lately, so here's some material I hope may revive some interest. I've recently come across a couple of interesting conlangs that I thought y'all might like to hear about. First is Protong. Protong was created by Stanislav Szukalski, an artist and Polish emigrant to the U.S., although he himself did not claim he invented it. He claimed he *discovered* it. According to Szukalski, the Earth goes through tremendous geological upheavals every 25,000 years or so which flood the Earth. This is the origin of the world's myths about the Deluge. He also claimed that the human race was being infiltrated by the Yetinsyny ("Yetis", or Bigfoots), apelike creatures that impregnated human women to create half-human, half-ape offspring. According to SS, all tyrants and dictators on the planet have been Yetinsyny. Where does Protong fit in? Well, Protong is the original worldwide pure-human language from before the most recent Deluge. (Not) surprisingly, it bears a striking resemblance to Polish. (According to Szukalski, the Poles are a pure-human people who have been oppressed by the Yetinsyny of Russia and Germany.) All ancient place names (like that of Mt. Ararat, where Noah supposedly landed) have their origin in Protong, and usually have some Protong meaning like "Place of Safety from the Flood" or "Mourned from the Deluge". You can read all about Szukalski's theories in a fantastically-illustrated book called *BEHOLD!!! THE PROTONG* [sic], which is now out of print. I lucked out and managed to find two copies at a bookstore in Lexington, Kentucky while I was on vacation. Believe me, I've been looking for this Kook Klassic for a long time. If you just want to whet your appetite, I recommend you look in *High Weirdness by Mail*, by Ivan Stang, which is where I first heard about Szukalski (the SubGeniuses stole a lot from him, only they claimed *they* were the Yetinsyny and the Good Guys). You can also look in a back issue of *Whole Earth Review* from a year or two ago. It has a substantial article about SS and his art. If any of you want more information, like some Protong roots (he includes a list on the back page) or whatever, speak up! I'd be interested to hear from a Polish speaker how close the roots are to that language. The other language in which I have recently become interested is Islandian, from the Utopian novel *Islandia* by Austin Tappan Wright. If you haven't read it, by all means do. It's not science fiction, but is set in a richly-detailed imaginary country on Earth at the turn of the century. Here are a few words I have collected from the 100 or so pages of reading I have done so far: tanrydoon: "soil-place-custom", a particular native tradition tan: soil ry: place tanar: proprietors of land elainry: city (lit. "place of many people") denerir: tenants on land amia: friendship or non-sexual love linamia: strong amia of the sort that comes only once or twice in a lifetime The language is lovely, although I'm not quite sure how to pronounce it (there are no silent letters in Islandian except for the S in the name of the country, but that's all I know). Apparently Wright created pages and pages of the stuff; they had to cut his novel in half before they could publish it, and he wrote several other unpublished volumes about his beloved Islandia, including a glossary of the language. You can also read about Islandia in the *Dictionary of Imaginary Places*, a book I highly recommend for all conlangers. There is also a sequel by another author, which I own but which I am told is not very good. I can post more about Islandian if anyone is interested. I have a question for you: does anyone know any more about Islandian than is contained in the novel? That is, has anyone seen the glossary? Please let me know if you have done any work on the language yourself. Thanks and keep on conlanging. Ron H-E Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 17:04:41 -0500 From: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group) To: conlang@buphy.bu.edu Subject: Library of Congress conlangs, and a proposed conlang-list project The following is from Lee Douglas of the Library of Congress. Lee is a conlang buff. More importantly, he is acquisitions recommending officer in linguistics. The LoC has no linguistics department, per se; Lee actually works in the Geneology Reading Room. One of his pet projects over the last several years was to create a bibliography of the books in the LoC about conlangs. Back before budgets started being cut, and when he had a more sympathetic supervisor, they planned to actually publish such a biblio. Alas, his current supervisor has no particular interest in linguistics and the project was shelved. I talked Lee into gathering some of his notes for me, offering to get what he had completed out to an audience that might be interested: you of the conlang list. As you can see, the poroject never got too far. What exists is an outline of the bibliography, and the first 8 entries of the general category describing the AL movement. However, the outline DOES contain a list of 61 conlangs for which books exist in the LoC. I suspect the list to be a little incomplete even as is, since some language names might apply to multiple languages. Some things you can do with this: 1. If you see a language unrepresented for which a BOOK exists on the market (literature less than books doesn't count, which is why Lojban is not on the list yet), you can contact Lee and the LoC may acquire it, improving its collection. 2. If you strongly feel that this work should be completed, you can write a strong letter of encouragement, and giving good reasons why the LoC should complete the bibliography and/or otherwise give more attention to its conlang collection. Send it to Lee and ask him what else you can do to enhance the chances of such renewal. I should warn you that unless many conlangers were to write, the letters will do little more than perhaps encourage him to work on it in his spare time - budgets are very tight, and I'm only suggesting this because I suspect the LoC doesn't get a lot of such enthusiastic requests for bibliographic information of any kind, so popular interest could gain the project some clout in office politics. 3. Lee is interested in other bibliographic material on conlangs, and the LoC has little or none in the conlang area, nor does it search the nets. I know a while back someone posted a list of books on conlangs at some university library (Texas?) acquired through net access to their catalog. This type of thing would interest Lee if someone could print it and send it to him. 4. Putting all these ideas together suggested to me a worthwhile conlang-list project, one that might enhance the stature of Lee's effort, and get it restored. If there are truly a lot of on-line library catalogs accessible via the net, it could be made a conlang-list group project to seek out these catalogs, collect biblio information on conlangs from each catalog, and assemble a bibliographic list that covers MANY libraries. Then Lee could incorporate the LoC data into this list and it could be published as a useful reference book. Lee could also make sure that whatever is done is produced to professional bibliographic standards. If this larger project captured interest from the powers-that-be at the LoC, we might get them to publish it. If not, I suspect that it is within the charter of our organization to publish such a book, and so I will tentatively offer us as at least backup publisher if better options don't turn up. My interest is that such a book is clearly not available now, and it seems like something that should exist if we want to make conlangs an academic discipline. The market for such a book would probably include most university libraries and large public libraries, and if we published the book, it might even make a profit for LLG. More likely, of course, it would help me learn to sell books in the academic market with a book somewhat easier to sell than Lojban books. But I can't write the book for a couple of reasons. I don't have the time, since I'm spending what I have producing Lojban stuff. More important, I have neither the net knowledge nor the cheap net access needed to search out bibliography data. Indeed, I think this would be better as a group project with one person serving as coordinator (other than me). I can coordinate with Lee by telephone (he has no net access, nor even a computer), and by the time a book was in publishable form, I should have already been through the publishing effort at least once with Lojban books. Is there any interest in this? Any volunteers? If no one volunteers to serve as coordinator/author-in-chief, I will at least collect any bibliography material posted to conlang or sent directly to me, and pass it to Lee, as well as maintain it on-line. (Though I probably have it somewhere, I don't think I easily could find any earlier bibliographic data posted to conlang and would prefer someone with more time to dig that stuff out.) With such an accumulation of data, he might get more interest from his superiors to fund him putting together a book. 5. If anyone wants to contact Lee for any reason, here is his snail address and phone (he is hard to reach by phone if you don't know his current work schedule, which I don't). Lee says he has moderate skills/knowledge of Esperanto. Lee Douglas General Reading Rooms Division Library of Congress Washington DC 20540-0001 (USA) 202-707-1412 ____________________________________________________________________ Bibliography of Conlang Materials in the Library of Congress by Lee Douglas ____________________________________________________________________ I. Introduction. II. History of the international language movement. III. Constructed languages: 1. Adam Man. 2. Afrihili. 3. Alwato. 4. american. 5. Ante'langue. 6. Antibabele. 7. Arulo. 8. Aui. 9. Babm. 10. Berendt. 11. Common writing. 12. Esperanto: a) History of the Esperanto movement. b) Grammars. c) Dictionaries. 13. Eurolengo. 14. Gab. 15. Geoglot. 16. Glan ik. 17. Hom Idyomo. 18. Idiom Neutral. 19. Ido. 20. Ino. 21. Intal. 22. Interglossa. 23. Interlingua. 24. Langue bleue. 25. Lengua cato'lica. 26. Leno Gi-Nasu. 27. Ling. 28. Lingualumina. 29. Lingua italiana infinitiva. 30. Loglan 31. Langue universelle. 32. Master language. 33. Mondial. 34. Neo. 35. Neoispano. 36. Neo-Latine. 37. Novial. 38. North American Language. 39. Novolingua. 41. Nula. 41. Oz. 42. Panamane. 43. Pasilingua. 44. Occidental. 45. Olingo. 46. Pikto. 47. Qosmiani. 48. Ro. 49. Romanal. 50. Spelin. 51. SPL [or] Simp-Latina. 52. Suma. 53. Teutonish. 54. Saxon English. 55. Tsolya'ni. 56. Unilingua. 57. Universal Language. 58. Visona. 59. Wede. 60. Voldu. 61. Volapu:k. IV. Bibliographies. V. Indexes and abstracts. VI. Subject headings. THE INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE MOVEMENT PM8009.C68 1979 Couturat, Louis. Histoire de la langue universelle : beigebunden ist Les nouvelles langues internationales / Louis Couturat, Leopold Leau ; mit einem bibliographischen Nachtrag von Reinhard Haupenthal. -- Hildesheim ; New York : G. Olms, 1979. xxx, 576, 110 p. Originally published in 1903. Describes very briefly Solre'sol, Langue universelle et analytique, Lingualumina, Langue internationale e'tymologique, Lanuge naturelle, Spokil, Zahlensprache, Vo:lkerverkehrssprache, Volapu:k, Nal Bino, Bopal, Spelin, Dil, Balta, Orba, Veltparl, Dilpok, Langue bleue, Langue nouvelle, Pantos-dimou-glossa, Universal-Sprache, Weltsprache, Langue internationale ne'o-latine, Passilingua, Esperanto, Lingua franca nuova, Kosmos, Lingua, Latinesce, Anglo-Franca, Myrana, Communia, Nov latin, Mundolingue, Langue catholique, Antivolapu:k, Universala, Novilatin, Nuove-roman, Lingua komun, Idiom neutral, Linguum islianum, Reform-Latein. PM8008.G75 1979 Guerard, Albert Leon. A short history of the international language movement / by Albert Leon Guerard. -- Westport, Conn. : Hyperion, 1979. 268 p. JX1977.8.L35H37 Harry, Ralph. Language equality in international cooperation / by Ralph Harry and Mark Mandel. -- Rotterdam : Universal Esperanto Association, 1979. 28 p. (Esperanto documents. New ser., 0165-2575 ; 21) PM8008.L28 1985 Large, Andrew. The artificial language movement / Andrew Large. -- Oxford; New York : B. Blackwell, 1985. x, 239 p. : ill. (The language library) PM8008.P4 1968 Pei, Mario. One language for the world / by Mario Pei. -- New York : Biblo and Tannen, 1968. xvi, 291 p. JX977.8.L35P57 Piron, Claude. Translation in international organizations / by Claude Piron and Humphrey Tonkin. -- Rotterdam : Universal Esperanto Association, 1979. 32 p. (Esperanto documents. New ser., 0165-2575 ; 20 A) PM8008.P5 Plansprachen : Beitr. zur Interlinguistik / hrsg. von Reinhard Haupenthal. -- Darmstadt : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976. vi, 365 p. (Wege der Forschung ; Bd. 325) History and theory of constructed languages, with much emphasis on Esperanto. PB35.T66 Tonkin, Humphrey. The future of modern languages in english-speaking countries / by Humphrey Tonkin and Grahame Leon-Smith. -- Rotterdam : Universal Esperanto Association, 1979. 20 p. (Esperanto documents. New ser., 0165-2576 ; 18 A) Date: 29 Jan 92 08:09:00 EST From: "61510::GILSON" Subject: Current status of the Language X Project To: "conlang" Cc: "sci-lang" A few months ago we started a project to devise a constructed language which would basically explore the possibilities of a "reversed Japanese" structure (verb-initial, with prepositional phrases to express all the concepts of subject, object, etc. as well as those expressed by PPs in most languages). We got an initial group of seven active constructors and a number of observers, who had the right to comment and suggest, but not vote. As of today, we have made progress in defining the language: a vocabulary of about 200 words, a phonology/phonotactics document, a syntax document, a morphology document, and a general idea of what the language looks like. (We don't have a name yet, but I use "Language X" as a working name when I talk about it.) The bad news is that, unfortunately, four of our original seven constructors have dropped out: two for personal reasons, one because he differed too much with our approach, and one who found he needed more linguistic knowledge than he had to follow our discussions. So our project is down to three active constructors, and at least two of us (I have not heard from the third) feel we could use some new blood. If you would like to join our effort, please send a note: To be put on the "new language list", e-mail ross@buphy.bu.edu To receive the phonology/phonotactics document, syntax document, and morphology document, e-mail gilson%61510.decnet@ccf1.nrl.navy.mil or ez-as-pi@cup.portal.com To receive the current dictionary, e-mail gudjm@uniwa.uwa.oz.au We really do want some more people. I hope there will be some response here; I think we're doing something interesting here. Bruce R. Gilson Date: 30 Jan 92 12:08:00 EST From: "61510::GILSON" Subject: Language X documents To: "conlang" Rick Morneau suggested posting the Language X documents to the list. I will do so, but please note that the phonology/phonotactics document is essentially final (except that the name of the language is to be inserted when we have it), while I expect that additions (but not significant changes) will be made to the other two. Bruce =========================================================================== The Orthography, Phonology, and Phonotactics of the Language. 1. The alphabet consists of all the Roman letters except q and x. The letters and will never be used to distinguish two words, so that in a technical sense they will be considered the same phoneme. In fact, however, the official sounds of and will be as shown below. Because people whose native languages have only one sound similar to both, as Japanese and Korean, may use that sound for both letters, we will never use them to distinguish minimal pairs. A similar comment holds for and ; Spanish, for example, has no /z/ while German tends to pronounce initial as [z] and Italian does the same with intervocalic . 2. The sounds of the letters are as follows: a (Eng. art, Fr. la) b (Eng. boy) c (Ital. cento = ch in Eng. chief, sh in Eng. shoe) d (Eng. dog) e (Eng. bed, Ger. Bett, beten) f (Eng. find) g (Eng. girl) h (Eng. have, Ger. Bach) -- the [x] sound is allowed for the benefit of such as Russian speakers who cannot pronounce [h]. i (Eng. in, machine) j (Eng. jam, Fr. journal) k (Eng. key) l (Eng. love, Ger. Liebe) m (Eng. man) n (Eng. sun; before k or g, as in Eng. sung) o (Brit. Eng. on, aw in Am. Eng. dawn, Ger. so) p (Eng. pin) r (Eng. red, Fr. rouge, Span. rojo) s (Eng. sing) t (Eng. top) u (Eng. push, rude) v (Eng. very) w (Eng. wash) y (Eng. yet) z (Eng. zero) It should be noted that for the letters c e h i j n o u, sounds are in- cluded that are in some languages considered distinct phonemes; this is done to allow for ease in pronouncing by speakers of as many languages as possible. For items 3-5, the following terminology applies: Vowel = a e i o u, or any of the diphthongs listed. Diphthong = ai au oi. Pure consonant = b c d f g h j k p s t v z. Liquid = l r. Nasal = m n. Glide = w y. Semivowel = any liquid, nasal, or glide, as defined here. Consonant = any pure consonant or semivowel, as defined here. Voiced consonant = b d g j v z. Unvoiced consonant = c f h k p s t. 3. A syllable consists of one to four phonemes, of the form [P] [S] V [C] where bracketed elements are optional, P is any pure consonant, S any semivowel, V any vowel, and C any consonant, except: a. The final consonant of a syllable may not be a glide or h. b. The final consonant of one syllable, combined with the initial conso- nant(s) of an immediately following syllable in a word, may not make any of the combinations forbidden in 4. 4. The following consonant combinations are forbidden: a. Voiced + unvoiced consonant or vice versa. b. Nasal consonant + nonhomoorganic stop. This specifically forbids the combination of m + any of (c d g j k t) and the combination of n with (b p) 5. If a word ends in a pure consonant and the following word does not begin with a pure consonant, or if a word ends in a semivowel and the following word begins in a vowel, a distinct pause must be articulated at the word boundary. In other cases, a pause _may_ be made at a boundary, but need not be. A word boundary is defined as anywhere where a blank space is written. =========================================================================== The Morphology of the Language. (Consult the document entitled "The Syntax of the Language" for any terminology needed to understand this document.) 1. Predicates will be constructed as two-syllable or longer words ending in a vowel; tags will be single-syllable words that both begin and end in conso- nants; other particles will be single-syllable words that either begin or end in a vowel or both. 2. Nouns will be derived from verbs by nominalizing suffixes which are identical in form to the tag/preposition words; their meaning will be "noun with the relationship defined by the tag to the predication implied by the verb meaning of the word," e. g. a tag meaning "indirect object" attached to the word for "give" means "recipient." 3. Gender will be expressed by the use of the prefix mas- (for masculine) or fem- (for feminine). No assumption is to be made as to the sex of the referent in the absence of these prefixes. The prefix mas- is altered to maz- before voiced sounds and fem- to fen- before nonlabial stop consonants to avoid pro- hibited clusters. =========================================================================== The Syntax of the Language. 1. The parts of speech are predicates (verbs), tags (prepositions), and other particles. (the terms "predicate" and "verb" will be used interchangeably, as also "tag" and "preposition." The term "other particle" will include conjunc- tions, modal/aspectual particles, ending markers, and such others as become necessary to define the syntax. All content words will be understood as verbs. Those which represent primarily constructs that English uses nouns or adjectives for will officially mean "to be X." Predicates can be used as nouns or adjec- tives by the use of nominalizers as described tn the morphology document. 2. All sentences begin with a verb, possibly preceded by aspectual or modal particles. All other elements of the predication are expressed by the use of prepositional phrases. These include the elements that would in English be expressed by subject and direct and indirect object, as well as adverbial phrases. No distinction is made between these phrases, and if more than one phrase is used, they may be placed in any order, depending on the speaker/ writer's desire to emphasize one or another. 3. Clauses consist of a conjunction followed by the elements that compose a sentence according to the previous paragraph. No distinction between coordinate and subordinate clauses will be made in structure. 4. The same form defined in 1 as a noun can be used as an adjective by being placed after the noun which it modifies. Thus a nominalized verb which immediately follows a preposition is a noun; one that follows another such is an adjective modifying the noun that precedes it. 5. Neither definite nor indefinite articles will be necessary. Each preposition will delimit a noun phrase, since all prepositional phrases can be analyzed as a preposition, an object-of-preposition noun, and zero or more nouns-used-as- adjectives. 6. Ending markers will comprise end-of-phrase, end-of-clause, and end-of- adjective/adverb markers. The end-of-phrase marker is treated as a right parenthesis with the nearest tag prior to it as the corresponding left parenthesis. It is only necessary if another modifier (nominalized-verb-used- as-adjective, clause, or tag/preposition + noun phrase) follows it. The end-of- clause marker is treated as a right parenthesis with the nearest conjunction prior to it as the corresponding left parenthesis. It is only necessary if another modifier (nominalized-verb-used-as-adjective, clause, or tag/preposition + noun phrase) follows it. The end-of-adjective/adverb marker signifies that the word before it is an unmodified adjective or adverb, and is needed only to indicate that a following modifier is to be attached, not to the adjective/ adverb in question, but to the word it modifies. The end of a sentence termi- nates all unclosed phrases and clauses. =========================================================================== Date: Mon, 3 Feb 92 08:35:34 PST From: rgaskell@peg.apc.org To: conlang@buphy.bu.edu Subject: Introducing Glosa Cc: ggast@peg.apc.org From: rgaskell@igc.peg.pegasus (Robin Gaskell) 19 Jan 91 To: conlang@buphy.bu.edu Re: Introducing Glosa Cc: sci.lang Hello Group! It's great to meet you. Well, if you haven't heard of Glosa before, now's the time to do so. I was going to talk about the way there are so many different conlangs, and, amazingly, that there are so many people thinking that different languages are best. But I won't. Obviously, my conditioning and psychology lead me to think that Glosa warrents further detailed investigation. Instead of discussing philosophy, I have decided to show Glosa and let it speak for itself. ----- Before doing this, I would mention that I am an activist in favour of Human Language Reform on this planet, also that my studies into this suggest that adoption of an International Auxiliary Language is the only cost-effective option that can bring global communication to all ... even the impoverished Third World peasant. Glosa was started in 1971 as a language for science - by Ronald Clark and Wendy Ashby in England, and was, at first, an official continuation of Professor Hogben's "Interglossa." Changes to the original pattern - as the result of progressive testing have resulted in the present Glosa Specification:- Glosa - Specification: . Vocab - Greek & Latin roots of science & Euro languages, . Syllabary - Roman alphabet (unadorned), . Spelling - phonetic ... one letter one sound, . Pronunciation - with Italian Vowel sounds, normal consonants, . Sentence structure - SUBJECT .. VERB .. OBJECT, . Grammar - syntax-based, uninflected (synthesising language), . Modifiers (adverbs, adjectives, auxiliary verbs) - placed before the word they modify, . Words represent concepts - as in Chinese, a concept/word can be used (within reason) as any part of speech, . Tense - achieved using particles before the "verb", Example of prose - Glosa & English U reali internatio vokabulari nece habe radi in teknologi, e teknologi nu ki a Greko vice Latino pro neo materi. Poli persona ski; ke MIKRO signifi "small," sed no-poli persona ski; ke PARVus habe u homo semani. A truly international vocabulary must be the offspring of technologi, and technology increas- inly turns to Greek rather than to Latin for new material. Of the many who know that MIKRO means small, few know that PARVus means the same. Writing directly in Glosa: Because Glosa is a concept language, I found it much easier to write good Glosa by expressing myself directly in the language rather than by trying to translate strange usages and difficult grammatical structures from the national languages. Following are the opening sentences of a favourite childhood story 'retold in Glosa.' Mo kron intra u mega foresta pa es tri ursus. Mu habita u dekora domi intra u pusi klara, sed holo peri u domi pa habe plu dendra. Ki apo u domi, u steno via pa duce intra plu dendra. Singo matina, u matri ursus pa kuko pulsa pro mu prima vora. Sed freqe, u ge-kuko pulsa pa habe mega tro termo pro plu ursus te voro, e mu pa nece atend id gene sati tepido. A Community of Glosa speakers. This does not, as yet, exist. Supporters of the language are very sparsely spread around the globe, and spend far too much time promoting the language - trying to get academics to look at it - instead of concentrating on speaking and writing Glosa. It seem obvious that for a language to live and grow, it needs users. So, although I am quite interested in discussing all of the ins and outs of Glosa and the other conlangs, including the pros and cons of adoption of an International Auxiliary Language, I would rather put my time into teaching Glosa to others and using it myself. Introduction of Glosa to academia. While the authors and other Glosa supporters have been trying, in vain, to interest university academics in Glosa for the past decade, the Conlang network might be the first place that this language can be considered beside the other Planned Languages. ================================================================= Robin F. Gaskell Authors Ronald Clark & Wendy Ashby 3/16 Ethel St of Glosa: P.O. Box 18 Richmond Eastwood 2122 Surry TW9 2AU N.S.W. Australia U.K. ================================================================= Date: 11 Feb 92 00:21:13 EST From: Don Harlow <72627.2647@CompuServe.COM> To: Conlang Subject: Monato To: Conlang >INTERNET:conlang@buphy.bu.edu Dato: 920210 Mark Shoulson asked about "Monato." I believe its circulation is somewhere between 1500 and 3000 -- rather small, but that's because it's difficult to subscribe in hard currency from most parts of this glorious planet (also, the airmail subscription rate is about one month's income for the average Chinese college professor -- and I assume that similar comparisons hold for other parts of the world). The usual rule, if I remember correctly, is that you're welcome to translate and publish anything from "Monato" just as long as you include mention of the source with your translation. For specifics, see the box that's usually printed in the upper left of the contents page. Articles are usually written by members of a corps of 100-200 individuals around the world who have agreements with the editor (now editorial staff) to do so on a more-or-less regular basis. There are a number of other magazines besides "Monato" in Esperanto that give only a fraction of their space to the Esperanto movement; among those I receive in this category are "El Popola Subject: Esperanto cussing To: conlang@buphy.bu.edu Yesterday I got a load of Esperanto stuff from ELNA; unfortunately, I didn't get the PIV I ordered (ELNA no longer stocks it; you must buy it from UEA). As I'm writing this, I'm listening to BAF!, a collection of folk songs in E-o. Pretty good, but my favourite piece from yesterday's haul is KNEDU MIN, SINJORINO!, a collection of "taboo and insulting expressions in Esperanto". Some time ago, someone (Nick Nicholas) posted a list of "fivortoj" to Conlang, and I dutifully copied them down in the back of my Wells dictionary. KNEDU MIN, SINJORINO! (a pun on "Kredu min, sinjorino", which is the title of a popular work of Esperanto light fiction) has most or all of the words sent to Conlang, and a few more. I'm going to post some of my favourites now. Those sensitive to naughty words should delete this message NOW. (FIVORTOJ FOLLOW...) OK, here are a few, with English translations of their definitions: amori: to love sexually fingrumi: to masturbate oneself or another gadmeso: artificial cock geumi: to play sexually kacingo: condom (lit. "cock-holder") kojono: testicle kojon-hava: with big testicles -- brave, clever, capable pugtruo: asshole suc^umi: to suck someone's penis (The above are from the "tabuaj vortoj" section. Nic^jo, I think you're right; I didn't see "frandzi" anywhere; however, see below for a genderless equivalent.) langumi: to lick someone's sex organs malpic^o : penis (lit. "un-cunt") rapide kreskas la afero: rapidly swells someone's penis (lit. "rapidly grows the business") roknrolo: rock and roll (See, not all of these are naughty; think what you might have missed!) There are more "tabuaj vortoj" and slang words, but I think Nic^jo posted all the basic ones. Some seem kind of sexist to me, so if you don't tlike them, come up with your own and post them here. Paco............................ Ronaldo H-E Date: Thu, 5 Mar 92 14:47:48 EST From: ross@buphy.bu.edu (John Ross) To: conlang@buphy.bu.edu Subject: Interling I just received a small pamphlet from a Thomas Wood in Cheshire, England on his conlang called "Interling". I guess I've gained some notoriety as the administrator of this fine mailing list since I've never heard of Mr Wood nor his new lang :-). The cover pretty much summarizes the main features of the lang (and a hundred others for that matter :-) : INTERLING - a new interlanguage - West European vocabulary - many English structural words - simple grammar - regular verbs - easy to learn - compromise system - what is logical is correct Here's a sample text: Interlingue Li lingue problem es mer e mer evident. Interlinguist's propozar das evri-un deb lerna du lingue's -- li matr-lingue e li sam interlingue. Nur en konstruktat lingue habar li avantaj's ov regularite e neutralite. En konstruktat auxiliari lingue es facil te lerna pro iti regularite. Li majorite ov li sistem's qe ja existar habar mult in komun. Qand li definitiv interlingue es docad in li skol's ov li mond dan en revolution in komunikation sal folga. Inquiries should be sent to Mr Wood at: 4 Cherry Walk, Cheadle Hulme Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 7DY England -- JR To: Ronald Hale-Evans Cc: conlang@buphy.bu.edu, nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU Subject: Re: Esperanto cussing Date: Fri, 06 Mar 92 14:57:32 +1000 From: nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU >gadmeso: artificial cock >Nic^jo, I think you're right; >I didn't see "frandzi" anywhere; however, see below for a genderless >equivalent.) Now, both gadmeso and frandzi (to cunnilinguate) first appeared in Gaston Waringhien's sequel to Kalman Kalocsay's pornographic sonnets, so it makes sense that neither would pass into general usage. midzi (to fellate) did end up in Kalocsay's original, I recall. >rapide kreskas la afero: rapidly swells someone's penis (lit. "rapidly grows >the business") Actually "rapidly grows the cause", a quote from the Esperanto Hymn (kaj rapide kreskas la afero/per laboro de la Esperantoj), though afero also means "the thing". Nicxjo la fivortema. Date: 6 Mar 92 11:11:00 EST From: "61510::GILSON" Subject: Paleneo To: "conlang" Doug Merritt (doug@netcom.com) writes: >>His book is called "Paleneo" (obviously derived from Greek words meaning "old/ >Care to describe it? Charteris published his book in 1972. He entitled it "Paleneo - A Universal Sign Language." He was inspired by the Chinese ideographs, and other such symbolic systems, and his foreword states, in part: I have always been fascinated by languages -- not only structurally, historic- ally, and for the sidelights they throw on history, but also as a means of communication between people... Like any other philologist, I have been inter- ested by ideas for an internatiuonal language, but have always found them more Utopian than practical. The most widely accepted, Esperanto, still has a rudi- mentary grammatical structure, even if it studiously avoids awkward exceptions, which has to be learned and which must conflict here or there with the national speech patterns of everyone who learns it, and it also requires you to learn a complete vocabulary of artificially constructed words. On the other hand it has been suggested that English, an existing language, which in practise is already usable and understandable, with local limitations and distortions, more widely than any other tongue in Western civilization, should simply be accepted as the international lingua franca. But English, despite some deceptive simplicities of grammar and syntax, is actually an extra- ordinarily difficult language to learn after infancy. ... Basic English ... still leaves untouched the exceptional difficulties of an entirely irrational orthography and pronunciation. I realized that what I was trying to invent was a kind of universal graphic code that would eliminate all such problems because everyone who recognized the symbols would read them in his own language. Confronted with an outline essen- tially recognizable as a house, it would not matter if a Frenchman read it as _maison_, a German as _haus_, and a Spaniard as _casa_. They would all know exactly what it was about. It would be instant communication. He is not as universal as he thinks, in all respects. A little "s" on a symbol means "plural," for example. But since the symbols are drawn, not selected from ASCII-representable symbols, I can't do a good description. Bruce Date: 08 Mar 92 00:02:32 EST From: Don Harlow <72627.2647@CompuServe.COM> To: Conlang Subject: More cussing... To: Conlang >INTERNET:conlang@buphy.bu.edu Dato: 920307 Ronald Hale-Evans and Ni (1) Noun chains like 'child language meaning representation' -- quite common -- in English -- are often hard to interpret. Sure are ... often to an English speaker, as well. In Glosa, by convention, complex nouns, like the example, could have their component concept words joined with hyphens: the computer strikes a hyphen and registers %OH HO, WHAT HAVE WE HERE, A COMPLEX FORM? MUST CHECK OUT WHAT IT FUNCIONS AS: THAT "u" SUGGESTS IT IS A 'NOUN.'% Alternatively, the normal usage would be more descriptive, as in Esperanto. > A reasonable translation might be "reprezentado de scio de > infanlingvo". In Glosa this could be rendered, "u semana representa de infanti lingua." By convention, again, hyphens could be found useful to join the pairs of concept words. Are 'child' and 'meaning' adjectives or parts of larger concept moities? I suspect the researchers, working in the dark, as they often are, are simply struggling to find labels for the new ideas they are trying to define. Perhaps this fuzziness, permitted in English, contributes to the creativity of English-speakers/thinkers, by encouraging the *suspension of judgment* which vaguely defined terminology allows. > An interesting feature of Glosa is its general avoidance of > function words like 'that' in "A language that many people > speak has a future". Actually, they are supposed to be there in Glosa; this not being clear could be a function of the shortage of literature on Glosa. In fact, good style, in Glosa, as well as in English, demands their use. The English 'that' is a delightfully overused word; in Glosa there are about four words for different functions of 'that.' U-la ju-an kurso ta celero ke an kade ex an plu pedi; qe gene That boy runs that fast that he falls from his feet, that get ge-liga in nodi. tied into knots. "THAT" in Glosa: u-la = 'the there' (adjectival) ta = 'so much' (adverbial) ke = 'in cosesequence' (logical) ; qe = 'that, which' (rel. pronoun) ; = adjectival clause following (optional omission of "qe") Dan's example has two possible renditions in Glosa:- U lingua; qe poli persona dice, habe u futura. U lingua; poli persona dice, habe u futura. (adj. cl. defined) > I don't agree that Glosa facilitates computer analysis -- At > least it would be very difficult to write a program that can > construct a useful syntactic representation of sentences in > Glosa, just as it is known to be for Chinese. -- both -- > have so little syntax , and rely so heavily on concepts. More study needed for me if word order is not 'syntax.' In Glosa the sentences are supposed to be interpreted sequential in a Left -> Right order. The "u", or other determinant, 'flags' the the next concept/word to be interpreted, as an object, i.e. used as a "noun." Concept/words, used to modify the meaning of another, are placed 'before' the word they modify: this applies to concept words used as "adjectives," "adverbs," "auxiliary verbs" and tense particles. Computer programmers will have the same sort of problem with these strings, as they do, in English - with strings like "the Australia cricket team." Which of the three things is the main noun 'flagged' by the determinant, "the"? Logically the last thing is 'the noun' and the two things before it are used with "adjectival" functioning. It will be interesting to see if computers and programmers can pick out the major concepts used as "nouns" and "verbs" and then interpret the other words modifying them. I think it can be done, and that there is a logical sequence which has emerged, during the evolution of language, as having survival quality: this is what the Glosa authors sought, and attempted to include in the language they formed. > A couple of questons for Robin: it looks like Glosa makes no > distinction between "V-ing" and "is V-ing". Both come out as > "du" followed by the verb form, -- This is no problem most of > the time, but it appears that a sequence like "fe du dice du > puta" might mean either "she is talking while thinking" or "she > while talking is thinking". -- each verb can be subordinate to > the other. I Think, in relation to V-ing, you are saying there is no gerundive. Firstly, "du" is a tense particle, which works perfectly well when thought of as meaning "continues." So, it is not an equivalent of the "-ing," which can imply tense or noun qualities, in English. e.g. Un andro hedo kurso. = The man enjoys to run. - a or = The man enjoys running. - b at a pinch, it could be = The man enjoyingly runs. - c Possibly the S-V-O rule will help the computer to sort out what is what. Meanings a. and b. are substantially the same. Meaning c. is less likely, and so would probably be filtered out by an algorithm that selected the most likely usage. "fe du dice du puta" would be sloppy Glosa; = 'she continues to talk continues to think'; we would be left in a quandry as to which was her major activity. Alternatives could be:- "fe du dice, e du puta" = she is talking and thinking (equally) "tem fe du dice, fe du puta" = while she is talking she is thinking "tem fe du puta, fe du dice" In the latter examples, it seems that the first activity was what she was ostensibly doing, but the second could have been more important. I see this girl as being in custody, and trying to talk her way out of a rap. > Another potential problem appears to me to be the scope of the > plural indicator. The phrase "plu infanti bio" (plural child > life) looks like it can mean either "a child's lives" or > children's life", since the plural marker apparrently could be > taken with either noun. 'Plu' is a little tricky to work with at the start, and is best thought of as the 'plural determinant': its reason for being is to avoid a teminal letter change. It can be avoided if an alternative plural indicator is present:- e.g. un avi = a (or the) bird; poli avi = many birds. "plu infanti bio" probably refers to 'the child lives' of a collective group of adults. But you are going to have to be more circumloqutious if you are going to be specific about child(ren) and life(ves). "plu bio de un infanti" = a child's lives (catlike, reinc?) "u bio de plu infanti" = life of children, children's life "plu bio de plu infanti" = the lives of the children, children's lives > One more situation of this sort: "ami andra pa eduka" (friend > man durative teach) appears to mean either "the frienly man > is teaching" or "a friend that a man is teaching." Is this so? Well, it could be so! We must improve the Glosa instructional notes: I see "du" (=continues) as the 'durative', while "pa" (=did) is the particle for the 'simple past' -------------------------------------------------------------- Tense Particles = simple present, nu =about now, pa =did, fu =will,shall, pra =perfect past, ge-V =past participle, du =continuous. **There is a page showing these in different combinations; I should post this, later.** --------------------------------------------------------------- "Un ami andro du eduka u grupa." = The friendly man is teaching the group. "An es un ami; qe un andro du eduka." = He is a friend, that a man is teaching. But ... "Ami andro du eduka" .... Friend man is teaching. is just too *dry* in both English and Glosa. The soft, moist little words that lubricate the flow of thought are needed in Glosa just as much as they are in English .. possibly more. In summing up, Dan Maxwell makes an evaluation based on vocabulary. >> As far as the roots of the vocabulary goes, all three of the above languages take most of them from European languages, Glosa from the ancient ones, Ido and Esperanto from some of the modern ones. I haven't gotten around to looking at Lojban yet, but I suspect that it is superior to all three in this respect, since its roots are derived from all of the major world cultures.<< I would like to suggest that there is considerable room for discussion on this question. The range of sentiment goes from the unifying influence of the classical languages to the democratic principle of giving all a sense of identification through the recognition of known words. Though I am not a classicist, I definitely perceive a comprehensive *feel* in a language that draws its vocabulary froma a fairly narrow source. The Glosa authors did not choose Greek and Latin roots, this had already been done by scientists, and is one of the major reasons that science is recognised as an international persuit. If, when discussing the objects and processes of science, to-day. If we use *glue words* from the same source as the terminology, we will have a language both consistent and understandable to technical and classical scholars. Instead of learning 'Scientific German,' 'Scientifc Russian,' etc, a student could learn 'Scientific Scientific.' This is more or less what Glosa intended to be. In serious danger of being scorched badly, I would mention that I call the cultural mix philosophy the "pot-pourri" approach. ============================================================== rgaskell@peg.apc.org Robin From shoulson Thu Mar 12 22:03:59 1992 EST To: rgaskell@peg.apc.org CC: conlang@buphy.bu.edu, jrk@information-technology.east-anglia.ac.uk Subject: Answers to Richard's questions I didn't want to get too far into this discussion, but there are a few points on which I really think Robin's missing something. Robin writes: >Once in a sci.lang posting I read a report of a survey into >national language word order: around the world, the SVO sequence >is the most prevalent. The English language is one of the most >evolved on Earth, having benefitted from the cross-pollination of >many other cultures - no wonder it has a superior sentence >sequence. Cultures associated with English language communities >are, like the language, open to external influences; I am not >surprised that products of British culture see beyond the >limitations of national boundaries. >Also, on the question of SVO, this order is more of a matter of >logical sequencing than one of fashion. Both the energetics of >message generation and the psychology of communication lead us to >a sequence whereby the *active principle* acts through a >*process* on the *passive principle*. A good sentence, like any >good play, has a principal actor, or hero, who enter the stage >first, and who then does something - often to another actor, who >might be a heroine, villain or bit part player. This is a >psychologically sound sequence, and it's no mystery that the >Glosa authors used it. Come on, Robin. Surely you can see that this is a mighty strong, and quite unprovable, statement to be making. If you ask *you*, then of *course* it's logical to have the actor first. But I could make an equally strong argument that it's infinitely more important to know *what's* happening first, and only then do I care who's doing it to whom. Most of Biblical Hebrew is written in VSO order, and it's as intuitable as anything else (Modern Hebrew tends more towards SVO, mostly because of influences from other languages: remember, there was no such thing as a native Hebrew speaker for centuries. And VSO does still crop up.) The only language I know which really requires object first is Klingonese, and Okrand did that because he was bored. But I'm sure they exist. No matter. And the classic joke about German, "waiting for the verb": Are the Germans "illogical" or "unsound" because they'd rather see all the players on the stage before the action happens? Aren't you being the weensiest bit ethnocentric here? And just because it's the most common doesn't mean it's the best to use. I'll go one further: even if it is somehow "better", it still isn't necessarily the best for a conlang. Maybe I'm different from the rest of you, but I have a far harder time learning a new word order than learning noun-declensions, even hairy ones like Sanskrit or something (OK, learning the declensions is harder, but using them is easier than remembering stuff like "OK, first the dative, then subject, then ablative, then verb, then accusative...."). Granted, there's loads of room for disagreement on this point (witness the discussions to date), but it's something to be considered: even if word-order is more elegant and simpler to use for someone used to it, even if everyone in the world used world-order-based languages, unless they all had exactly the same order we'd probably do better with a declined language for at least some cases (or otherwise marked, like Voksigid, which, as I understand, marks all possible "cases" with prepositions, or is it postpositions? No matter, it's still clear), than trying to convince some fraction of the speaker-base to put their sentences into a blender. Yes, this rings of the a priori language argument: "We can't be equally fair to everyone, so let's be equally unfair to everyone!". And yes, that's an annoying argument. But my thesis here is that for me at least, learning declensions is easier than learning a new word-order. Note that I don't consider the accusative the be-all and end-all, or that any language which lacks one is hopeless, but I think it's not so bad as it seems to be portrayed. ~mark Date: Fri, 13 Mar 92 15:01:20 +0100 From: maxwell@ltb.bso.nl (Dan Maxwell) To: conlang@buphy.bu.edu Robin writes: >> From the above, you have probably guessed that Glosa, with no >> tiresome inflections and declensions, is ideally suited to the >> handling of information within computers. It is obviously true that words which never change their form are easier to handle than ones which do change their form, but at the level of the sentence it is often the case that the forms of words are useful indicators of the relationships between the words. Here are some examples of structural ambiguity in English, some of which could be solved by more "signposts" on the words. 1. I saw the linguist with the binoculars ('with the binoculars' can be taken with either 'saw' or 'linguist'.). This problem comes up quite often, although context or the meanings of the words often serve to disambiguate- for human beings but not for computers. 2. Old men and women ('old' can be taken with either 'men' or 'men and women'). This is perhaps the second most frequent type of stuctural ambiguity in languages like English. Signposts on the words can solve some classes of this problem, i.e if the two nouns are singular and the adjective when taken with both is plural. 3. Army demands change (Is 'demands' a noun or a verb?). This problem comes up in all languages in which words do not have different forms for different parts of speech or a given marker like English 's' is ambiguous. 4. Flying planes can be dangerous (Does 'flying' modify 'planes', or is 'planes' the object of the gerund 'flying'? ). 5. The hunting of the tigers (Are the tigers the hunters or the hunted?). 6. The picture of the student that I liked (Does the relative clause go with 'picture' or 'student?') Languages with inflected relative pronouns might be able to avoid this type, at least if the two nouns are not in the same class. Sentence 1 would not be ambiguous in Esperanto, since there happen to be two different prepositions('kun' and 'per') in this case. But this general type of ambiguity is found in Esperanto as well. sentence 2 would indeed be ambiguous in Esperanto, at least in the most usual translation. Sentence 3 would definitely not be ambiguous, because different parts of speech are marked by different endings. Sentence 4 would also not be ambiguous, because participles have different endings than nominalized verbs. In 5, it depends on how careful the speaker is being. There is a tendency to use the same preposition in both cases, but there is also a commonly used alternative for the subject reading. The translation of 6 would be ambiguous in Esperanto as well. "Inflection-based grammar developed in historical times; it is probably an example of the way the human mind seeks complexity. Any language, including Esperanto, that developed prior to the emergence of Information Technology, is 'historical' in this sense. The formal grammar and agreement present in such pre- computer-era languages has proved to be almost impossible to process:" Esperanto, especially our modified version of it in DLT, was much easier to parse than English, due largely to the ways of avoiding ambiguity in sentences like the ones mentioned above, among others, even though English is presumably less inflection-based than Robin considers Esperanto to be. Actually, as Don Harlow indicated earlier, Esperanto is not inflection-based in the sense that Latin, Russian, and German are. There are certain morphemes which are written as one word with the root, but these morphemes do not vary according to noun class, etc. and the form of the root never changes. So it would be more accurate to say that Esperanto is an agglutinative language like Turkish or Japanese. The essential difference between Esperanto and Glosa is that in Esperanto many of the signposts are written as part of the same word, whereas in Glosa they are always written as a separate word. But in both languages the signposts have exactly one form. "Parsing algorithms started out with a simple L-R sequential approach, because this is the way language works, at its basic level." I guess it's usually true that programming languages operate sequentially, but they also have braces and so on to tell us what goes with what. There are other people in this list who are better qualified to talk about this than I am. Function words in natural languages are not generally as specific as the devices used by programmers. "that"(if you know it's not the pronoun) tells us that a new clause is beginning, but doesn't tell you what this clause goes with or where it ends. I think this kind of problem can be found to varying degrees in any constructed language invented so far. This is nevertheless not a serious problem for speakers, because they have context and meaning to help disambiguate (most of the time). But if we are constructing languages which can be used by computers as well as humans, then we have to make our signposts more explicit or we have to wait until computational linguists like me, the AI people who work on human language, and our programmer colleagues find ways to make computers understand meaning and context as well as humans do. These are the real stumbling blocks for computers much more than complex declensions and conjugations. Dan Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 09:49:03 +0100 From: maxwell@ltb.bso.nl To: conlang@buphy.bu.edu Several people sent me questions about DLT. So instead of writing individual responses, I decided to write a general one for all conlangers. The use of Esperanto does not solve all problems involved in machine translation - I hope that we never claimed it would - but does reduce some of them and provide an interesting framework for attempting to solve others. Even though our modified Esperanto was, we think, structurally unambiguous, this only gives us a way of *representing* alternative meanings (both lexical and structural) in the source language (This was English in our prototype), not of choosing among them. In order to choose among them, we divised a module called SWESIL (Semantic Word Expert System In the Inter-Lingua), which made use of a probability-based algorithm drawing on a knowledge bank about semantic relatedness in Esperanto. This is described in some detail (c.250 pages) in *Working with Analogical Semantics: Disambiguation techniques in DLT*, 1989, by Victor Sadler, Foris Publications, Box 5904, Dordrecht, Netherlands. It is number 5 of the DLT series. You can also get a less detailed (30 pages) and less expensive summary of the entire project in: *Distributed Language Translation: A Multilingual Machine Translation Project*, 1990. available from Indiana University Linguistics Club 720 Atwater St. Bloomington, IN 47401 I have a limited number of copies of this. I will send them as long as they last to interested conlangers who send me a snail-mail address. After that you can get them from the above address for a few dollars. For Esperantists, there will be a paper by me called "Perkomputila Tradukado: la revo kaj la realo" published in the series "Oficialaj Esperanto-Dokumentoj" coming out in a few months. This deals more generally with the problems of machine translation and is aimed at a wider (Esperanto) public than just linguists. But also the one from Indiana is fairly non-techical. SWESIL was implemented on a limited scale in our prototype (first version 1987, second version 1988). We felt that it achieved what were in principle reasonable results for the amount of money and manpower expended. But our prototype, like most prototypes, needed to be redesigned and expanded. Unfortunately, we never got a chance to test this, because our funding ran out. We had a six-year grant from the Dutch government (matched by our company), but this ended in mid-1990. We had hoped to find an industrial partner to continue the funding of the project by then, but our search was unsuccessful. We are still keeping our eyes open, but are not actively searching. The modifications to Esperanto in the early planning stages (early 1980's) were relatively radical, but perhaps about 80% of them were eliminated after the project started for real. This all happened before I joined the project in 1986. The move back toward normal Esperanto was done mainly for a practical reason: we needed the support of the Esperanto community. That is, we needed Esperantists to work in the project, and this would be made more difficult by changes which hindered their understanding of the language. The most important remaining modifications were: dividers between the morphemes within a word eg, "util'ig'ebl'a" instead of "utiligebla", extra spaces to distinguish between the readings of sentences like "I ate the fish on the table" and "old men and women". Outside of these we had various lexical innovations like "antaw ke" (the subordinating conjunction "before") instead of "antaw ol". "kaw" in place of "kaj" (and) if the coordinated objects have the same referent, as in "my friend and companion". Compound tenses written as one word ("trink'ont'is"= "was about to drink" instead of "estis trinkonta"). Many of these minor modifications are in fact used by some Esperantists. A complete description of these is available on paper in Esperanto, but not in English. Does this answer everybody's questions? Dan Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 10:33:14 +0000 To: conlang@buphy.bu.edu From: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) Subject: Glosa Cc: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu The vagaries of the net brought me Mark Shoulson's and Don Harlow's criticisms of Robin Gaskell's responses to my criticisms before the latter, and they have said everything I might have said about the poor grounds for considering SVO order "logical" or "computer-friendly", and the bogosity of the claims that English has evolved a "superior sentence sequence" and that "products of British culture" are more likely to "see beyond the limitations of national boundaries". However, I must strongly disagree with what Mark Shoulson says about computer parsing in his latest message. Mark writes: >Robin, out of curiosity, have you ever done any work at all with computer >parsing? Do you have the faintest concept of how unutterably difficult it >is to get a computer to parse *anything* but the limited set of languages >which lend themselves readily to "context-free grammars"? Even Lojban, >which is context-free, and for which a parser does already exist, is but in >the earliest stages of infancy when it comes to computer analysis. Putting >the semantics in is a truly staggering task, because the semantics of the >world are so complex. But I digress; you mentioned only a parser. > >If Glosa is not context-free, computer-parsing of it will be fantastically >difficult. This is not to say impossible, but even if fast and efficient >algorithms exist for it, they will not be readily discovered, since most of >our experience is with parsing context-free languages. Just because a language is not context-free, it does not follow that it is difficult to parse. For that matter, no computer language I know of is, strictly speaking, context-free (I'm thinking here of requirements such as that all variables used must be declared, which cannot be expressed by a context-free grammar). They can be regarded as having a context-free core, plus context-sensitive constraints, but the latter are not necesssarily any more difficult to check than the former. >Moreover, even if >Glosa happens to be context-free, we won't know for a while; there's no >fast way to determine if a language can be fit into a context-free grammar, >even if you have a grammar for it already (and you don't; I'm using >"grammar" in the technical, computer-science meaning). Taking "language" in its technical, computer-science meaning - that is, any set of strings over some alphabet - there is no *general* way, fast or otherwise, to take any language and determine whether it can be described by a context-free grammar. But that's irrelevant. To determine whether one language in particular is context-free is not necessarily difficult (though it may be irrelevant - see above). >What's more, not >all context-free languages can be easily parsed. Lojban has to go through >all sorts of shenanigans to get away with some loopholes which make it not >quite LALR(1); I suspect Glosa would have those problems in spades. There are general algorithms for context-free parsing, so in one sense all context-free languages can be easily parsed. The only difficulty is that the general algorithms take in the worst case time proportional to the cube of the input length. The urge to LALR-ness of the designers of Loglan and Lojban has more to do with making sure that the language is unambiguous (so that both computers and humans can parse any sentence without resorting to semantic cues), and that it is simple enough for *human* speakers to parse on the fly. In comparison, reducing the parsing time by computers is only of minor importance. >Basically, I don't contend that computer-parsing of Glosa is a pure >impossibility, nor even that it's totally impractical, but simply that it's >going to be a hell of a lot tougher than you imagine, and an estimate of >"millions of dollars and many years" is by no means an exaggeration. Read >up on these things before you get so convinced it'll be easy. You too. Robin, how about posting a description of Glosa? I received from you some brief notes, which prompted my original criticisms; how about fleshing out the picture? -- Richard Kennaway SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K. Internet: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 12:38:25 +0000 To: conlang@buphy.bu.edu From: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) Subject: Re: Speedwords Cc: EVANS@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.edu Ronald Hale-Evans writes: >Does anyone have some pointers to material on Dutton Speedwords (a form of >shorthand)? I seem to recall someone mentioning it here recently, but I can't >locate the quote. I also read that one can pronounce speedwords differently >from English; in effect, Dutton is another language. Below is a re-edited version of a message I sent to conlang some time ago about Dutton Speedwords. >Another question: does anyone have an info on "speedwriting"? My mother has an >old book on it, and I'd like to know how it compares to speedwords, or if >they're the same thing. As far as I know, speedwriting is similar to Dutton Speedwords, but without the interlanguage leanings. That is, it's only a system of abbreviations, for making rapid transcriptions of English. One sometimes sees advertisements for temporary secretaries saying things like "f y cn rd ths, y cn gt a gd jb". But I've never seen any speedwriting materials. If fact, I dont even know if "speedwriting" is a generic name or the name of a specific system. More generally, to what extent do other shorthand systems approach conlang status - Pitman, Gregg, Teeline, and so on? Is anyone here proficient in any of these? Here's the Dutton Speedwords stuff. Dutton Speedwords is a system of abbreviations for writing not only English, but any other language (though I suspect it would have to be reasonably similar to English - say, any Standard Average European language). Unlike systems intended purely as a substitute for shorthand, the abbreviations were based not only on English, but on several European languages. They are names for concepts, rather than abbreviations of particular words. Examples: and e (French 'et') one u (French 'un') high ho (German 'hoch') know sa (English 'sage', Spanish 'saber') continue du (English 'duration') building ry (English 'bakery', 'library', etc.) The information in the third column above is simply a mnemonic clue, not a definition. Most inflections are dropped. The English word "to" is omitted when used to form infinitives (e.g. "I want to go" is "j des go"). There is a set of suffixes which are used to modify the meanings in various ways: Suffix Root Affixed root -u favourable ry building ryu school on man onu sir -m thing af business afm commodity -y cause id same idy copy -n negation x if xn unless I find such use of affixes rather reminiscent of Esperanto. Note that one cannot actually deduce the meaning of a compound from those of its components. In addition, since nearly every letter can be used as a suffix, one cannot automatically resolve a compound into its components. The construction should be thought of as just a mnemonic hook. The prefixes y- and u- construct the past tense and present participle. The English distinction between simple present and present continuous is dropped. Future tense is expressed by the word 'r' ('will'). There are also compounds of multiple roots: albe already from 'al be' = 'all before' zenav shipment from 'ze nav' = 'send ship' The author proposed that Dutton Speedwords be adopted as a medium for writing in directly, which could be used as a common international language, and also save greatly on printing and telecommunication costs (due to its brevity). The system can be spoken as well as written (that unpronounceable-looking 'xn' is pronounced 'nex'), and similar time savings are claimed for the spoken language (reminds me of Heinlein's Speedtalk). One can point out some obvious imperfections, such as the English-based tense system, the non-metaphysically parsimonious definitions of some compounds (e.g. 'ryu' = 'school' = 'favourable building'), the non-unique resolvability of the words (e.g. 'nav' is a radical, not 'na' + '-v'), and so on, but I rather like it nonetheless. In fact, I still use it for note-taking. The books I have are "Teach Yourself Dutton Speedwords", by R.J.G. Dutton (yes, a Teach Yourself book), and "Dutton Speedwords Dictionary" (printed by Dutton Publications). I got these a long time ago, and they are probably out of print by now. TYDS lists several other books, which I tried to get, but were out of print even then. These were of two classes: books developing the shorthand side of the system, and books developing the interlanguage side ("world speedwords"). According to TYDS, the world speedwords books further develop Speedwords into an interlanguage. (TYDS is primarily directed to the shorthand market.) The basic vocabulary of the international language consists of 493 radicals, corresponding to the 493 divisions of Roget's Thesaurus. (491 according to the Speedwords Dictionary.) The 22 suffixes provide the means for extending this basis to a complete language. There are rules for pronunciation (e.g. that unpronounceable-looking 'xn' is pronounced 'nex') and presumably a fuller working out of an international syntax than appears in TYDS. An example text: j e La kid by l vu d c co d bel matz D Ny je par d l kos. bi vus gret su qe U nou ra d So ho kla. "I am greatly moved by the sight of this collection of beautiful materials from almost every part of the world. Life seems rather better when one regards work of such a high class." Note that the translation from English words to Speedwords is in this example almost exactly one-to-one. Only the word "a" is dropped. Speedwords also make no distinction between adjectives and adverbs, e.g. "ny" = "near(ly), almost". The distinction between upper and lower case in this example is a property of the shorthand system, used to distinguish English synonyms which would normally be translated to the same speedword. Thus "la" = "big", "La" = great(ly)"; "d" = "of", "D" = "from", "ny" = "near(ly)", "Ny" = "almost". -- Richard Kennaway SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K. Internet: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk From: bbs-hrick@jwt.UUCP (Rick Harrison) Subject: what is Glaugnea, indeed Message-ID: Date: Thu, 02 Apr 92 23:27:10 EST Organization: The Matrix And Rosta asked "what is Glaugnea?" It is an unusual constructed language designed by Michael Helsem, whose name you might recognize from his Lojban and Vorlin poetry. A description of the grammar is in Taboo Jadoo number 4, and I will be printing a small part of the vocabulary in Journal of Planned Languages (formerly vidpuni) number 14. A few randomly-selected Glaugnea words: folpse (v) to revert to one's original accent in a stressful situation irmruk (n) temporary cessation of desire obluidh (n) trash that contains food skapsy (n) a well-known but beloved fraud (e.g. Santa Claus, elections) === Rick Harrison: hrick@genesis.nred.ma.us / uunet!jwt!bbs-hrick From: Richard Kennaway Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 13:35:52 BST To: conlang@buphy.bu.edu Subject: Re: E Prime A whole book on E-Prime has recently been published, consisting of a collection of papers. "To Be or Not: An E-Prime Anthology", eds. D.D.Bourland and P.D.Johnston, published by the International Society for General Semantics, P.O.Box 728, Concord, CA 94522. (510) 798-0311. $14-00 + $2-50 postage. I have this on order, but haven't seen it. The journal of the above-mentioned society, "ETC.", contains several papers on E-Prime. Offhand, I can find articles in vol.48, no.2, 136-140; vol.44, no.2, 118-128; vol.47, no.4, 376-392; vol.46, no.3, 202-211; vol.46, no.4, 316-319. These are all within the last few years. Most of them are probably in the book, which also includes new material. E-Prime is just English with all forms of the verb "to be" removed. It is claimed that the exercise of speaking and writing in E-Prime helps one to avoid certain wrong ways of thinking, such as identifying maps with territory, reifying abstractions, and so on. -- Richard Kennaway SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K. Internet: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 17:29:01 +0000 To: conlang@buphy.bu.edu From: jrk@information-systems.east-anglia.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) Subject: Re: Glaugnea, Taboo Jadoo, J.Pl.Lang. Rick Harrison writes: >A description of >the grammar is in Taboo Jadoo number 4, and I will be printing >a small part of the vocabulary in Journal of Planned Languages >(formerly vidpuni) number 14 Can you tell us more about Taboo Jadoo and the Journal of Planned Languages? What they print, where to get them? >obluidh (n) trash that contains food >skapsy (n) a well-known but beloved fraud (e.g. Santa Claus, > elections) I am inspired to define: "hydrab" (n) a word invented to express a concept for which no word previously existed, but which is immediately recognisable once described. "amoeven" (n) a hydrab, the understanding of which changes one's whole worldview. I love hydrabs! Is all of the Glaugnean vocabulary like that? Adams and Lloyd's "The Meaning of Liff" is a whole bookful of such words. The Laadan words I've seen are like that as well. Any other sources? -- Richard Kennaway SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K. Internet: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 10:45:20 PDT From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.3 5/22/91) To: conlang@buphy.bu.edu Subject: Re: Glaugnea, Taboo Jadoo, J.Pl.Lang. >I am inspired to define: > >"hydrab" (n) a word invented to express a concept for which no word >previously existed, but which is immediately recognisable once described. > >"amoeven" (n) a hydrab, the understanding of which changes one's whole >worldview. There is a charming little book, "They Have a Word for It -- a lighthearted lexicon of untranslatable words and phrases", c. 1988 by Howard Rheingold, St. Martin's Press. It explains words from natural languages (not conlangs) that have this kind of flavor. E.g. Bricoleur (French): A person who constructs things by random messing around without following an explicit plan. ostranenie (Russian): Art as defamiliarization; make familiar perceptions seem strange. yugen (Japanese): An awareness of the universe that triggers feelings too deep and mysterious for words. I just picked those randomly, but coincidentally these are three that are very familiar concepts in my own experience (although perhaps not in everyone's). There's a lot of diversity in what is covered, including curiosities, culture-specific oddities, and some words which inspire both "ostranenie" and "yugen". :-) Highly recommended. Doug From: uunet.UU.NET!cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan@buphy.bu.edu (John Cowan) Subject: Re: Nevbosh (was: Is the VMS in *Martian*?) To: voynich@rand.org (Voynich List), conlang@buphy.bu.edu (conlang) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 12:54:00 EDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Jacques Guy writes on the Voynich Manuscript list: > I found a book about artificial and imaginary languages ("Les fous du > langage" by Marina Yaguello, Editions du Seuil, 1984) where a > glossolalic language made up by one Helene Smith (French, despite her > name) is treated at length. The language is Martian (Helene Smith later > went into Uranian too), and some of its statistical properties are > strangely reminiscent of the Voynich language. > > > Just consider: > > "50% of Martian words end in e-acute [Voynich: 50% in <9>] > > 50% of the words are disyllabic, about 20% monosyllabic, roughly > as many are trisyllabic, and the rest (6%) tetrasyllabic. The typical > Martian word is disyllabic and end in e-acute. > > The phonological structure of Martian and its syllabic patterning > make it monotonous and weak in contrasts. Alliterations and assonances > in i and e-acute are at once too numerous and too poor." > > Here is a sample of Martian (the spelling is "French phonetic"). I'll > only give the interlinear French translation, for the meaning matters > little. What matters is how Martian is a word-for-word encoding of > French sentences, and how Martian words are often distant echos of the > corresponding French words. > > > dode' ne' ci haudan te' mess me'tiche astane' ke' de' me' ve'che > ceci est la maison du grand homme Astane que tu as vu > > > mode' ine' ce' di ce'vouitche ni e^ve' che' kine' Linet > me`re adore'e je te reconnais et suis ton petit Linet > > i mode,' me'te' mode', mode' ine', palette is > O me`re, tendre me`re, me`re bien-aime'e, calme tout > > che' pe'liche', che' chire' ne' ci ten ti vi > ton souci, ton fils est pre`s de toi. > > ce' e^ve' ple^va ti di be'ne`z e'ssat riz te`s mide'e dure'e > je suis chagrin de te retrouver vivant sur cette laide terre > > > Enough, note the parallels between Martian and French: > > Martian French > te' du > ti de > de' tu > di te > dure'e terre > vi vous (you, polite), translated by "toi" (you, familiar) > ce' je > ve'che voir (to see), translated by "vu" (seen) > ce'vouitche savoir (to know), translated here "reconnais" (recognize) > ple^va pleurer (to weep), pleuvoir (to rain) --> sorrowful (chagrin) > te`s cette ("te`s" = "cette" backwards) > riz sur ("riz" = perhaps "sur" backwards) > > Here is the frequency distribution of the Martian vowels (French-like "phonetic" > spelling again): > > e' 39.3% > i 30.6% > a 13.4% > e` 8.9% > o 3.0% > eu 3.0% > u 2.45% > ou 1.1% > an 0.6% > eu^ 0.4% (it adds up 100%) > > So Martian is a word-for-word mapping of French, with bits and pieces > of the French words peeking through. What Martian does NOT have, is > whole words repeated, like the Voynich has. > > What am I getting at? Let us suppose that Voynichese is such a made-up > language. If so, these are not unreasonable assumptions: > > 1. Voynichese phonology is simpler than that of the original language > (like Martian has fewer vowels and consonants than French). > > 2. Voynichese is a close word-for-word rendition of the original > language. Since Voynichese is replete with repeated words, so the > original language must have been. > > 3. The text must make some sense (like the Martian corpus does). > > Under those conditions, even though Voynichese would be a fabrication, like > Martian (and like Enochian), it should be possible to decipher it, and perhaps > even to identify the language which it apes. This language looks closely related (in spirit, not in any genetic way) to the language Nevbosh which J.R.R. Tolkien describes in his essay on conlangs, "A Secret Vice" (in >The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays<, ed. Christopher Tolkien, Houghton Mifflin 1984, ISBN 0-395-35635-0): .. an idiom called >Nevbosh<, or the 'New Nonsense'. It still made, as these play-languages will, some pretence at being a means of limited communication -- that is, in the lower stages the differentiation between the argot-group [of conlang inventors] and the art-group is imperfect. That is where I came in. I was a member of the >Nevbosh<-speaking world. .. I shared in the vocabulary, and did something to affect the spelling of this idiom[;] it remained a usable business, and intended to be.... [I]t was good enough for letters, and even bursts of doggerel song. I believe I could still write down a much bigger vocabulary of >Nevbosh< that Busbecq recorded for Crimean Gothic [an Eastern Germanic language still spoken in the Crimea in the sixteenth century -- CJRT], though more than 20 years [to 1931 -- JC] have gone by since it became a dead language. But I can only remember entire one idiotic connected fragment [interlinear translation by JC]: dar fys ma vel gom co palt 'hoc there was an old man who said 'how pys go iskili far maino woc? can I possibly carry my cow? Pro si go fys do roc te for if I were to ask it Do cat ym maino bocte to sit in my basket De volt fac soc ma taimful gyro'c!' it would make such a fearful row .. In >Nevbosh< we see, of course, no real breaking away from 'English' or the native traditional language. Its notions -- their associations with certain sounds, even their inherited and accidental confusions; their range and limits -- are preserved. >Do< is 'to', and a prefixed inflection marking the infinitive. >Pro< is 'for, four' and the conjunction 'for'. And so on. This part is not then of any interest. Only on the phonematic side is there much interest. What directed the choice of non-traditional sound-groups to represent the traditional ones (with their sense-associations) as perfectly equivalent counters? Clearly 'phonetic predilection' -- artistic phonetic expression -- played as yet a very small part owing to the domination of the native language, which still kept >Nevbosh< almost in the stage of a 'code'. The native language constantly appears with what at first sight seems casual unsystematic and arbitrary alteration. Yet even here there is a certain interest -- little or no phonetic knowledge was possessed by its makers, and yet there appears an unconscious appreciation of certain elementary phonetic relations: alteration is mainly limited to shifting within a defined series of consonants, say for example the dentals: d, t, [thorn], [eth], etc. >Dardocatvoltymm/n<, though technically made at different contact points, have in their nasality and resonance a similarity which overrides the more mechanical distinction.... .. The intricate blending of the native with the later-learnt is, for one thing, curious. The foreign, too, shows the same arbitrary alteration within phonetic limits as the native. So >roc/'rogo' ask; >govelgompys/can -- from French; si/if -- pure plagiarism; >paltaimvoltfyscofarwoc< is both the native word reversed, and connected with >vacca, vache< (I happen to remember that this is actually the case); but it bred the beginnings of a code-like system, dependent on ENglish, whereby native >-ow< became >-oc<, a sort of primitive and arbitrary sound-law: >hocgyrociski-li< 'possibly' is odd. Who can analyse it? I can also remember the word >lint< 'quick, clever, nimble', and it is interesting, because I know it was adopted because the relation between the sounds [of] >lint< and the idea proposed for association with them gave >pleasure<.... Certainly, just as in real languages, the 'word' once thus established, though owing its being to this pleasure, this sense of fitness, quickly became a mere chance symbol dominated by the notion and its circle of association, not by the relation of sound and sense -- thus it was soon used for mental quickness, and finally the normal >Nevbosh< idiom for 'learn' was >catlint< (become 'lint') and for 'teach' >faclint< (make 'lint'). -- cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban Subject: request for chrestomathic suggestions & exegesis of paternoster Date: Wed, 29 Apr 92 19:45:33 +0100 From: And Rosta Some months ago we discussed what should go into a conlang chrestomathy (a useful collection of texts). The only suggestion I recall was (from Ron H-E?) the preamble to the United Nations Charter (which I have found is in the Encyclopaedia Britannica 'micropaedia' under United Nations). Does anyone have any further suggestions? I'm looking for noncopyrighted texts where content matters more than style. I've been working on a new translation of the paternoster into Sta & would appreciate some elucidations of its meaning (I'm working from the jacobean version with trespasses rather than debts). (I come from a nullifidian background & consequently never had the benefit of sunday school.) 1. "hallowed be thy name". Does this mean "may thy name be considered holy, may thy name be revered"? 2. "thy kingdom come". Does this mean "may it come to pass that human affairs are conducted in accordance with godly principles"? It must mean more than "may it come to pass that you rule the Earth", because presumably He already rules the Earth. Or does it mean "may heaven come to Earth; may Earth become heaven"? 3. "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". Does this mean "What you want gets done in heaven, & may it also get done on earth"? Or does it also mean "may it get done on earth *in the same way* as it gets done in heaven"? 4. "give us this day our daily bread". Does this mean: "we typically/ habitually have bread each day, & may it be the case that this pattern of events continues today"? 5. "as we forgive those". Does this mean "as we hereby forgive" or "as we habitually forgive"? 6. "for thine is...". *What* is because "thine is the kingdom etc."? Is it, say, "Because thine is the kingdom we request you to give us our daily bread, to forgive us, to not lead us into temptation and to deliver us from evil"? Or is it, say, "We request that because thine is the kingdom, etc., you deliver us from evil". 7. "thine is the kingdom". Which kingdom is this? Does it mean "you rule heaven"? Thanks in advance, And. Subject: Re: request for chrestomathic suggestions & exegesis of paternoster Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 18:53:53 +1000 From: nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU I know Greek, and I really can't help that much with And's questions; the text is vague. >1. "hallowed be thy name". Does this mean "may thy name be considered >holy, may thy name be revered"? as far as I can tell. >2. "thy kingdom come". Does this mean "may it come to pass that human >affairs are conducted in accordance with godly principles"? It must >mean more than "may it come to pass that you rule the Earth", because >presumably He already rules the Earth. Or does it mean "may heaven >come to Earth; may Earth become heaven"? "come" in Greek certainly won't mean just "come to pass". "kingdom" would not stand for the event of ruling. (not equivalent to reign [the noun]). This is one for the theologians, but a kingdom would certainly mean a circumstance in which The Father is King, is recognised, and is not defied. I don't think it needs mean "may Earth become heaven". The kingdom-concept in the NT seems a bit too vague to me for that. >3. "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". Does this mean >"What you want gets done in heaven, & may it also get done on earth"? >Or does it also mean "may it get done on earth *in the same way* >as it gets done in heaven"? The latter. Um, I think. The original seems to me just about marked enough. >4. "give us this day our daily bread". Does this mean: "we typically/ >habitually have bread each day, & may it be the case that this pattern >of events continues today"? daily is an interpretation. the original has epiousion, and nobody is 100% sure of what is means. It comes from on+substance. It sounds to me like "life's essential". >5. "as we forgive those". Does this mean "as we hereby forgive" or >"as we habitually forgive"? Habitually, I think. The original has the present subjunctive (imperfective), as opposed to the aorist (perfective) or future(inchoative). (If "aphiemen" turns out to be future subjunctive, I will look stoopid. But I'm pretty sure it's present.) >6. "for thine is...". *What* is because "thine is the kingdom etc."? >Is it, say, "Because thine is the kingdom we request you to give us >our daily bread, to forgive us, to not lead us into temptation and >to deliver us from evil"? Or is it, say, "We request that because >thine is the kingdom, etc., you deliver us from evil". I'd go for the former. Well, the former is what the punctuation suggests, but the latter sounds uncomfortable with Greek imperatives to me. >7. "thine is the kingdom". Which kingdom is this? Does it mean "you rule >heaven"? Argh. Maybe kingdom does mean "ruling" after all. I think there's too much Aramaic lurking here for me to say anything useful. From: cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan@uunet.UU.NET (John Cowan) Subject: Re: request for chrestomathic suggestions & exegesis of paternoster To: conlang@buphy.bu.edu (conlang) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 11:45:01 EDT X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] And Rosta writes: > >4. "give us this day our daily bread". Does this mean: "we typically/ > >habitually have bread each day, & may it be the case that this pattern > >of events continues today"? > > daily is an interpretation. the original has epiousion, and nobody is 100% > sure of what is means. It comes from on+substance. It sounds to me like "life's > essential". The Rheims/Douay version (which is R.C. and rather literal-minded) has "Give us this day our supersubstantial bread." Arrgh. -- cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban