Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Non-polairty

Expand Messages
  • Sai Emrys
    (Perhaps this will be a series - non-[insert kludgy but omnipresent language feature here]. Eris would be proud.) So in this case: non-duality / non-polarity /
    Message 1 of 21 , Jun 27, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      (Perhaps this will be a series - non-[insert kludgy but omnipresent
      language feature here]. Eris would be proud.)

      So in this case: non-duality / non-polarity / etc. Or another way to
      put it - analogy / continuous scales.

      The problem: there are too many words that reference what are actually
      (multi-dimensional?) (infinite?) spectra as if they were two (or more,
      but finite) points.

      E.g.: Good/bad. Old/young. Rich/poor. Etc.

      I object. I would like to eradicate all of these - and the associated
      (cringily kludgy) Esperantoesque practice of having some word be the
      base and then antonyming it (e.g. malbono [sp?] et al). Likewise with
      referring to the spectrum, or the unkown quantity, with one of the
      endpoint words - e.g. "how old are you?".

      More, I would like to have some sort of grammatical and elegant way of
      having a *continuous* spectrum. I don't object to having reference
      points along the way (e.g. for color or temperature), just to having
      voids inbetween.

      The simplest idea I can think of for auditory mode is to use the two
      major continuous factors of speech - vertical & horizontal tongue
      position. This would work OK for finite spectra - i.e. 0-1 or (0,0) to
      (1,1) - but not so much for the infinite. Not sure how to work that.

      Any suggestions?

      For that matter, as a starter, do any of you actually understand what
      I'm talking about and why it annoys me? (Does this sound familiar?
      :-P)

      - Sai

      P.S. DC is nice. Bloody swamp, but nice nonetheless.
    • Henrik Theiling
      Hi! ... Yippie! One of my favorite research areas in conlangs. :-) ... These are not the same kind of scales in my view. I ll explain that in a second. ...
      Message 2 of 21 , Jun 27, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi!

        Sai Emrys <saizai@...> writes:
        > (Perhaps this will be a series - non-[insert kludgy but omnipresent
        > language feature here]. Eris would be proud.)
        >
        > So in this case: non-duality / non-polarity / etc. Or another way to
        > put it - analogy / continuous scales.

        Yippie! One of my favorite research areas in conlangs. :-)

        > The problem: there are too many words that reference what are actually
        > (multi-dimensional?) (infinite?) spectra as if they were two (or more,
        > but finite) points.
        >
        > E.g.: Good/bad. Old/young. Rich/poor. Etc.

        These are not the same kind of scales in my view. I'll explain that
        in a second.

        > I object. I would like to eradicate all of these - and the associated
        > (cringily kludgy) Esperantoesque practice of having some word be the
        > base and then antonyming it (e.g. malbono [sp?] et al). Likewise with
        > referring to the spectrum, or the unkown quantity, with one of the
        > endpoint words - e.g. "how old are you?".

        Very good! :-)

        > More, I would like to have some sort of grammatical and elegant way of
        > having a *continuous* spectrum. I don't object to having reference
        > points along the way (e.g. for color or temperature), just to having
        > voids inbetween.

        Ah, fun! My conlang Qthyn|gai does not have a continuous scale, but a
        generic way of either subdividing into three or into nine steps. The
        former for a vague scale, the latter for somewhat more precide scale.
        And then, it has some additional affixes for several other things.
        See my grammar page for details.

        So first of all, Qthyn|gai comes with generic modificators for scales:
        you use 'high' + scale_affix to indicate the level of height. This
        makes 'low', too, and even 'flat'.

        I found this fair enough for human communication, but if you need
        more, just use a system similar as for


        > The simplest idea I can think of for auditory mode is to use the two
        > major continuous factors of speech - vertical & horizontal tongue
        > position. This would work OK for finite spectra - i.e. 0-1 or (0,0) to
        > (1,1) - but not so much for the infinite. Not sure how to work that.

        That I find funny but not practical. I'd use a stackable system
        instead, similar to the north, east, south, west system where you can
        have south south west etc. That's what my conlang does, too.

        > For that matter, as a starter, do any of you actually understand what
        > I'm talking about and why it annoys me? (Does this sound familiar?
        > :-P)

        YES! :-)))

        Here's more about Qthyn|gai scales and how I try to make them unbiased:

        1) 0...infty scales:

        If a scale has one prominent end point, usually labelled 0, and
        if that scale is infinite (at least for human intuitive
        judgement), then I'd collapse lexicon entries into only one
        entry. Example: young vs. old. I'd not have young, just old or
        better 'age'. Young is a small amount of age, old is a large
        amount of age. Then there is zero age, the end point on one
        side, but there is no endpoint in the other direction of
        the scale.

        Therefore, I only have one word.

        2) All other one-dimensional scales get two completely unrelated
        lexicon entries for each direction, so that no bias arises.
        There are still different types of scales here:

        2a) inftyA...0...inftyB scales:

        Those with a natural continuum from one infinite to the
        opposite infinite, with a 0 in between. These are
        'height' vs. 'depth':
        'high' = 'height' large_degree
        'low' = 'height' small_degree
        'flat' = 'height' zero_degree
        and
        'flat' = 'depth' zero_degree (other point of view!)
        'shallow' = 'depth' small_degree
        'deep' = 'depth' large_degree

        2b) constA..constB scales:

        These get two unrelated lexicon entries, too. Examples:
        probable...improbable (obviously biased in English :-))
        empty...full

        Saturated scales of any kind fall into this category. Note
        that the constants are from a human's point of view -- sometimes
        there is a physical infinity on one side that a human just
        does not see. E.g.
        black...white

        The reason for giving these two entries in the lexicon is
        that the selection of one of the two endpoints for the lexicon
        while the other one would be the opposite, is bias!
        I had some discussions about Lojban here, which, as I
        understand it, sometimes (always?) only has one lexicon entry
        for these scales.

        2c) Non-opposites:

        Well, the standard example is
        good vs. bad

        Who wants to decide whether these are collinear? If there is doubt,
        scales get two lexicon entries, again unrelated.

        **Henrik

        PS: Qthyn|gai (but not much about scales, I'm affraid):
        http://www.theiling.de/conlang/s7/
      • Henrik Theiling
        Hi! ... Bad examples: this is a 0..1 scale (light reflection ratio). Hmm. Dunno -- anyway: I just don t want it physically correct, or if so, I d have
        Message 3 of 21 , Jun 27, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi!

          I wrote myself:
          > Saturated scales of any kind fall into this category. Note
          > that the constants are from a human's point of view -- sometimes
          > there is a physical infinity on one side that a human just
          > does not see. E.g.
          > black...white

          Bad examples: this is a 0..1 scale (light reflection ratio).

          Hmm. Dunno -- anyway: I just don't want it physically correct, or if
          so, I'd have separate words for physically correct scales, but I want
          it intuitive for humans.

          **Henrik
        • Joseph B.
          ... Look at Láadan. Does Lojban do anything with this? ... Regardless of whether or not I agree with any of your examples, yes, I understand very well. It s
          Message 4 of 21 , Jun 27, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            >Any suggestions?

            Look at Láadan.
            Does Lojban do anything with this?

            >For that matter, as a starter, do any of you actually
            >understand what I'm talking about and why it annoys me? (Does
            >this sound familiar?

            Regardless of whether or not I agree with any of your examples, yes, I
            understand very well. It's something I face frequently re: my world view.
          • Ray Brown
            ... [snip] ... Exactly so. As you well explain with old/young. ... yes, indeed - the failings of the Esperanto mal-, especially the way it treats different
            Message 5 of 21 , Jun 28, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              On Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 03:44 , Henrik Theiling wrote:

              > Hi!
              >
              > Sai Emrys <saizai@...> writes:
              [snip]
              >> The problem: there are too many words that reference what are actually
              >> (multi-dimensional?) (infinite?) spectra as if they were two (or more,
              >> but finite) points.
              >>
              >> E.g.: Good/bad. Old/young. Rich/poor. Etc.
              >
              > These are not the same kind of scales in my view. I'll explain that
              > in a second.

              Exactly so. As you well explain with old/young.

              >> I object. I would like to eradicate all of these - and the associated
              >> (cringily kludgy) Esperantoesque practice of having some word be the
              >> base and then antonyming it (e.g. malbono [sp?] et al). Likewise with
              >> referring to the spectrum, or the unkown quantity, with one of the
              >> endpoint words - e.g. "how old are you?".
              >
              > Very good! :-)

              yes, indeed - the failings of the Esperanto mal-, especially the way it
              treats different types of "opposites" the same way, is well-known. In my
              pages on Speedwords, I discuss the illogical & inconsistent way "opposites"
              are dealt with in that language. This is nothing new and has been
              discussed here before.
              =============================
              On Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 02:45 , Sai Emrys wrote:
              [snip]
              > For that matter, as a starter, do any of you actually understand what
              > I'm talking about

              Most certainly.

              > and why it annoys me?

              I can well understand why the use of affixes like the Esperanto mal- and
              Speedwords -o/-x would annoy you. I don't get so worked up about natlangs.
              For example there is nothing in the form of the words 'good' and 'bad'
              which remotely suggests they are opposites. In fact they are not always
              treated as polar opposites. Also by having different words it does not
              enforce upon humans one particular philosophic viewpoint as between
              whether, for example, good is an absolute or relative term.

              But the question of opposites has exercise some language planners. See for
              example Rick Morneau's essay "Lexical Semantics", section 8 - Polarity


              Ray
              ===============================================
              http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
              ray.brown@...
              ===============================================
              "A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
              interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760
            • Alex Fink
              On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:45:38 -0400, Sai Emrys wrote: [...] ... I m surprised no-one has mentioned Mark Rosenfelder s Elkarîl yet. Elkarîl
              Message 6 of 21 , Jun 29, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:45:38 -0400, Sai Emrys <saizai@...> wrote:

                [...]
                >I object. I would like to eradicate all of these - and the associated
                >(cringily kludgy) Esperantoesque practice of having some word be the
                >base and then antonyming it (e.g. malbono [sp?] et al). Likewise with
                >referring to the spectrum, or the unkown quantity, with one of the
                >endpoint words - e.g. "how old are you?".
                >
                >More, I would like to have some sort of grammatical and elegant way of
                >having a *continuous* spectrum. I don't object to having reference
                >points along the way (e.g. for color or temperature), just to having
                >voids inbetween.
                >
                >The simplest idea I can think of for auditory mode is to use the two
                >major continuous factors of speech - vertical & horizontal tongue
                >position. This would work OK for finite spectra - i.e. 0-1 or (0,0) to
                >(1,1) - but not so much for the infinite. Not sure how to work that.

                I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Mark Rosenfelder's Elkarîl yet. Elkarîl
                uses exactly this kind of continuous vowel variation for scontinuous scales.
                http://zompist.com/elkaril.htm#Vowel

                Alex
              • Henrik Theiling
                Hi! ... Very interesting, thanks for the link. And only unrounded vowels -- I m fond of languages that have that. :-) ... **Henrik
                Message 7 of 21 , Jun 29, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi!

                  Alex Fink <a4pq1injbok_0@...> writes:
                  >...
                  > I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Mark Rosenfelder's Elkarîl yet. Elkarîl
                  > uses exactly this kind of continuous vowel variation for scontinuous scales.
                  > http://zompist.com/elkaril.htm#Vowel

                  Very interesting, thanks for the link.

                  And only unrounded vowels -- I'm fond of languages that have that. :-)

                  Further, it has a collective plural:

                  >...
                  > -aju complete set
                  > qog bone --> qogaju skeleton
                  > qara letter --> qaraju alphabet
                  > tîch stair --> tîchaju staircase

                  **Henrik
                • tomhchappell
                  Thanks, Henrik and Alex, for mentioning Mark s Elkaril . ... Tom H.C. in MI ... yet. Elkarîl ... scontinuous scales. ... that. :-)
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jun 30, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks, Henrik and Alex, for mentioning Mark's "Elkaril".
                    ----
                    Tom H.C. in MI

                    --- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Henrik Theiling <theiling@A...> wrote:
                    > Hi!
                    >
                    > Alex Fink <a4pq1injbok_0@F...> writes:
                    > >...
                    > > I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Mark Rosenfelder's Elkarîl
                    yet. Elkarîl
                    > > uses exactly this kind of continuous vowel variation for
                    scontinuous scales.
                    > > http://zompist.com/elkaril.htm#Vowel
                    >
                    > Very interesting, thanks for the link.
                    >
                    > And only unrounded vowels -- I'm fond of languages that have
                    that. :-)
                    >
                    > Further, it has a collective plural:
                    >
                    > >...
                    > > -aju complete set
                    > > qog bone --> qogaju skeleton
                    > > qara letter --> qaraju alphabet
                    > > tîch stair --> tîchaju staircase
                    >
                    > **Henrik
                  • Remi Villatel
                    ... We already had a thread about this last year (March 2004): http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0403d&L=conlang&F=&S=&P=2455 ... Well,
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jun 30, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Sai Emrys wrote:

                      > So in this case: non-duality / non-polarity / etc. Or another way to
                      > put it - analogy / continuous scales.

                      > The problem: there are too many words that reference what are actually
                      > (multi-dimensional?) (infinite?) spectra as if they were two (or more,
                      > but finite) points.

                      > E.g.: Good/bad. Old/young. Rich/poor. Etc.

                      We already had a thread about this last year (March 2004):

                      http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0403d&L=conlang&F=&S=&P=2455

                      > More, I would like to have some sort of grammatical and elegant way of
                      > having a *continuous* spectrum. I don't object to having reference
                      > points along the way (e.g. for color or temperature), just to having
                      > voids inbetween.

                      > Any suggestions?

                      Well, Shaquelingua has definitively evolved since last year so I'll try to
                      explain the shaquean concept of linearity in a different way.

                      Shaquelingua has a long scale of prefixes with 9 levels from one end to the
                      other end and a short scale with 3 levels when it comes to express opposites
                      but with much less detail. They are called "linear variators".

                      ("ã" is a+macron, "ē" is e+macron, "õ" is o+macron.)

                      dõ fõ gē xē <--| rã |--> çe se pi kli
                      ......da...... <--| () |--> ......ku.......


                      "rã" is the median point and "dõ" and "kli" are the extremes/superlatives.
                      "da" and "ku" gather all the prefixes of their side of the scale. The empty
                      prefix is used only in interrogative sentences. I don't say if "dõ" and
                      "kli" are negative/positive or less/more because, sometimes, there are but,
                      sometimes, they aren't.

                      The objective opposites like small/tall, cold/ward, short/long, etc are
                      always ordered the same way. "dõ" means extremely few of the units in which
                      these objectives values are measured and "kli" means extremly a lot. So "da"
                      is the negative side and "ku" is the positive one. The median point "rã"
                      either means "in between", or "unspecified", or else "whatever" or "more or
                      less".

                      Some examples of measurable concepts:

                      /dapjöki/ <--| /pjöki/ |--> /kupjöki/
                      cold <--| temperature |--> warm

                      /dõpjõki/ <--| /rãpjõki/ |--> /klipjõki/
                      freezing cold <--| tepid |--> burning hot

                      /datevei/ <--| /tevei/ |--> /kutevei/
                      short <--| length |--> long

                      /datsõj/ <--| /tsõj/ |--> /kutsõj/
                      young <--| age |--> old

                      /davizaj/ <--| /vizaj/ |-> /kuvizaj/
                      short time <--| duration |-> long time

                      The close-far concept goes also in this category. You can always measure a
                      distance.

                      Some examples of positive/negative or simply opposite concepts:

                      /dabisiu/ <--| /bisiu/ |--> /kubisiu/
                      ordinary <--| ??? |--> strange/extraordinary

                      /daçērite/ <--| /çērite/ |--> /kuçērite/
                      expendable <--| value |--> precious
                      without value <--| |--> valueable

                      /dafãdõy/ <--| < /fãdõy/ |--> /kufãdõy/
                      unreality <--| ??? |--> reality
                      lie <--| |--> truth

                      /davurif/ <--| /vurif/ |--> /kuvurif/
                      partial <--| completion |--> total

                      /dazuthte/ <--| /zuthte/ |--> /kuzuthte/
                      narrow <--| ??? |--> wide

                      The empty/full-ness fits in this category. In Shaquelingua you can't oppose
                      half empty with half full. You'd rather oppose /xētlēku/ with /çetlēku/.

                      Justice is also linear (from unfair to fair), so are agitated-calm,
                      sickness-health, etc.

                      I didn't include a bad-good linear concept because I dislike these two
                      words. They mean nothing... or rather too many things depending on context:
                      in-/correct, non-/conform to law/morale/ethic/expected behavior,
                      dis-/agreable, un-/pleasant, and so on.

                      Some more examples of con-culturally linear concepts:

                      /dabosir/ <--| < /bosir/ |--> /kubosir/
                      constraint <--| ??? |--> freedom

                      /dõçtai/ /xēçtai/ | /çtai/ | /çeçtai/ /kliçtai/
                      saucer plate | dish | platter tray

                      /datēefi/ <--| < /tēefi/ |--> /kutēefi/
                      spread <--| group |--> grouped
                      scattered <--| |--> gathered

                      /dadãkadã/ <--| < /dãkadã/ |--> /kudãkadã/
                      pride <--| ??? |--> modesty

                      /dazõrhgã/ <--| < /zõrhgã/ |--> /kuzõrhgã/
                      superficiality <--| intensity |--> depth

                      There are a lot of such linear concepts in Shaquelingua, like hint-proof,
                      negligeable-important, exposed-protected, belief-certitude, and so on.

                      These linear variators also apply to the quantifiers (more than articles),
                      so indirectly to the pronouns. They can also be part of the conjugation...
                      Well, of the tense/modal marking in Shaquelingua.

                      dõxa = an absolutely tiny quantity of
                      gēxa = a small quantity of
                      rãxa = a medium quantity of
                      sexa = a large quantity of
                      klixa = an absolutely huge quantity of

                      kliska = absolutely none of the
                      --> kliski-çaki = absolutely none of us

                      klikaa = absolutely all of the
                      --> klikã-çaki = absolutely all of us

                      pre fare pjõki va teo kõrhça ?
                      = What is the temperature of the water?

                      pre fare pjõki va teo kõrhça
                      INTERROGATIVE DESCRIPTOR temperature the INDICATIVE water

                      seteo'vaa.
                      = It is very warm.

                      seteo vaa
                      LIN.VAR:INDICATIVE it

                      And to make things much more fun, the linear variators can also be prefixed
                      to non-linear concepts.

                      jo kli'saçrukuro !
                      = (This is) Definitively a conlang!

                      ji pi'kaçtõlu soe, [ji: pi:'ka.CdO4u so"e] (one very soon until)

                      --
                      ==================
                      Remi Villatel
                      maxilys_@_tele2.fr
                      ==================
                    • Wallingford Man
                      Someone take me off this list, PLEASE. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jul 2, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Someone take me off this list, PLEASE.


                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com
                      • Roger Mills
                        ... (snip much) ... What strikes me as interesting is that for many of these polar concepts, there is no good word (at least in Engl.) for the mid-point. ...
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jul 2, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Remi Villatel wrote:
                          > Sai Emrys wrote:
                          >
                          > > The problem: there are too many words that reference what are actually
                          > > (multi-dimensional?) (infinite?) spectra as if they were two (or more,
                          > > but finite) points.
                          >
                          > > E.g.: Good/bad. Old/young. Rich/poor. Etc.
                          >
                          > > More, I would like to have some sort of grammatical and elegant way of
                          > > having a *continuous* spectrum. I don't object to having reference
                          > > points along the way (e.g. for color or temperature), just to having
                          > > voids inbetween.
                          >
                          > > Any suggestions?
                          >
                          > Well, Shaquelingua has definitively evolved since last year so I'll try to
                          > explain the shaquean concept of linearity in a different way.
                          >
                          > Shaquelingua has a long scale of prefixes with 9 levels from one end to
                          > the
                          > other end and a short scale with 3 levels when it comes to express
                          > opposites
                          > but with much less detail. They are called "linear variators".
                          >
                          (snip much)

                          > The objective opposites like small/tall, cold/ward, short/long, etc are
                          > always ordered the same way. "dõ" means extremely few of the units in
                          > which
                          > these objectives values are measured and "kli" means extremly a lot. So
                          > "da"
                          > is the negative side and "ku" is the positive one. The median point "rã"
                          > either means "in between", or "unspecified", or else "whatever" or "more
                          > or
                          > less".

                          What strikes me as interesting is that for many of these polar concepts,
                          there is no good word (at least in Engl.) for the mid-point.

                          >
                          > Some examples of measurable concepts:
                          >
                          > /dapjöki/ <--| /pjöki/ |--> /kupjöki/
                          > cold <--| temperature |--> warm
                          >
                          > /dõpjõki/ <--| /rãpjõki/ |--> /klipjõki/
                          > freezing cold <--| tepid |--> burning hot

                          For instance, rather than tepid (which is slightly pejorative in Engl.),
                          perhaps better would be "just right for the object involved" ???

                          > /dabisiu/ <--| /bisiu/ |--> /kubisiu/
                          > ordinary <--| ??? |--> strange/extraordinary

                          Here I'd probably say "boringly
                          commonplace/banal....ordinary/expected....extraordinary"

                          > /dadãkadã/ <--| < /dãkadã/ |--> /kudãkadã/
                          > pride <--| ??? |--> modesty

                          This might be different in a conculture :-) For Western culture, I suppose
                          the mid-point is something like the Golden Mean of the Greeks.

                          All in all, an interesting approach.
                        • caeruleancentaur
                          ... I m no computer guru, but I m pretty sure that one person cannot take another off a list (except the moderator, I suppose). You have to do it yourself.
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jul 3, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Wallingford Man <spectrejazz@Y...>
                            wrote:
                            >Someone take me off this list, PLEASE.

                            I'm no computer guru, but I'm pretty sure that one person cannot take
                            another off a list (except the moderator, I suppose). You have to do
                            it yourself. Do a little investigating & discover how to do it
                            yourself. If I can do it, you can do it.

                            Charlie
                          • Joseph Bridwell
                            ... English has a lot of lexical gaps. ... Yes. ... I was disappointed that I got no responses from asking this range vs polarity issue on some Lojban lists.
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jul 4, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > What strikes me as interesting is that for many
                              > of these polar concepts, there is no good word
                              > (at least in Engl.) for the mid-point.

                              English has a lot of lexical gaps.

                              > For instance, rather than tepid (which is slightly
                              > pejorative in Engl.), perhaps better would be "just
                              > right for the object involved" ???

                              Yes.

                              > All in all, an interesting approach.

                              I was disappointed that I got no responses from asking this range vs
                              polarity issue on some Lojban lists.
                            • Matt Arriola
                              i think you send a message to the listserv (the listserv itself, not conlang-l) saying UNSUBSCRIBE, or something.
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jul 4, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                i think you send a message to the listserv (the listserv itself, not
                                conlang-l) saying UNSUBSCRIBE, or something.
                              • (no author)
                                ... Personnaly, to reduce the number I d not keep the distinction between 3rd and 4th person when there are 1st and 2nd person implied. So there would have:
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jul 4, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  John Vertical wrote:

                                  >Hi all,
                                  >
                                  >I've been thinking about the plurals of personal (and relative) pronouns
                                  >lately...
                                  >For background information, my conlang has 4 different persons. I think the
                                  >exact difference between 3rd and 4th persons varies between languages - I'm
                                  >using the 3rd for people who are in the discussion but who are not the
                                  >recipient of the message, and 4th for any extrenal beings, regardless of
                                  >their sentience.
                                  >
                                  >So, now I'm faced with the problem of mixed person plurals. It seems to me
                                  >that NONE of the generic plurals are pure; eg the generic "2nd person
                                  >plural" may well include also people who would be 3rd or 4th person, if
                                  >individually referred to.
                                  >I could go for a very finely distinctive system, by using different words
                                  >for ALL the plural types - 13 different ones are possible: 1+2, 1+3, 1+4,
                                  >1+2+3, 1+2+4, 1+3+4, 1+2+3+4, 2, 2+3, 2+4, 2+3+4, 3, 3+4, 4 - but a system
                                  >this wide does not seem sensible. However, with regards to this, I do want
                                  >to distinguish more than just the generic three or four.
                                  >
                                  >The same problem applies to relative pronouns. I'm not sure of the
                                  >terminology used for their classification, but it seems to me that the
                                  >singular ones in eg. English correspond roughly with my 2nd, 3rd and 4th
                                  >persons. I have two rel. pron. sets, one for abstracts and one for concrete
                                  >objects (with the 4th concrete merged with the 4th person), and the 7 later
                                  >classes of plurals are again possible in both series here.
                                  >Not to mention plurals mixing pronouns from different series altogether
                                  >(like 1st person with 4th abstract), but those seem generally a little too
                                  >unuseful. A few variants of "all" and a few variants of "person +
                                  >possessions" should be enough for those.
                                  >
                                  >The question is: what plural types do you think would be the most likely to
                                  >merge? I'm fairly sure that at least the 1+2+4 type is of too little use to
                                  >warrant a word on its own. Some types might exist only for certain numbers
                                  >(obviously the mixed plurals can have no singular, and eg 1+2 might only
                                  >have a dual) ... other restrictions might be possible too.

                                  Personnaly, to reduce the number I'd not keep the distinction between 3rd
                                  and 4th person when there are 1st and 2nd person implied. So there would
                                  have:

                                  1+2
                                  1+2+3, 1+2+4, or 1+2+3+4
                                  1+3, 1+4, or 1+3+4
                                  2
                                  2+3, 2+4, or 2+3+4
                                  3
                                  4
                                  3+4

                                  And then you have only 8 different plural pronouns, but maybe you loose
                                  sensibility for what you wanted

                                  So, you may create all the 13 pronouns but agglutinatively

                                  1st = a
                                  2nd = v/ve
                                  3rd = i/j
                                  4th = u
                                  plur = l/le
                                  dual = k/ke

                                  singular forms
                                  1 a
                                  2 ve
                                  3 i
                                  4 u

                                  dual forms
                                  1+2 kav
                                  1+3 kai
                                  1+4 kau
                                  2 kev
                                  2+3 kevi
                                  2+4 kevu
                                  3 ki
                                  3+4 kju
                                  4 ku

                                  plural forms
                                  1 la
                                  1+2 lav
                                  1+3 lai
                                  1+4 lau
                                  1+2+3 lavi
                                  1+2+4 lavu
                                  1+2+3+4 lavju
                                  2 lev
                                  2+3 levi
                                  2+4 levu
                                  2+3+4 levju
                                  3 li
                                  3+4 lju
                                  4 lu

                                  or something similar with the "l" and "k" at the end or with different
                                  orders in the word like 1-2-4-3 or 2-3-4-1 instead of the 1-2-3-4 I used or
                                  not always the same order or without any dual

                                  >Oh, and any ANADEWism changes here? What's the most different personal
                                  >pronouns (disregarding gender) distinguished in a natlang?

                                  I'd like to know this too but I can't help for this

                                  - Max
                                • Ph.D.
                                  Send this message (not subject): SIGNOFF CONLANG to this address: LISTSERV@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU ... From: Matt Arriola To:
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Jul 4, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Send this message (not subject):

                                    SIGNOFF CONLANG

                                    to this address:

                                    LISTSERV@...


                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: "Matt Arriola" <azathoth500@...>
                                    To: <CONLANG@...>
                                    Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 2:08 PM
                                    Subject: Re: UNSUBSCRIBE!


                                    > i think you send a message to the listserv (the listserv itself, not
                                    > conlang-l) saying UNSUBSCRIBE, or something.
                                  • Campbell Nilsen
                                    I would like to request de-subscription here, too. Thanks. On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Campbell Nilsen
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Jul 23
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I would like to request de-subscription here, too. Thanks.

                                      On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Campbell Nilsen <campbell.nilsen@...
                                      > wrote:

                                      > I would like to unsubscribe as well.
                                      >
                                      > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Julian Garberson <jgarb2@...>
                                      > wrote:
                                      >
                                      >> Hello,
                                      >>
                                      >> I must request the same.
                                      >>
                                      >> Julian Garberson
                                      >>
                                      >> > On Jul 23, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Adam Daniel Sheridan <u4526291@...>
                                      >> wrote:
                                      >> >
                                      >> > Hello!
                                      >> >
                                      >> > Sorry about this - I've been trying to unsubscribe for a few days now,
                                      >> but just keep getting my emails bounced.
                                      >> > Could you please help me out?
                                      >> >
                                      >> > All the best,
                                      >> > Daniel.
                                      >> >
                                      >> > ________________________________________
                                      >> > From: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...> on
                                      >> behalf of Logan Kearsley <chronosurfer@...>
                                      >> > Sent: 23 July 2015 07:06
                                      >> > To: CONLANG@...
                                      >> > Subject: Re: Retroactively Historicizing Serikats
                                      >> >
                                      >> > On 22 July 2015 at 11:51, Js Bangs <jaspax@...> wrote:
                                      >> >> I like this quite a lot, though I don't have any specific feedback to
                                      >> >> offer. I've gone through a similar process in the past with Yivrian,
                                      >> which
                                      >> >> was originally designed as a sort of ideal language with no
                                      >> irregularity,
                                      >> >> and was then reworked into a more naturalistic frame, with some of the
                                      >> >> regularities explained away and some actually revamped.
                                      >> >>
                                      >> >> Your historical development seems quite plausible to me, and indeed,
                                      >> it's
                                      >> >> pretty close to the first thing that I thought of when your first
                                      >> paragraph
                                      >> >> described the problem.
                                      >> >
                                      >> > Well, thanks for your vote of confidence, even if you don't have
                                      >> > specific feedback.
                                      >> >
                                      >> > Another natlang feature that I did not know about Way Back When which
                                      >> > might be relevant is the use of applicatives.
                                      >> > In my original design for Serikats, indirect objects of ditransitives
                                      >> > and oblique arguments would be indicated by just piling on more and
                                      >> > more case suffixes on the verb (which, again, had to be matched to NPs
                                      >> > one-by-one in order of appearance- yuck!) Explicit & distinct
                                      >> > applicative morphology would make the addition of third arguments
                                      >> > rather more palatable, I think. This would allow for some interesting
                                      >> > weirdness in having indirect objects marked as an applicative prefix
                                      >> > (while subject/object agreement is done with suffixes), and if
                                      >> > applicatives already exist then that also provides some stronger
                                      >> > motivation for evolving towards incorporating *all* case/role marking
                                      >> > into the verb. This would be a distinct alteration in how
                                      >> > ditransitives were originally handled, but like I already mentioned,
                                      >> > the existing corpus is small; I don't think there are many
                                      >> > ditransitives to worry about.
                                      >> >
                                      >> > The trouble is going to be how to disambiguate applicative arguments
                                      >> > from all others. I suppose I could allow for one surviving preposition
                                      >> > just for marking applicative obliques (and hey, maybe I could re-use
                                      >> > that for genitives as well); that messes up the Purity of the Concept
                                      >> > a bit, but it wouldn't actually be telling you what the NPs role is,
                                      >> > just that you need to look it up in a particular part of the verb; and
                                      >> > genitives aren't "normal" cases anyway. Hm. Ponder, ponder, ponder.
                                      >> >
                                      >> > -l.
                                      >>
                                      >
                                      >
                                    • Sai
                                      … and I would like to request that anyone wanting to request this STOP POSTING TO THE WHOLE DAMN LIST and instead contact Alex Fink, holder of the
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Jul 23
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        … and I would like to request that anyone wanting to request this STOP
                                        POSTING TO THE WHOLE DAMN LIST and instead contact Alex Fink, holder
                                        of the administrative power.

                                        *shakes cane*

                                        - Sai

                                        On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Campbell Nilsen
                                        <campbell.nilsen@...> wrote:
                                        > I would like to request de-subscription here, too. Thanks.
                                        >
                                        > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Campbell Nilsen <campbell.nilsen@...
                                        >> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >> I would like to unsubscribe as well.
                                        >>
                                        >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Julian Garberson <jgarb2@...>
                                        >> wrote:
                                        >>
                                        >>> Hello,
                                        >>>
                                        >>> I must request the same.
                                        >>>
                                        >>> Julian Garberson
                                        >>>
                                        >>> > On Jul 23, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Adam Daniel Sheridan <u4526291@...>
                                        >>> wrote:
                                        >>> >
                                        >>> > Hello!
                                        >>> >
                                        >>> > Sorry about this - I've been trying to unsubscribe for a few days now,
                                        >>> but just keep getting my emails bounced.
                                        >>> > Could you please help me out?
                                        >>> >
                                        >>> > All the best,
                                        >>> > Daniel.
                                        >>> >
                                        >>> > ________________________________________
                                        >>> > From: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...> on
                                        >>> behalf of Logan Kearsley <chronosurfer@...>
                                        >>> > Sent: 23 July 2015 07:06
                                        >>> > To: CONLANG@...
                                        >>> > Subject: Re: Retroactively Historicizing Serikats
                                        >>> >
                                        >>> > On 22 July 2015 at 11:51, Js Bangs <jaspax@...> wrote:
                                        >>> >> I like this quite a lot, though I don't have any specific feedback to
                                        >>> >> offer. I've gone through a similar process in the past with Yivrian,
                                        >>> which
                                        >>> >> was originally designed as a sort of ideal language with no
                                        >>> irregularity,
                                        >>> >> and was then reworked into a more naturalistic frame, with some of the
                                        >>> >> regularities explained away and some actually revamped.
                                        >>> >>
                                        >>> >> Your historical development seems quite plausible to me, and indeed,
                                        >>> it's
                                        >>> >> pretty close to the first thing that I thought of when your first
                                        >>> paragraph
                                        >>> >> described the problem.
                                        >>> >
                                        >>> > Well, thanks for your vote of confidence, even if you don't have
                                        >>> > specific feedback.
                                        >>> >
                                        >>> > Another natlang feature that I did not know about Way Back When which
                                        >>> > might be relevant is the use of applicatives.
                                        >>> > In my original design for Serikats, indirect objects of ditransitives
                                        >>> > and oblique arguments would be indicated by just piling on more and
                                        >>> > more case suffixes on the verb (which, again, had to be matched to NPs
                                        >>> > one-by-one in order of appearance- yuck!) Explicit & distinct
                                        >>> > applicative morphology would make the addition of third arguments
                                        >>> > rather more palatable, I think. This would allow for some interesting
                                        >>> > weirdness in having indirect objects marked as an applicative prefix
                                        >>> > (while subject/object agreement is done with suffixes), and if
                                        >>> > applicatives already exist then that also provides some stronger
                                        >>> > motivation for evolving towards incorporating *all* case/role marking
                                        >>> > into the verb. This would be a distinct alteration in how
                                        >>> > ditransitives were originally handled, but like I already mentioned,
                                        >>> > the existing corpus is small; I don't think there are many
                                        >>> > ditransitives to worry about.
                                        >>> >
                                        >>> > The trouble is going to be how to disambiguate applicative arguments
                                        >>> > from all others. I suppose I could allow for one surviving preposition
                                        >>> > just for marking applicative obliques (and hey, maybe I could re-use
                                        >>> > that for genitives as well); that messes up the Purity of the Concept
                                        >>> > a bit, but it wouldn't actually be telling you what the NPs role is,
                                        >>> > just that you need to look it up in a particular part of the verb; and
                                        >>> > genitives aren't "normal" cases anyway. Hm. Ponder, ponder, ponder.
                                        >>> >
                                        >>> > -l.
                                        >>>
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                      • David Peterson
                                        Google also works: https://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conlang&A=1 I sympathize when someone doesn’t know the right question to ask Google
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Jul 23
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Google also works:

                                          https://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conlang&A=1

                                          I sympathize when someone doesn’t know the right question to ask Google to get the info they’re looking for, but honestly, the first hit when you type “unsubscribe conlang list” into Google gets you a page with a great big red link that reads “Join or leave the list (or change settings)”.

                                          Semi-ObConlang: If anyone’s going to Sasquan in Spokane, contact me or Jeff Jones offlist. We’re going to have a small meet-up!

                                          David Peterson
                                          LCS Member Since 2007
                                          dave@...
                                          http://www.artoflanguageinvention.com/

                                          =================================
                                          Pre-Order The Art of Language Invention!
                                          (Available September 29th!)

                                          http://bit.ly/conlang
                                          =================================

                                          > On Jul 23, 2015, at 11:13 PM, Sai <conlangs@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > … and I would like to request that anyone wanting to request this STOP
                                          > POSTING TO THE WHOLE DAMN LIST and instead contact Alex Fink, holder
                                          > of the administrative power.
                                          >
                                          > *shakes cane*
                                          >
                                          > - Sai
                                          >
                                          > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Campbell Nilsen
                                          > <campbell.nilsen@...> wrote:
                                          >> I would like to request de-subscription here, too. Thanks.
                                          >>
                                          >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Campbell Nilsen <campbell.nilsen@...
                                          >>> wrote:
                                          >>
                                          >>> I would like to unsubscribe as well.
                                          >>>
                                          >>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Julian Garberson <jgarb2@...>
                                          >>> wrote:
                                          >>>
                                          >>>> Hello,
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>> I must request the same.
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>> Julian Garberson
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>>> On Jul 23, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Adam Daniel Sheridan <u4526291@...>
                                          >>>> wrote:
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>> Hello!
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>> Sorry about this - I've been trying to unsubscribe for a few days now,
                                          >>>> but just keep getting my emails bounced.
                                          >>>>> Could you please help me out?
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>> All the best,
                                          >>>>> Daniel.
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>> ________________________________________
                                          >>>>> From: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...> on
                                          >>>> behalf of Logan Kearsley <chronosurfer@...>
                                          >>>>> Sent: 23 July 2015 07:06
                                          >>>>> To: CONLANG@...
                                          >>>>> Subject: Re: Retroactively Historicizing Serikats
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>> On 22 July 2015 at 11:51, Js Bangs <jaspax@...> wrote:
                                          >>>>>> I like this quite a lot, though I don't have any specific feedback to
                                          >>>>>> offer. I've gone through a similar process in the past with Yivrian,
                                          >>>> which
                                          >>>>>> was originally designed as a sort of ideal language with no
                                          >>>> irregularity,
                                          >>>>>> and was then reworked into a more naturalistic frame, with some of the
                                          >>>>>> regularities explained away and some actually revamped.
                                          >>>>>>
                                          >>>>>> Your historical development seems quite plausible to me, and indeed,
                                          >>>> it's
                                          >>>>>> pretty close to the first thing that I thought of when your first
                                          >>>> paragraph
                                          >>>>>> described the problem.
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>> Well, thanks for your vote of confidence, even if you don't have
                                          >>>>> specific feedback.
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>> Another natlang feature that I did not know about Way Back When which
                                          >>>>> might be relevant is the use of applicatives.
                                          >>>>> In my original design for Serikats, indirect objects of ditransitives
                                          >>>>> and oblique arguments would be indicated by just piling on more and
                                          >>>>> more case suffixes on the verb (which, again, had to be matched to NPs
                                          >>>>> one-by-one in order of appearance- yuck!) Explicit & distinct
                                          >>>>> applicative morphology would make the addition of third arguments
                                          >>>>> rather more palatable, I think. This would allow for some interesting
                                          >>>>> weirdness in having indirect objects marked as an applicative prefix
                                          >>>>> (while subject/object agreement is done with suffixes), and if
                                          >>>>> applicatives already exist then that also provides some stronger
                                          >>>>> motivation for evolving towards incorporating *all* case/role marking
                                          >>>>> into the verb. This would be a distinct alteration in how
                                          >>>>> ditransitives were originally handled, but like I already mentioned,
                                          >>>>> the existing corpus is small; I don't think there are many
                                          >>>>> ditransitives to worry about.
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>> The trouble is going to be how to disambiguate applicative arguments
                                          >>>>> from all others. I suppose I could allow for one surviving preposition
                                          >>>>> just for marking applicative obliques (and hey, maybe I could re-use
                                          >>>>> that for genitives as well); that messes up the Purity of the Concept
                                          >>>>> a bit, but it wouldn't actually be telling you what the NPs role is,
                                          >>>>> just that you need to look it up in a particular part of the verb; and
                                          >>>>> genitives aren't "normal" cases anyway. Hm. Ponder, ponder, ponder.
                                          >>>>>
                                          >>>>> -l.
                                          >>>>
                                          >>>
                                          >>>
                                        • Mark J. Reed
                                          ... Preach it! ... where s the Like button on this email thing ... ... -- Mark J. Reed
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Jul 23
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Sai:

                                            > … and I would like to request that anyone wanting to request this STOP
                                            > POSTING TO THE WHOLE DAMN LIST and instead contact Alex Fink, holder
                                            > of the administrative power.
                                            > *shakes cane*


                                            Preach it!

                                            ... where's the Like button on this "email" thing ...


                                            On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Sai <conlangs@...> wrote:

                                            > … and I would like to request that anyone wanting to request this STOP
                                            > POSTING TO THE WHOLE DAMN LIST and instead contact Alex Fink, holder
                                            > of the administrative power.
                                            >
                                            > *shakes cane*
                                            >
                                            > - Sai
                                            >
                                            > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Campbell Nilsen
                                            > <campbell.nilsen@...> wrote:
                                            > > I would like to request de-subscription here, too. Thanks.
                                            > >
                                            > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Campbell Nilsen <
                                            > campbell.nilsen@...
                                            > >> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > >> I would like to unsubscribe as well.
                                            > >>
                                            > >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Julian Garberson <jgarb2@...>
                                            > >> wrote:
                                            > >>
                                            > >>> Hello,
                                            > >>>
                                            > >>> I must request the same.
                                            > >>>
                                            > >>> Julian Garberson
                                            > >>>
                                            > >>> > On Jul 23, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Adam Daniel Sheridan <
                                            > u4526291@...>
                                            > >>> wrote:
                                            > >>> >
                                            > >>> > Hello!
                                            > >>> >
                                            > >>> > Sorry about this - I've been trying to unsubscribe for a few days
                                            > now,
                                            > >>> but just keep getting my emails bounced.
                                            > >>> > Could you please help me out?
                                            > >>> >
                                            > >>> > All the best,
                                            > >>> > Daniel.
                                            > >>> >
                                            > >>> > ________________________________________
                                            > >>> > From: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...> on
                                            > >>> behalf of Logan Kearsley <chronosurfer@...>
                                            > >>> > Sent: 23 July 2015 07:06
                                            > >>> > To: CONLANG@...
                                            > >>> > Subject: Re: Retroactively Historicizing Serikats
                                            > >>> >
                                            > >>> > On 22 July 2015 at 11:51, Js Bangs <jaspax@...> wrote:
                                            > >>> >> I like this quite a lot, though I don't have any specific feedback
                                            > to
                                            > >>> >> offer. I've gone through a similar process in the past with Yivrian,
                                            > >>> which
                                            > >>> >> was originally designed as a sort of ideal language with no
                                            > >>> irregularity,
                                            > >>> >> and was then reworked into a more naturalistic frame, with some of
                                            > the
                                            > >>> >> regularities explained away and some actually revamped.
                                            > >>> >>
                                            > >>> >> Your historical development seems quite plausible to me, and indeed,
                                            > >>> it's
                                            > >>> >> pretty close to the first thing that I thought of when your first
                                            > >>> paragraph
                                            > >>> >> described the problem.
                                            > >>> >
                                            > >>> > Well, thanks for your vote of confidence, even if you don't have
                                            > >>> > specific feedback.
                                            > >>> >
                                            > >>> > Another natlang feature that I did not know about Way Back When which
                                            > >>> > might be relevant is the use of applicatives.
                                            > >>> > In my original design for Serikats, indirect objects of ditransitives
                                            > >>> > and oblique arguments would be indicated by just piling on more and
                                            > >>> > more case suffixes on the verb (which, again, had to be matched to
                                            > NPs
                                            > >>> > one-by-one in order of appearance- yuck!) Explicit & distinct
                                            > >>> > applicative morphology would make the addition of third arguments
                                            > >>> > rather more palatable, I think. This would allow for some interesting
                                            > >>> > weirdness in having indirect objects marked as an applicative prefix
                                            > >>> > (while subject/object agreement is done with suffixes), and if
                                            > >>> > applicatives already exist then that also provides some stronger
                                            > >>> > motivation for evolving towards incorporating *all* case/role marking
                                            > >>> > into the verb. This would be a distinct alteration in how
                                            > >>> > ditransitives were originally handled, but like I already mentioned,
                                            > >>> > the existing corpus is small; I don't think there are many
                                            > >>> > ditransitives to worry about.
                                            > >>> >
                                            > >>> > The trouble is going to be how to disambiguate applicative arguments
                                            > >>> > from all others. I suppose I could allow for one surviving
                                            > preposition
                                            > >>> > just for marking applicative obliques (and hey, maybe I could re-use
                                            > >>> > that for genitives as well); that messes up the Purity of the Concept
                                            > >>> > a bit, but it wouldn't actually be telling you what the NPs role is,
                                            > >>> > just that you need to look it up in a particular part of the verb;
                                            > and
                                            > >>> > genitives aren't "normal" cases anyway. Hm. Ponder, ponder, ponder.
                                            > >>> >
                                            > >>> > -l.
                                            > >>>
                                            > >>
                                            > >>
                                            >



                                            --
                                            Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
                                          • Alex Fink
                                            ... Quite. Though And and I share this power, and in fact, And was quicker on the uptake in Daniel s case. For the record, the canonical way to write to your
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Jul 24
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On 24 July 2015 at 07:13, Sai <conlangs@...> wrote:
                                              > … and I would like to request that anyone wanting to request this STOP
                                              > POSTING TO THE WHOLE DAMN LIST and instead contact Alex Fink, holder
                                              > of the administrative power.

                                              Quite. Though And and I share this power, and in fact, And was
                                              quicker on the uptake in Daniel's case. For the record, the canonical
                                              way to write to your duumvirate is
                                              <conlang-request@...>.

                                              Daniel and Julian and Campbell's requests have been granted.

                                              Alex
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.