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

Creating a metaconlang; anyone want to join?

Expand Messages
  • Sai Emrys
    As some of you know, my personal conlanging interests are a bit off the usual. Recently I ve been giving more serious thought to creating a metaconlang. That
    Message 1 of 18 , Nov 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      As some of you know, my personal conlanging interests are a bit off the usual.

      Recently I've been giving more serious thought to creating a
      metaconlang. That is, a sort of grammar that can ride on top of an
      existing language (English as a default, given its status as lingua
      franca). It'd have a few features:

      * use semantic space* that isn't denotatively used by the language
      itself (e.g. English doesn't have tone, clicks, facial gestures,
      signing, so we could use any of that)
      * use semantic space that IS denotatively used, very sparingly (e.g.
      my earlier [only-partially-humorous] post about pkt; one could insert
      single phonemes like /k/ in various places)
      * be anywhere from almost undetectable to unobtrusive (on the level of
      an odd mannerism / speech impediment) to uninitiates - i.e. the
      metaconlang should not generally interfere with the base language
      still being comprehensible per its usual
      * possibly add grammatical rules to streamline the base language, e.g.
      pkt-style "optionally drop anything whatsoever that is pragmatically
      indicated" - but not on the level of creating a derivative language as
      such
      * be as much as possible language-agnostic, that is, not being tightly
      bound to any particular base language
      * be either parallel, additive, or crypto wrt the base:
      e.g. psuedo-pinyin "I2 want3 a4 dog1 [dental click with right hand
      supinated]" could be:
      a) parallel: "I want a dog" and "2341[click] = [I have the secret package]"
      b) additive: "I[pronoun + 2 = exclusive] want[verb + 3 = immediately]
      a[article / number + 4 = or more] dog[noun + 1 = of canonical type]
      [click = I know this from direct experience]"= "I want four golden
      retrievers for myself right now [and I know this directly]."
      c) crypto: "[I2 = You] [want3 = have?] [a4 = four] [dog1 = nuclear
      briefcases] [click = or else I have to kill you]." = "Do you have the
      four nukes? If not, you're dead..."

      I see (b) as the most interesting variant, though (c) could also be useful...

      That is, the intent of this is to allow the base language to, from an
      uninitiated perspective, be moreorless perceived normally - perhaps
      sounding "slightly odd". But from an initiated perspective, it may
      convey an additional message, modify the base message (e.g. adding
      modifiers per word, or even sentence-level things like evidentials and
      speech act designation), or make the base message merely a
      quasi-sensical rider for the true message, which requires knowledge of
      the extra bits to understand.

      Preferably this metaconlang will generalize in applicability beyond
      English - perhaps requiring the rider language to have (or more
      accurately, lack) certain features like tone.

      This is of course just a very partial and kludgy sketch; I'm only
      trying to convey the intent, not the actual form of the metaconlang;
      the examples are entirely ad hoc.

      Anyway, if you're interested in working on this collaboratively, or
      have comments, please ping me via email (conlangs@...) or
      IM.(AIM saizai, YIM saizai1, Jabber saizai@gmail) or respond on-list.

      Fiat lingua,
      Sai


      * By "semantic space" I mean to describe the various things that can
      carry meaning, like sounds, tone, facial configuration, gestures, etc
      etc. Treating it in a sort of information-theoretical abstract way. I
      know it's not a very good term for what I mean, but I haven't thought
      of something more apt... :/
    • li_sasxsek@NUTTER.NET
      ... lingua ... Sounds like it could be interesting. We could drive the NSA crazy with it. Seriously though, maybe a look at Navaho code talk could give some
      Message 2 of 18 , Nov 30, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        > [mailto:CONLANG@...] On Behalf Of Sai Emrys

        > As some of you know, my personal conlanging interests are a
        > bit off the usual.
        >
        > Recently I've been giving more serious thought to creating a
        > metaconlang. That is, a sort of grammar that can ride on top of an
        > existing language (English as a default, given its status as
        lingua
        > franca). It'd have a few features:

        Sounds like it could be interesting. We could drive the NSA crazy
        with it.

        Seriously though, maybe a look at Navaho code talk could give some
        ideas.
      • Kelly Drinkwater
        ... Expressive space? Expressive modes? Channels?
        Message 3 of 18 , Nov 30, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          On Nov 30, 2007 6:26 PM, Sai Emrys <sai@...> wrote:
          > * By "semantic space" I mean to describe the various things that can
          > carry meaning, like sounds, tone, facial configuration, gestures, etc
          > etc. Treating it in a sort of information-theoretical abstract way. I
          > know it's not a very good term for what I mean, but I haven't thought
          > of something more apt... :/
          >

          Expressive space? Expressive modes? Channels?
        • Sai Emrys
          ... *laugh* I have no doubt that it d be trivially breakable. I don t propose any serious encryption; version (c) would be more like a sophisticated version of
          Message 4 of 18 , Nov 30, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            On Nov 30, 2007 4:11 PM, <li_sasxsek@...> wrote:
            > Sounds like it could be interesting. We could drive the NSA crazy
            > with it.

            *laugh* I have no doubt that it'd be trivially breakable. I don't
            propose any serious encryption; version (c) would be more like a
            sophisticated version of codeword based talk.

            > Seriously though, maybe a look at Navaho code talk could give some
            > ideas.

            Any particular (preferably online) references?

            Mind that this is intended to be real-time meta on top of normal
            speech, not just a pure 'code' language.

            On Nov 30, 2007 6:23 PM, Kelly Drinkwater <mizunomi@...> wrote:
            > Expressive space? Expressive modes? Channels?

            "Channels" is pretty close, except that it's one level too high - e.g.
            English certainly uses the channel of "speech", yet it leaves some
            parts of that channel unused (clicks, tone, etc).

            - Sai
          • li_sasxsek@NUTTER.NET
            ... crazy ... In today s ultra-paranoid government, I wouldn t be one bit surprised if they took notice and started looking for something like this. It s not
            Message 5 of 18 , Nov 30, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              > [mailto:CONLANG@...] On Behalf Of Sai Emrys
              > On Nov 30, 2007 4:11 PM, <li_sasxsek@...> wrote:
              > > Sounds like it could be interesting. We could drive the NSA
              crazy
              > > with it.
              >
              > *laugh* I have no doubt that it'd be trivially breakable. I don't
              > propose any serious encryption; version (c) would be more like a
              > sophisticated version of codeword based talk.

              In today's ultra-paranoid government, I wouldn't be one bit
              surprised if they took notice and started looking for something like
              this. It's not too far from the idea of steganography.


              > > Seriously though, maybe a look at Navaho code talk could give
              some
              > > ideas.
              >
              > Any particular (preferably online) references?

              It's been a while since I looked into it. I'm sure Google can get
              lots of info. I usually download things like this an save them, but
              I'm sure a run through the gigabytes of yet-to-be-filed-correctly
              documents I could have something.


              > Mind that this is intended to be real-time meta on top of normal
              > speech, not just a pure 'code' language.

              Which only makes that much tougher (=more interesting).


              > On Nov 30, 2007 6:23 PM, Kelly Drinkwater <mizunomi@...>
              wrote:
              > > Expressive space? Expressive modes? Channels?
              >
              > "Channels" is pretty close, except that it's one level too high -
              e.g.
              > English certainly uses the channel of "speech", yet it leaves some
              > parts of that channel unused (clicks, tone, etc).

              We do still use tone, we just don't use it phonemically. I'm not
              sure using it is an option. Clicks are certainly an option, and
              maybe even sighs or other cues could be used. Do they all have to
              be audible, or are we going to mix in some body language?
            • Sai Emrys
              ... I presume they already have *something* like this for cases where spies have to meet in hostile territory under observation... And no, it s not at all far
              Message 6 of 18 , Nov 30, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                On Nov 30, 2007 8:33 PM, <li_sasxsek@...> wrote:
                > In today's ultra-paranoid government, I wouldn't be one bit
                > surprised if they took notice and started looking for something like
                > this. It's not too far from the idea of steganography.

                I presume they already have *something* like this for cases where
                spies have to meet in hostile territory under observation...

                And no, it's not at all far from steganography.

                > We do still use tone, we just don't use it phonemically. I'm not
                > sure using it is an option. Clicks are certainly an option, and
                > maybe even sighs or other cues could be used. Do they all have to
                > be audible, or are we going to mix in some body language?

                Certainly!

                In fact, that's a desirable feature; anything you can do in person is
                a potentially exploitable substrate channel. (E.g. suppose how far you
                stand from people, or at what angle, were "phonemic"?)

                For the paranoid types, it'd ensure that people just listening in on
                your conversation only get the 'plain' version... would beat the "wink
                and mouth, then write something with the music turned up" version of
                avoiding it given on TV. ;)

                (This isn't particularly my goal as such, so much as just a cute
                bonus. The goal is more simply, to have an extra information channel
                riding on top of normal conversations, that can be done in real time,
                to make people who are 'in' on it have better and possibly secret
                communication.)


                One thing that Alex points out, correctly, is that a-c are
                significantly different tasks.

                A = create a conlang on a very limited channel
                B = find features unmarked (or marked inefficiently) in carrier
                language, bind them to unused 'phoneme's (plus a bit)
                C = combo of B&D, such that substrate is not arbitrary to the 'true' message
                D = encode A using the erstwhile (substrate) content as a sort of one-time-pad

                B is the version I'm most interesting and think is most plausibly
                implementable as a usable, real-time metalanguage.

                - Sai

                P.S. Check your mail setup. Your reply-to is set as your personal
                address rather than the list address...
              • caeruleancentaur
                ... I like the term semantic space. I am reminded of the secret hand gestures used by the Bene Gesserit in the Dune stories. Charlie
                Message 7 of 18 , Dec 1, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  >Sai Emrys <sai@...> wrote:

                  >* use semantic space* that isn't denotatively used by the language
                  >itself (e.g. English doesn't have tone, clicks, facial gestures,
                  >signing, so we could use any of that)

                  I like the term "semantic space."

                  I am reminded of the secret hand gestures used by the Bene Gesserit in
                  the "Dune" stories.

                  Charlie
                • Joe Schelin
                  ... I was going to say that this concept reminds me of the scene in Dune where there is polite conversation going on, with double meanings to some of the
                  Message 8 of 18 , Dec 1, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > >Sai Emrys <sai@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >>* use semantic space* that isn't denotatively used by the language
                    >>itself (e.g. English doesn't have tone, clicks, facial gestures,
                    >>signing, so we could use any of that)
                    >
                    > I like the term "semantic space."
                    >
                    > I am reminded of the secret hand gestures used by the Bene Gesserit in
                    > the "Dune" stories.
                    >
                    > Charlie
                    >
                    I was going to say that this concept reminds me of the scene in
                    'Dune' where there is polite conversation going on, with double meanings to
                    some of the words, so there is an extra layer of meaning floating through
                    the conversation.

                    Oh, yeah, I'm new(ish?) I've been lurking for a while, just now
                    decided to post :)

                    Joe
                  • Jim Henry
                    ... My understanding is that the code-talkers just translated the English messages into Navaho and talked normally to each other, relying on the obscurity
                    Message 9 of 18 , Dec 1, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Nov 30, 2007 7:11 PM, <li_sasxsek@...> wrote:

                      > Seriously though, maybe a look at Navaho code talk could give some
                      > ideas.

                      My understanding is that the "code-talkers" just
                      translated the English messages into Navaho and talked
                      normally to each other, relying on the obscurity
                      and difficulty of Navaho to stymie the Japanese
                      (or Germans?) who were listening in. Any obscure
                      natlang or a priori conlang could work the same way;
                      preferably some language about which nothing has
                      been published in your enemy's language.

                      --
                      Jim Henry
                      http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry
                    • Jim Henry
                      ... English does use tone, though not phonemically as tonal languages do. I suspect using suprasegmental tone as your extra channel will make English sound
                      Message 10 of 18 , Dec 1, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Nov 30, 2007 6:26 PM, Sai Emrys <sai@...> wrote:

                        > Recently I've been giving more serious thought to creating a
                        > metaconlang. That is, a sort of grammar that can ride on top of an
                        > existing language (English as a default, given its status as lingua
                        > franca). It'd have a few features:
                        >
                        > * use semantic space* that isn't denotatively used by the language
                        > itself (e.g. English doesn't have tone, clicks, facial gestures,
                        > signing, so we could use any of that)

                        English does use tone, though not phonemically as
                        "tonal" languages do. I suspect using suprasegmental
                        tone as your extra channel will make English sound
                        not just

                        > * be anywhere from almost undetectable to unobtrusive (on the level of
                        > an odd mannerism / speech impediment)

                        but _really weird_. Relatively quiet clicks, and
                        subtle alterations of facial expression, gesture,
                        and posture are probably better things to explore.

                        > I see (b) as the most interesting variant, though (c) could also be useful...

                        I agree. Evidentiality, validationality, distinction of
                        exclusivity for we/us/our and number for you/your;
                        perhaps number marking for nouns that are
                        invariant in English (deer, sheep, fish)...
                        Things like that could be useful.

                        --
                        Jim Henry
                        http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/review/log.htm
                      • li_sasxsek@NUTTER.NET
                        ... some ... There s much more than that to it. It was sort of a code on top of a code, with the use of a little-known language like Navaho only making it
                        Message 11 of 18 , Dec 1, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > [mailto:CONLANG@...] On Behalf Of Jim Henry

                          > > Seriously though, maybe a look at Navaho code talk could give
                          some
                          > > ideas.
                          >
                          > My understanding is that the "code-talkers" just
                          > translated the English messages into Navaho and talked
                          > normally to each other, relying on the obscurity
                          > and difficulty of Navaho to stymie the Japanese
                          > (or Germans?) who were listening in. Any obscure
                          > natlang or a priori conlang could work the same way;
                          > preferably some language about which nothing has
                          > been published in your enemy's language.

                          There's much more than that to it. It was sort of a code on top of
                          a code, with the use of a little-known language like Navaho only
                          making it more difficult for the enemy to decipher.

                          > The Navajo Code Talker's Dictionary

                          When a Navajo code talker received a message, what he heard
                          was a string of
                          seemingly unrelated Navajo words. The code talker first had
                          to translate
                          each Navajo word into its English equivalent. Then he used
                          only the first
                          letter of the English equivalent in spelling an English
                          word. Thus, the
                          Navajo words "wol-la-chee" (ant), "be-la-sana" (apple) and
                          "tse-nill" (axe)
                          all stood for the letter "a." One way to say the word "Navy"
                          in Navajo code
                          would be "tsah (needle) wol-la-chee (ant) ah-keh-di- glini
                          (victor) tsah-
                          ah-dzoh (yucca)."

                          Most letters had more than one Navajo word representing
                          them. Not all words
                          had to be spelled out letter by letter. The developers of
                          the original code
                          assigned Navajo words to represent about 450 frequently used
                          military terms
                          that did not exist in the Navajo language. Several examples:
                          "besh- lo"
                          (iron fish) meant "submarine," "dah-he- tih-hi"
                          (hummingbird) meant
                          "fighter plane" and "debeh-li-zine" (black street) meant
                          "squad." <

                          http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq61-2.htm
                        • li_sasxsek@nutter.net
                          ... Yes, and we could do other things if English is the language we are working with. Maybe we could slightly undo some of the vowel reduction, or even
                          Message 12 of 18 , Dec 1, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > [mailto:CONLANG@...] On Behalf Of Jim Henry

                            > but _really weird_. Relatively quiet clicks, and
                            > subtle alterations of facial expression, gesture,
                            > and posture are probably better things to explore.

                            Yes, and we could do other things if English is the language we are
                            working with. Maybe we could slightly undo some of the vowel
                            reduction, or even slightly shift some of the vowel positions.
                            Maybe even toss in a hint of another language, like turning voiced
                            stops into fricatives like Spanish does to have some sort of meta
                            purpose. We could even tie these features to the main message. A
                            click on a word could be "opposite of", while a tone change could
                            mean "this word describes the color", and have other markers for
                            metaphoric speech.
                          • MorphemeAddict@WMCONNECT.COM
                            In a message dated 12/1/2007 11:14:28 AM Central Standard Time, ... There is a scene between two Bene Gesserit women where they are having a banal conversation
                            Message 13 of 18 , Dec 1, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 12/1/2007 11:14:28 AM Central Standard Time,
                              Joe-Schelin@... writes:


                              > I was going to say that this concept reminds me of the scene in
                              > 'Dune' where there is polite conversation going on, with double meanings to
                              > some of the words, so there is an extra layer of meaning floating through
                              > the conversation.
                              >
                              >


                              There is a scene between two Bene Gesserit women where they are having a
                              banal conversation in speech and the real conversation in something like
                              fingerspelling or very compact sign language. We get to see subtitles for this mode.

                              stevo </HTML>
                            • Douglas Koller
                              From: MorphemeAddict@WMCONNECT.COM ... Wa! Haragei on steroids. Kou
                              Message 14 of 18 , Dec 1, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                From: MorphemeAddict@...

                                > There is a scene between two Bene Gesserit women where they are having a
                                > banal conversation in speech and the real conversation in something like
                                > fingerspelling or very compact sign language. We get to see subtitles for this
                                > mode.

                                Wa! Haragei on steroids.

                                Kou
                              • Sai Emrys
                                ... If it were really pronounced on every word, then yeah. But if it were used sparsely, I d think it wouldn t be so obvious. ... *nod* ... Agreed. It would
                                Message 15 of 18 , Dec 1, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Dec 1, 2007 9:21 AM, Jim Henry <jimhenry1973@...> wrote:
                                  > English does use tone, though not phonemically as
                                  > "tonal" languages do. I suspect using suprasegmental
                                  > tone as your extra channel will make English sound
                                  > not just
                                  >
                                  > > * be anywhere from almost undetectable to unobtrusive (on the level of
                                  > > an odd mannerism / speech impediment)
                                  >
                                  > but _really weird_.

                                  If it were really pronounced on every word, then yeah.

                                  But if it were used sparsely, I'd think it wouldn't be so obvious.

                                  > Relatively quiet clicks, and
                                  > subtle alterations of facial expression, gesture,
                                  > and posture are probably better things to explore.

                                  *nod*

                                  > > I see (b) as the most interesting variant, though (c) could also be useful...
                                  >
                                  > I agree. Evidentiality, validationality, distinction of
                                  > exclusivity for we/us/our and number for you/your;
                                  > perhaps number marking for nouns that are
                                  > invariant in English (deer, sheep, fish)...
                                  > Things like that could be useful.

                                  Agreed.

                                  It would also be interesting to add a layer of modifying or even
                                  contradicting the base meaning, so e.g. you could say "Meet my
                                  friend3, Bob" ~= "Meet my backstabbing colleague who I pander to
                                  'cause he's dangerous, Bob". ;)

                                  - Sai
                                • li_sasxsek@NUTTER.NET
                                  ... You could even strech a short phrase over a long dissertation. ... Yes, and I ve been pondering this a bit and forgot about gangster language. Organized
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Dec 1, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > [mailto:CONLANG@...] On Behalf Of Sai Emrys

                                    > > > * be anywhere from almost undetectable to unobtrusive (on
                                    > the level of
                                    > > > an odd mannerism / speech impediment)
                                    > >
                                    > > but _really weird_.
                                    >
                                    > If it were really pronounced on every word, then yeah.
                                    >
                                    > But if it were used sparsely, I'd think it wouldn't be so obvious.


                                    You could even strech a short phrase over a long dissertation.


                                    > It would also be interesting to add a layer of modifying or even
                                    > contradicting the base meaning, so e.g. you could say "Meet my
                                    > friend3, Bob" ~= "Meet my backstabbing colleague who I pander to
                                    > 'cause he's dangerous, Bob". ;)

                                    Yes, and I've been pondering this a bit and forgot about gangster
                                    language. Organized crime organizations often have ways of
                                    speakings about things without actually speaking about them because
                                    they know there's always the possibility of someone listening in on
                                    their conversations. Without a direct statement, they avoid
                                    incriminating themselves. Even the most innocent sounding
                                    conversation could actuallly mean something like "whack that
                                    backstabbing ...".

                                    Sonny: How's Paulie?
                                    Clemenza: Oh, Paulie... won't see him no more.
                                  • John Vertical
                                    This, or more specifically your idea A (conlang over a limited channel) is something I ve pondered too. The specific context I have been considering is a
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Dec 1, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      This, or more specifically your idea "A" (conlang over a limited channel) is
                                      something I've pondered too. The specific context I have been considering is
                                      a different one however: a religious ritual language based on repeating a
                                      mantra.

                                      I had not considered body language (and indeed, I would like this to remain
                                      writable), and randomly inserted sighs, clicks, etc don't sound enticing to
                                      me either, but tones would be OK. I had however also planned to use some
                                      manoeuvres you did not (explicitely) mention:
                                      * Phoneme splits. Say the host language is English - one could then split
                                      eg. /tS/ into 18 different consonants based on alveolar vs retroflex vs
                                      alveolo-palatal; tenuis vs aspirated vs ejectiv; and plain vs labialized.
                                      * Syntax changes. The fact that the "carrier" here is a single mantra and
                                      not the complete host language givs quite a bit of leeway that might not be
                                      otherwise available.
                                      * Synonym variation, probably including arcaic and/or dialectal allomorphy.
                                      In order to be compatible with phoneme splits, this would probably have to
                                      specify wide semantic categories, while the latter would then further
                                      specify them down...
                                      I suppose technically, these mostly have more to do with your idea "C",
                                      actually, since the resulting code would not be adaptable for an arbitrary
                                      carrier phrase.

                                      Alas, before I get the host language to an usable state (and I might need
                                      the conreligion too...) this isn't going to progress much.

                                      John Vertical
                                    • Sai Emrys
                                      ... Check out David Peterson s Sign Language IPA . ... Indeed you could! ... Depends; what sort of language & mantra? Is this one of those quote-unquote free
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Dec 3, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Dec 1, 2007 2:06 PM, John Vertical <johnvertical@...> wrote:
                                        > I had not considered body language (and indeed, I would like this to remain
                                        > writable),

                                        Check out David Peterson's "Sign Language IPA".

                                        > * Phoneme splits. Say the host language is English - one could then split
                                        > eg. /tS/ into 18 different consonants based on alveolar vs retroflex vs
                                        > alveolo-palatal; tenuis vs aspirated vs ejectiv; and plain vs labialized.

                                        Indeed you could!

                                        > * Syntax changes. The fact that the "carrier" here is a single mantra and
                                        > not the complete host language givs quite a bit of leeway that might not be
                                        > otherwise available.

                                        Depends; what sort of language & mantra? Is this one of those
                                        quote-unquote "free variation of word order" deals?

                                        > * Synonym variation, probably including arcaic and/or dialectal allomorphy.
                                        > In order to be compatible with phoneme splits, this would probably have to
                                        > specify wide semantic categories, while the latter would then further
                                        > specify them down...

                                        Again possible. However, this one would be somewhat more difficult to
                                        keep language-agnostically meta; you would need some kind of
                                        high-level theory about how one does these splits and which means
                                        what, and I don't know of anything that could handle it.

                                        (I would however be quite interested if you come up with one!)

                                        > Alas, before I get the host language to an usable state (and I might need
                                        > the conreligion too...) this isn't going to progress much.

                                        *laugh* Endemic problem, eh?

                                        But at least a couple of your proposed ideas could probably be taken
                                        chunkwise. One of the nice features of my proposal is that it's highly
                                        modular; you could implement one part of it mostly independent from
                                        having to do the rest, and have it still be usable.

                                        Your phoneme split point seems to me the most viable for such
                                        treatment, and English is ripe for exploitation in this manner, given
                                        how many things we don't mark at all. It would be somewhat hit-or-miss
                                        whether a given word happened to have a phoneme that could be
                                        segmented appropriately, but that could just lead to strategic word
                                        choice by the participants... (e.g. picking something with 'r' in it
                                        so as to be able to leverage a retroflex vs trilled vs etc etc etc
                                        distinction)

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