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

Natlang most similar to your conlang [WAS: Analyzing Ayeri's syntactic and voice alignment (long)]

Expand Messages
  • Arthaey Angosii
    ... This makes me wonder which natlang(s) are most similar to Asha ille, and whether it has any truly unattested, original aspects to it. I ve read in passing
    Message 1 of 15 , Mar 31, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 4:49 AM, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
      > Originality is interesting - natlang clones can be so boring ;)

      This makes me wonder which natlang(s) are most similar to Asha'ille,
      and whether it has any truly unattested, original aspects to it.

      I've read in passing about parameterization as a way of explaining how
      different languages end up with different surface forms. Are there any
      efforts to describe many languages based on such parameters, so that
      you can then compare your language's parameters against other
      languages'?


      --
      AA
    • Christopher Bates
      Are we talking about principles and parameters here? I m dubious, since: 1. The list never seems to be complete. New parameters always seem to be required to
      Message 2 of 15 , Apr 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Are we talking about principles and parameters here? I'm dubious, since:

        1. The list never seems to be complete. New parameters always seem to be
        required to deal with a new case found.

        2. Many of the parameters seem to be an attempt to turn a situation
        without obvious hard boundaries into a set of binary options (This is
        why people in linguistic typology started talking about "clines",
        because they realised that simply yes/no for a list of features was not
        sufficient to describe a language's grammar, or the variation between
        languages). This seems doomed to failure, as you will always have
        languages which do not seem to clearly choose either option.

        Perhaps I'm wrong, but any attempt to collect together all the currently
        proposed parameters and then classify a large number of natural
        languages for all of them would simply expose the gaping holes in the
        system, so I doubt any of its proponents have done such a thing. And why
        would anyone who didn't believe in the framework devote so much time and
        effort to it?

        > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 4:49 AM, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
        >
        >> Originality is interesting - natlang clones can be so boring ;)
        >>
        >
        > This makes me wonder which natlang(s) are most similar to Asha'ille,
        > and whether it has any truly unattested, original aspects to it.
        >
        > I've read in passing about parameterization as a way of explaining how
        > different languages end up with different surface forms. Are there any
        > efforts to describe many languages based on such parameters, so that
        > you can then compare your language's parameters against other
        > languages'?
        >
        >
        > --
        > AA
        >
        >
      • Dirk Elzinga
        Many years ago I proposed a Language Code, which was intended to provide a typological profile for a given constructed or natural language. It should still
        Message 3 of 15 , Apr 2, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Many years ago I proposed a "Language Code," which was intended to provide a
          typological profile for a given constructed or natural language. It should
          still be in the archives somewhere. It was modeled after the "Geek Code"
          with gradient values for several of the "parameters". For instance, if your
          language was more or less agglutinating, but not heavily so, you could give
          it 2 '+' for this dimension (out of 4). It sparked a bit of interest and may
          be worth looking at again. I use the code for Miapimoquitch as my .sig file
          for my gmail account; it's given below.

          Miapimoquitch: Tcf Pt*p+++12,4(c)v(v/c) W* Mf+++h+++t*a2c*g*n4 Sf++++argh
          Lc++d++600

          T = type: in this case, it is a constructed language of the fictional
          ("artlang") type.

          P = phonology: Miapimoquitch does not have tone (t*), there is significant
          allophony (p+++), 12 consonants, 4 vowels, and a syllable template
          (c)v(v/c).

          W = writing: there is no native writing system for Miapimoquitch.

          M = morphology: the language is inflectional (f+++), head-marking (h+++),
          does not mark tense (t*) and there are two aspect categories. There is no
          case (c*) or gender (g*), and four distinct numbers (n4).

          S = syntax: constituents are rigidly head-initial (f++++) (though that may
          not be accurate anymore) with a hierarchical argument alignment (argh).

          L = lexicon: Miapimoquitch is incorporating/compounding to a fair degree
          (c++) and there is a fair amount of derivational machinery in place (d++). I
          estimate there to be about 600 roots.

          There's more to it, but you should be able to find it in the archives.

          On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Arthaey Angosii <arthaey@...> wrote:

          > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 4:49 AM, R A Brown <ray@...>
          > wrote:
          > > Originality is interesting - natlang clones can be so boring ;)
          >
          > This makes me wonder which natlang(s) are most similar to Asha'ille,
          > and whether it has any truly unattested, original aspects to it.
          >
          > I've read in passing about parameterization as a way of explaining how
          > different languages end up with different surface forms. Are there any
          > efforts to describe many languages based on such parameters, so that
          > you can then compare your language's parameters against other
          > languages'?
          >
          >
          > --
          > AA
          >



          --
          Miapimoquitch: Tcf Pt*p+++12,4(c)v(v/c) W* Mf+++h+++t*a2c*g*n4 Sf++++argh
          Lc++d++600
        • Philip Newton
          ... Here s Take 4: http://archives.conlang.info/ge/suezhae/qhuevhunwhian.html Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton
          Message 4 of 15 , Apr 2, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...> wrote:
            > Many years ago I proposed a "Language Code," which was intended to provide a
            > typological profile for a given constructed or natural language. It should
            > still be in the archives somewhere.

            Here's Take 4: http://archives.conlang.info/ge/suezhae/qhuevhunwhian.html

            Cheers,
            Philip
            --
            Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
          • Dirk Elzinga
            Thanks, Philip. A couple of things occurred to me as I reread my deathless prose from 2003. In that version of the Language Code, I have: M morphology a
            Message 5 of 15 , Apr 2, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks, Philip.

              A couple of things occurred to me as I reread my deathless prose from 2003.
              In that version of the Language Code, I have:

              M morphology
              a agglutinating (+/-)
              i isolating (+/-)

              I think that these features can be replaced with a single feature, Green
              (short for Greenberg). This feature is the ratio of morphs to words and is
              expressed as a real number. For example, Miapimoquitch is 2.43. That is, on
              average there are 2.43 morphs per word. I think this is a more accurate
              reflection of the agglutinating/isolating dimension and isn't too hard to
              figure out, given some amount of text. Joseph Greenberg, of typological
              fame, proposed this (and other ratios) as a measure of morphological
              typology.

              Also in this version of the Language Code, I claimed that English has 24
              consonants and 9 vowels. For the record (which is also in the archives) this
              is not correct, and should be more like 14 or 15 for American English and
              19-22 for British English. Consult the archives for a nice little discussion
              of this.

              Dirk

              On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
              wrote:

              > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...>
              > wrote:
              > > Many years ago I proposed a "Language Code," which was intended to
              > provide a
              > > typological profile for a given constructed or natural language. It
              > should
              > > still be in the archives somewhere.
              >
              > Here's Take 4: http://archives.conlang.info/ge/suezhae/qhuevhunwhian.html
              >
              > Cheers,
              > Philip
              > --
              > Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
              >



              --
              Miapimoquitch: Tcf Pt*p+++12,4(c)v(v/c) W* Mf+++h+++t*a2c*g*n4 Sf++++argh
              La----c++d++600
            • Philip Newton
              ... I had to do some digging to find what you were probably referring to. To save others the work, I think you re thinking of
              Message 6 of 15 , Apr 2, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...> wrote:
                > Also in this version of the Language Code, I claimed that English has 24
                > consonants and 9 vowels. For the record (which is also in the archives) this
                > is not correct, and should be more like 14 or 15 for American English and
                > 19-22 for British English. Consult the archives for a nice little discussion
                > of this.

                I had to do some digging to find what you were probably referring to.
                To save others the work, I think you're thinking of
                http://archives.conlang.info/ge/suezhae/qhaulvuanwhian.html .

                Cheers,
                --
                Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
              • Campbell Nilsen
                Sanskrit. Define cynical . -M. Mudd ... From: Michael Poxon To: CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2008 3:57:01 AM
                Message 7 of 15 , Apr 2, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Sanskrit.


                  "Define 'cynical'."-M. Mudd





                  ----- Original Message ----
                  From: Michael Poxon <mike@...>
                  To: CONLANG@...
                  Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2008 3:57:01 AM
                  Subject: Re: Natlang most similar to your conlang [WAS: Analyzing Ayeri's syntactic and voice alignment (long)]

                  The life sciences (I'm thinking especially of palaeontology here) use
                  cladistics as a way of organising the taxonomy. Possibly something along
                  those lines, but again it is at heart a "yes/no" system. Maybe we simply
                  shouldn't be building systems for the sake of system building? Mm.
                  Mike
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Christopher Bates" <chrisdb@...>



                  > Are we talking about principles and parameters here? I'm dubious, since:
                  >
                  > 1. The list never seems to be complete. New parameters always seem to be
                  > required to deal with a new case found.
                  >
                  > 2. Many of the parameters seem to be an attempt to turn a situation
                  > without obvious hard boundaries into a set of binary options (This is why
                  > people in linguistic typology started talking about "clines", because they
                  > realised that simply yes/no for a list of features was not sufficient to
                  > describe a language's grammar, or the variation between languages).
                • Benct Philip Jonsson
                  ... The question is a bit moot, since a conlang may be similar to different natlangs in different parts of its structure: Sohlob is (by design) similar to
                  Message 8 of 15 , Apr 3, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Arthaey Angosii skrev:
                    > On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 4:49 AM, R A Brown
                    > <ray@...> wrote:
                    >> Originality is interesting - natlang clones can be so
                    >> boring ;)
                    >
                    > This makes me wonder which natlang(s) are most similar to
                    > Asha'ille, and whether it has any truly unattested,
                    > original aspects to it.
                    >
                    > I've read in passing about parameterization as a way of
                    > explaining how different languages end up with different
                    > surface forms. Are there any efforts to describe many
                    > languages based on such parameters, so that you can then
                    > compare your language's parameters against other
                    > languages'?

                    The question is a bit moot, since a conlang may be similar
                    to different natlangs in different parts of its structure:
                    Sohlob is (by design) similar to Persian, and Turkic and
                    Middle Korean in its phonology but (by accident) similar to
                    Australian languages and Tibetan in its morphosyntax. Add to
                    this that its 'ancestor' Kijeb is more like Algonkinian!

                    The Language Code seems a good thing, though.


                    /BP 8^)>
                    --
                    Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    "C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient
                    à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil
                    ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*,
                    c'est qu'elles meurent." (Victor Hugo)
                  • Michael Poxon
                    The life sciences (I m thinking especially of palaeontology here) use cladistics as a way of organising the taxonomy. Possibly something along those lines, but
                    Message 9 of 15 , Apr 3, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The life sciences (I'm thinking especially of palaeontology here) use
                      cladistics as a way of organising the taxonomy. Possibly something along
                      those lines, but again it is at heart a "yes/no" system. Maybe we simply
                      shouldn't be building systems for the sake of system building? Mm.
                      Mike
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Christopher Bates" <chrisdb@...>



                      > Are we talking about principles and parameters here? I'm dubious, since:
                      >
                      > 1. The list never seems to be complete. New parameters always seem to be
                      > required to deal with a new case found.
                      >
                      > 2. Many of the parameters seem to be an attempt to turn a situation
                      > without obvious hard boundaries into a set of binary options (This is why
                      > people in linguistic typology started talking about "clines", because they
                      > realised that simply yes/no for a list of features was not sufficient to
                      > describe a language's grammar, or the variation between languages).
                    • Benct Philip Jonsson
                      ... http://archives.conlang.info/ge/suezhae/qhuevhunwhian.html I think I m up to writing a Perl script to collect data from a form and generate the code, but
                      Message 10 of 15 , Apr 3, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Philip Newton skrev:
                        > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Dirk Elzinga
                        > <dirk.elzinga@...> wrote:
                        >> Many years ago I proposed a "Language Code," which was
                        >> intended to provide a typological profile for a given
                        >> constructed or natural language. It should still be in
                        >> the archives somewhere.
                        >
                        > Here's Take 4:
                        http://archives.conlang.info/ge/suezhae/qhuevhunwhian.html

                        I think I'm up to writing a Perl script to collect data from
                        a form and generate the code, but someone else would have to
                        write the thingy for comparing two languages!



                        /BP 8^)>
                        --
                        Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                        "C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient
                        à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil
                        ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*,
                        c'est qu'elles meurent." (Victor Hugo)
                      • Jörg Rhiemeier
                        Hallo! ... Likewise, Old Albic has things in common with several different languages. It is in many ways similar to Georgian in its grammatical structure
                        Message 11 of 15 , Apr 3, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hallo!

                          On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 10:53:49 +0200, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:

                          > The question is a bit moot, since a conlang may be similar
                          > to different natlangs in different parts of its structure:
                          > Sohlob is (by design) similar to Persian, and Turkic and
                          > Middle Korean in its phonology but (by accident) similar to
                          > Australian languages and Tibetan in its morphosyntax. Add to
                          > this that its 'ancestor' Kijeb is more like Algonkinian!

                          Likewise, Old Albic has things in common with several different
                          languages. It is in many ways similar to Georgian in its
                          grammatical structure (morphosyntactic alignment and all that),
                          partly by design and partly by accident; but its syntax is by
                          design similar to Insular Celtic, the main differences between
                          Old Albic and Celtic syntax being mostly due to Old Albic's much
                          more elaborate case system. The phonology of Old Albic owes
                          a lot to Tolkien's Elvish languages, but also to PIE and Germanic.

                          ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
                        • Benct Philip Jonsson
                          I like the idea of a morph per word ratio, but I can see a couple of problems with it: * it should still be called M rather than anything based on Greenberg,
                          Message 12 of 15 , Apr 4, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I like the idea of a morph per word ratio, but I can see a couple of
                            problems with it:

                            * it should still be called M rather than anything based on Greenberg, please!
                            * For a conlang which lacks longer texts it may be hard to calculate accurately.

                            2008/4/2, Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...>:
                            > Thanks, Philip.
                            >
                            > A couple of things occurred to me as I reread my deathless prose from 2003.
                            > In that version of the Language Code, I have:
                            >
                            > M morphology
                            > a agglutinating (+/-)
                            > i isolating (+/-)
                            >
                            > I think that these features can be replaced with a single feature, Green
                            > (short for Greenberg). This feature is the ratio of morphs to words and is
                            > expressed as a real number. For example, Miapimoquitch is 2.43. That is, on
                            > average there are 2.43 morphs per word. I think this is a more accurate
                            > reflection of the agglutinating/isolating dimension and isn't too hard to
                            > figure out, given some amount of text. Joseph Greenberg, of typological
                            > fame, proposed this (and other ratios) as a measure of morphological
                            > typology.
                            >
                            > Also in this version of the Language Code, I claimed that English has 24
                            > consonants and 9 vowels. For the record (which is also in the archives) this
                            > is not correct, and should be more like 14 or 15 for American English and
                            > 19-22 for British English. Consult the archives for a nice little discussion
                            > of this.
                            >
                            > Dirk
                            >
                            > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
                            > wrote:
                            >
                            > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...>
                            > > wrote:
                            > > > Many years ago I proposed a "Language Code," which was intended to
                            > > provide a
                            > > > typological profile for a given constructed or natural language. It
                            > > should
                            > > > still be in the archives somewhere.
                            > >
                            > > Here's Take 4: http://archives.conlang.info/ge/suezhae/qhuevhunwhian.html
                            > >
                            > > Cheers,
                            > > Philip
                            > > --
                            > > Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --
                            > Miapimoquitch: Tcf Pt*p+++12,4(c)v(v/c) W* Mf+++h+++t*a2c*g*n4 Sf++++argh
                            > La----c++d++600
                            >


                            --
                            / BP
                          • Dirk Elzinga
                            Thanks for the comments, BP. The *category* would still be M , but instead of the features a and i , you have Green or even just g . Perhaps instead of
                            Message 13 of 15 , Apr 4, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thanks for the comments, BP. The *category* would still be "M", but instead
                              of the features "a" and "i", you have "Green" or even just "g". Perhaps
                              instead of obligatorily replacing the older features, it can be left up to
                              the analyst to do so or to use the older ones. I was quite surprised to see
                              that Miapimoquitch only scored 2.43; I would have thought it would be
                              higher. And this tells me something about Miapimoquitch that I didn't know
                              before. So I think it is essential, for the "g" measure at least, to create
                              longer texts. If your language is only attested in inscriptions (for
                              example), then you will have no basis for determining a "g" score. But you
                              will likely also have little basis for determining "a" and "i" scores as
                              well, aside from your intuitions as the creator (but even then, your
                              intuitions can fail you; they did me in the case of Miapimoquitch).

                              Dirk

                              On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson <melroch@...>
                              wrote:

                              > I like the idea of a morph per word ratio, but I can see a couple of
                              > problems with it:
                              >
                              > * it should still be called M rather than anything based on Greenberg,
                              > please!
                              > * For a conlang which lacks longer texts it may be hard to calculate
                              > accurately.
                              >
                              > 2008/4/2, Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...>:
                              > > Thanks, Philip.
                              > >
                              > > A couple of things occurred to me as I reread my deathless prose from
                              > 2003.
                              > > In that version of the Language Code, I have:
                              > >
                              > > M morphology
                              > > a agglutinating (+/-)
                              > > i isolating (+/-)
                              > >
                              > > I think that these features can be replaced with a single feature, Green
                              > > (short for Greenberg). This feature is the ratio of morphs to words and
                              > is
                              > > expressed as a real number. For example, Miapimoquitch is 2.43. That is,
                              > on
                              > > average there are 2.43 morphs per word. I think this is a more accurate
                              > > reflection of the agglutinating/isolating dimension and isn't too hard
                              > to
                              > > figure out, given some amount of text. Joseph Greenberg, of typological
                              > > fame, proposed this (and other ratios) as a measure of morphological
                              > > typology.
                              > >
                              > > Also in this version of the Language Code, I claimed that English has 24
                              > > consonants and 9 vowels. For the record (which is also in the archives)
                              > this
                              > > is not correct, and should be more like 14 or 15 for American English
                              > and
                              > > 19-22 for British English. Consult the archives for a nice little
                              > discussion
                              > > of this.
                              > >
                              > > Dirk
                              > >
                              > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
                              > > wrote:
                              > >
                              > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...>
                              > > > wrote:
                              > > > > Many years ago I proposed a "Language Code," which was intended to
                              > > > provide a
                              > > > > typological profile for a given constructed or natural language. It
                              > > > should
                              > > > > still be in the archives somewhere.
                              > > >
                              > > > Here's Take 4:
                              > http://archives.conlang.info/ge/suezhae/qhuevhunwhian.html
                              > > >
                              > > > Cheers,
                              > > > Philip
                              > > > --
                              > > > Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
                              > > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > --
                              > > Miapimoquitch: Tcf Pt*p+++12,4(c)v(v/c) W* Mf+++h+++t*a2c*g*n4
                              > Sf++++argh
                              > > La----c++d++600
                              > >
                              >
                              >
                              > --
                              > / BP
                              >



                              --
                              Miapimoquitch: Tcf Pt*p+++12,4(c)v(v/c) W* Mf+++h+++t*a2c*g*n4 Sf++++argh
                              La----c++d++600
                            • Benct Philip Jonsson
                              That was exactly my thought, that it might be easier to have an intuition WRT the a and i scores than WRT the g score. Of course intuitions and intentions may
                              Message 14 of 15 , Apr 4, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                That was exactly my thought, that it might be easier to have an
                                intuition WRT the a and i scores than WRT the g score. Of course
                                intuitions and intentions may always fail you. I for one find it
                                interesting when conlangs so to speak take on a life of their own and
                                intuition takes me places where intention never meant to go.

                                2008/4/4, Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...>:
                                > Thanks for the comments, BP. The *category* would still be "M", but instead
                                > of the features "a" and "i", you have "Green" or even just "g". Perhaps
                                > instead of obligatorily replacing the older features, it can be left up to
                                > the analyst to do so or to use the older ones. I was quite surprised to see
                                > that Miapimoquitch only scored 2.43; I would have thought it would be
                                > higher. And this tells me something about Miapimoquitch that I didn't know
                                > before. So I think it is essential, for the "g" measure at least, to create
                                > longer texts. If your language is only attested in inscriptions (for
                                > example), then you will have no basis for determining a "g" score. But you
                                > will likely also have little basis for determining "a" and "i" scores as
                                > well, aside from your intuitions as the creator (but even then, your
                                > intuitions can fail you; they did me in the case of Miapimoquitch).
                                >
                                > Dirk
                                >
                                > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson <melroch@...>
                                > wrote:
                                >
                                > > I like the idea of a morph per word ratio, but I can see a couple of
                                > > problems with it:
                                > >
                                > > * it should still be called M rather than anything based on Greenberg,
                                > > please!
                                > > * For a conlang which lacks longer texts it may be hard to calculate
                                > > accurately.
                                > >
                                > > 2008/4/2, Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...>:
                                > > > Thanks, Philip.
                                > > >
                                > > > A couple of things occurred to me as I reread my deathless prose from
                                > > 2003.
                                > > > In that version of the Language Code, I have:
                                > > >
                                > > > M morphology
                                > > > a agglutinating (+/-)
                                > > > i isolating (+/-)
                                > > >
                                > > > I think that these features can be replaced with a single feature, Green
                                > > > (short for Greenberg). This feature is the ratio of morphs to words and
                                > > is
                                > > > expressed as a real number. For example, Miapimoquitch is 2.43. That is,
                                > > on
                                > > > average there are 2.43 morphs per word. I think this is a more accurate
                                > > > reflection of the agglutinating/isolating dimension and isn't too hard
                                > > to
                                > > > figure out, given some amount of text. Joseph Greenberg, of typological
                                > > > fame, proposed this (and other ratios) as a measure of morphological
                                > > > typology.
                                > > >
                                > > > Also in this version of the Language Code, I claimed that English has 24
                                > > > consonants and 9 vowels. For the record (which is also in the archives)
                                > > this
                                > > > is not correct, and should be more like 14 or 15 for American English
                                > > and
                                > > > 19-22 for British English. Consult the archives for a nice little
                                > > discussion
                                > > > of this.
                                > > >
                                > > > Dirk
                                > > >
                                > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
                                > > > wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...>
                                > > > > wrote:
                                > > > > > Many years ago I proposed a "Language Code," which was intended to
                                > > > > provide a
                                > > > > > typological profile for a given constructed or natural language. It
                                > > > > should
                                > > > > > still be in the archives somewhere.
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Here's Take 4:
                                > > http://archives.conlang.info/ge/suezhae/qhuevhunwhian.html
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Cheers,
                                > > > > Philip
                                > > > > --
                                > > > > Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
                                > > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > --
                                > > > Miapimoquitch: Tcf Pt*p+++12,4(c)v(v/c) W* Mf+++h+++t*a2c*g*n4
                                > > Sf++++argh
                                > > > La----c++d++600
                                > > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > --
                                > > / BP
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > --
                                > Miapimoquitch: Tcf Pt*p+++12,4(c)v(v/c) W* Mf+++h+++t*a2c*g*n4 Sf++++argh
                                > La----c++d++600
                                >


                                --
                                / BP
                              • Mr Veoler
                                Hmm, I give it a try. A sketch tentatively called imulanxalogan: Tpe Pp0 12(2), 6, cv(v)(n) W* Ma++++ h? t*a*m*c*g*n4 o++++ Sf++++ b vso arg* La----c*d+++
                                Message 15 of 15 , Apr 7, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hmm, I give it a try. A sketch tentatively called 'imulanxalogan:

                                  Tpe Pp0 12(2), 6, cv(v)(n) W* Ma++++ h? t*a*m*c*g*n4 o++++
                                  Sf++++ b vso arg* La----c*d+++

                                  other = non-concatenative morphology

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