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

Re: Online Moten Dictionary

Expand Messages
  • George Corley
    On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
    Message 1 of 19 , Mar 8 9:26 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
      tsela.cg@...> wrote:

      > On 8 March 2013 09:54, George Corley <gacorley@...> wrote:
      >
      > > Google likely won't care, but people searching for words might run into
      > > issues.
      > >
      >
      > Why would *anyone* ever search for Moten words *via Google*? Searching for
      > "Moten" or "Moten language", I'd understand, but anything else is just
      > weird. Especially since Moten morphology means that the shape of a noun in
      > the citation form may be very different from the shape of that word in the
      > genitive case plural! So a plain Google search (even one that could handle
      > the pipe correctly) would most likely not return the results you'd want.
      >
      > But really, why would one want to search specific Moten words via Google?
      >

      Someone knows the word, but not what language it comes from, either because
      it was posted somewhere with insufficient information, or they are
      remembering the word but not where they saw it last.

      I'm not trying to get you to change anything. I'm just throwing out my
      ideas as to why conlangers in general would want to be Google-friendly.
      It's not so hard to do, anyway -- Google ignores diacritics, so that
      misspellings of foreign words can still find what the user is after. But I
      respect that you, specifically, have an established orthography that would
      be difficult to change at this point.
    • Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
      ... Can t type it easily on my keyboard. At least the pipe is readily available without having to do weird contorsions. But I don t understand why we re having
      Message 2 of 19 , Mar 8 3:09 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        On 8 March 2013 12:58, A. da Mek <a.da_mek0@...> wrote:

        > In the end, I decided to stick with the pipe.
        >>
        >
        > Maybe you could use the broken one, 00A6 ¦ BROKEN BAR.
        > The palatal sounds are often described as "soft", so the yin bar would be
        > more appropriate than the yang one.
        >

        Can't type it easily on my keyboard. At least the pipe is readily available
        without having to do weird contorsions.

        But I don't understand why we're having this discussion. I am *not* going
        to change Moten's orthography. I was just musing about the time when I
        considered to do so. That time is past, and no argument is going to make me
        change my mind on that.

        On 8 March 2013 18:26, George Corley <gacorley@...> wrote:

        >
        > Someone knows the word, but not what language it comes from, either because
        > it was posted somewhere with insufficient information, or they are
        > remembering the word but not where they saw it last.
        >
        >
        That's an awfully specific scenario to change an entire orthography for.


        > I'm not trying to get you to change anything. I'm just throwing out my
        > ideas as to why conlangers in general would want to be Google-friendly.
        > It's not so hard to do, anyway -- Google ignores diacritics, so that
        > misspellings of foreign words can still find what the user is after. But I
        > respect that you, specifically, have an established orthography that would
        > be difficult to change at this point.
        >

        Thanks :) .
        --
        Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

        http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
        http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
      • George Corley
        On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
        Message 3 of 19 , Mar 9 7:53 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
          tsela.cg@...> wrote:

          >
          > But I don't understand why we're having this discussion. I am *not* going
          > to change Moten's orthography. I was just musing about the time when I
          > considered to do so. That time is past, and no argument is going to make me
          > change my mind on that.
          >

          It could be useful to other conlangers whose orthographies are not set in
          stone yet.


          > On 8 March 2013 18:26, George Corley <gacorley@...> wrote:
          >
          > >
          > > Someone knows the word, but not what language it comes from, either
          > because
          > > it was posted somewhere with insufficient information, or they are
          > > remembering the word but not where they saw it last.
          > >
          > >
          > That's an awfully specific scenario to change an entire orthography for.
          >

          This is only the scenario where optimizing for Google would be important,
          and it could become quite a common one if you conlang were to become
          popular for some reason. Seeing as yours is not one of the conlangs riding
          along the back of a popular book/TV/movie franchise, that's still unlikely.

          There could be other arguments to be made. Readers will have no idea what
          the pipe means without reading a pronunciation guide (the only natlang use
          I can think of is the dental click, which will of course be vanishingly
          rare). Again, I don't care if you change your orthography, but this could
          be something for other conlangers to think about.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.