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

Re: Creating a Conlang with homophones

Expand Messages
  • Nicole Valicia Thompson-Andrews
    Not sure why I thought it would be in Swedish. My screen reader did fine with the list. Thanks. ... From: Constructed Languages List
    Message 1 of 23 , Mar 26, 2013
      Not sure why I thought it would be in Swedish. My screen reader did fine with the list.

      Thanks.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@...] On Behalf Of BPJ
      Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 3:17 AM
      To: CONLANG@...
      Subject: Re: Creating a Conlang with homophones

      On 2013-03-26 04:54, Douglas Koller wrote:
      > Oh, come now. You can't just drop a little bon-bon
      > like that and walk away. What *are* they? If there's
      > a quick and dirty list of those somewhere, I'd be
      > interested either here or offlist. I can probably
      > come up with about half without breaking a sweat, but
      > why have an aneurysm at 12 or 13 reinventing the
      > wheel if there's an extant list? If there isn't such
      > a list, it's okay -- I'll still get to sleep tonight.

      OK here goes the official list, in alphabetical order.
      The official list is even longer than mine because I
      regarded some as instances of one of the others with a
      silent _e_ or with doubled consonants, and I overlooked
      some. All except those marked with * overlap with
      other phonemes or sequences of phonemes. I don't know
      what Nicole's screenreader will make of the list but I
      tried to be mindful of marking it up sensibly!

      1) ch -- chef.
      2) che -- apache -- but I have /aˈpatɕe/ for this one!
      3) g -- geni -- 'genius'.
      4) ge -- bagage.
      5) gi -- religiös.
      6) ige -- beige.
      7) j -- jour -- 'emergency duty'.
      8) je -- damejeanne -- obsolete, unlike the name Jeanette.
      9) sc -- crescendo -- I have /ʂ/ rather than /x/ in this word,
      so I guess it's an unassimilated foreign
      word for me; ditto for _fascist,
      fascism_.
      10) sch* -- schack -- 'chess'.
      11) sh* -- shunt.
      12) shi -- fashionabel.
      13) si -- division -- only with the _-ion_ morpheme!
      14) sj* -- sju -- '7'.
      15) sk -- skön -- 'nice, comfortable'.
      16) skj* -- skjorta -- 'shirt'.
      17) ssi -- mission -- only with the _-ion_ morpheme!
      18) ssj -- ryssja -- 'fyke (hoop) net'.
      19) stg -- västgöte -- inhabitant of Västergötland/Västgötland
      province, and only in these two words.
      I guess the official spelling of the
      name of the province makes yet another
      spelling for /x/: _sterg_!
      20) sti -- suggestion -- only with the _-ion_ morpheme!
      21) stj* -- stjärna -- 'star'.
      22) ti -- station -- only with the _-ion_ morpheme!
      23) xi -- reflexion.
      24) xj -- Växjö -- a place name /ˈvɛkxøː/ only;
      Old Swedish _Wägh-siö_ 'Road Lake'.

      /bpj
    • Douglas Koller
      ... And lo, he did pronounce and make the native speakers cringe. Kou
      Message 2 of 23 , Mar 26, 2013
        > Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:42:49 +0100
        > From: bpj@...
        > Subject: Re: Creating a Conlang with homophones
        > To: CONLANG@...

        > On 2013-03-26 11:17, BPJ wrote:

        > > OK here goes the official list, in alphabetical order.

        Thank you. I did *not* see these coming:

        > > 4) ge -- bagage.
        > > 5) gi -- religiös.
        > > 6) ige -- beige.
        > > 7) j -- jour -- 'emergency duty'.
        > > 8) je -- damejeanne -- obsolete, unlike the name Jeanette.
        > > 9) sc -- crescendo -- I have /ʂ/ rather than /x/ in this word,
        > > 18) ssj -- ryssja -- 'fyke (hoop) net'.
        > > 19) stg -- västgöte -- inhabitant of Västergötland/Västgötland
        > > province, and only in these two words.

        And lo, he did pronounce and make the native speakers cringe.

        Kou
      • Roger Mills
        I ve snipped the interesting list, but have an observation: It looks to me like these (mostly) could originally have been [Z] or [S}, then merging [S], then
        Message 3 of 23 , Mar 27, 2013
          I've snipped the interesting list, but have an observation: It looks to me like these (mostly) could originally have been [Z] or [S}, then merging > [S], then > [x]-- which is also what happened in Spanish !!!!  And a lot of them are loan words.

          I'm not entirely sure what happens in Dutch, but I do know that "baggage " comes out as "bagasi" in Indonesian, so it looks like something similar has happened to loans there too. And of course in Dutch *sk- > [sx- ~ sX-] and Engl. [S] so maybe we could be on our way to [x[ too, though I doubt it........
        • Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
          ... In Dutch, bagage is [baˈχaʒə], or [baˈχaʃə] for those that lack [ʒ] (a sound that is at best only marginally phonemic in Dutch, and only present
          Message 4 of 23 , Mar 27, 2013
            On 27 March 2013 14:52, Roger Mills <romiltz@...> wrote:

            >
            > I'm not entirely sure what happens in Dutch, but I do know that "baggage "
            > comes out as "bagasi" in Indonesian, so it looks like something similar has
            > happened to loans there too. And of course in Dutch *sk- > [sx- ~ sX-] and
            > Engl. [S] so maybe we could be on our way to [x[ too, though I doubt
            > it........
            >

            In Dutch, "bagage" is [baˈχaʒə], or [baˈχaʃə] for those that lack [ʒ] (a
            sound that is at best only marginally phonemic in Dutch, and only present
            in loanwords). In any case, the second "g" is never velar or uvular.
            --
            Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

            http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
            http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
          • BPJ
            ... Heh! I later remembered that there are a couple more _stg_ words: _Östgötland_ + adjective & inhabitant and _gästgivare_ /ˈjɛxːivare/(!)
            Message 5 of 23 , Mar 28, 2013
              On 2013-03-27 04:38, Douglas Koller wrote:
              >> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:42:49 +0100
              >> From: bpj@...
              >> Subject: Re: Creating a Conlang with homophones
              >> To: CONLANG@...
              >
              >> On 2013-03-26 11:17, BPJ wrote:
              >
              >>> OK here goes the official list, in alphabetical order.
              >
              > Thank you. I did *not* see these coming:
              >
              >>> 4) ge -- bagage.
              >>> 5) gi -- religiös.
              >>> 6) ige -- beige.
              >>> 7) j -- jour -- 'emergency duty'.
              >>> 8) je -- damejeanne -- obsolete, unlike the name Jeanette.
              >>> 9) sc -- crescendo -- I have /ʂ/ rather than /x/ in this word,
              >>> 18) ssj -- ryssja -- 'fyke (hoop) net'.
              >>> 19) stg -- västgöte -- inhabitant of Västergötland/Västgötland
              >>> province, and only in these two words.
              >
              > And lo, he did pronounce and make the native speakers cringe.

              Heh! I later remembered that there are a couple more _stg_
              words: _Östgötland_ + adjective & inhabitant and _gästgivare_
              /ˈjɛxːivare/(!) 'innkeeper'.

              On 2013-03-27 14:52, Roger Mills wrote:
              > I've snipped the interesting list, but have an observation:
              > It looks to me like these (mostly) could originally
              > have been [Z] or [S}, then merging > [S], then > [x]--
              > which is also what happened in Spanish !!!! And a lot
              > of them are loan words.

              Most of those spellings only occur in loan words. The only
              'native' ones are _sj, ssj, sk, skj, stj_ and the oddball _stg_.

              I doubt any words borrowed from French ever had [ʒ]
              *in Swedish* except for some 18th-century showoffs. We
              read some of Gustavus III's letters at Uni and there
              were some inverted spellings like _Jer Ami_, and if
              *he* did it it's a safe bet that everybody had [ʃ] for
              French /ʒ/ at the period when most French loans came
              into Swedish.

              >
              > I'm not entirely sure what happens in Dutch, but I do know that "baggage " comes out as "bagasi" in Indonesian, so it looks like something similar has happened to loans there too. And of course in Dutch *sk- > [sx- ~ sX-] and Engl. [S] so maybe we could be on our way to [x[ too, though I doubt it........

              And Proto-Slavic!

              The probable reason some Swedish accents shifted
              [S] > [x] is that [tɕ] got deaffricized and /rs/
              shifted to [ʂ] so that the sibilant space got
              somewhat crowded. Finland Swedish accents which
              still have [tɕ] for palatalized */k/ even have [ɕ]
              where other accents have [ʃ] or [x]. Accents which
              didn't shift [ʃ] to [x] (mostly in Central and
              Northern Sweden) usually merged it with [ʂ] instead.
              Nowadays there seems to be a tendency among younger
              people who have [x] to shift /ɕ/ to [ʃ], so it's going
              to be interesting to see whether *their* children
              will merge /ɕ/ and [ʂ] -- anw whether I'll get to
              experience it!

              BTW /x/ has a lot of regional/individual/contextual
              allophones, including the famous but actually rare [ɧ],
              [x͡ɸ] (which used to be common on the West coast -- my
              father had it) and even [ɸ]. Most people at least
              around here who have [x] actually have [χ] before back
              vowels, and there is a similar variation in /k g ŋ/. I
              used to wonder why I couldn't make an [ħ] when what I
              thought was [χɑ] actually was [ħɑ]! :-)

              /bpj

              BTW, Roger, I saw a car with GWR on the licence plate
              today!
            • Leonardo Castro
              ... Besides, if you have too , we can say that we have two . :-P Até mais! Leonardo
              Message 6 of 23 , Feb 11, 2014
                2013-03-25 17:24 GMT+01:00 Roger Mills <romiltz@...>:
                > --- On Sun, 3/24/13, Patrick Dunn <pwdunn@...> wrote:
                > I'd say it's theoretically possible, but deeply unlikely for a language to
                > have no homophones or homonyms. Languages are always changing, both on the
                > level of sound and on the level of meaning, and so even if it was at one
                > stage without homophones or homonyms, all its takes is one generation to
                > drop a sound or two, or change a sound, or shift the meaning of a word, for
                > that to no longer be true.
                > =================================================
                >
                > Indeed. Also, the derivational system(s) can result in homophones. INdonesian has a number of prefixes that end in an underlying nasal, such that e.g. peN + m..... and peN + p.... both become pem.....; similarly in Kash, with its various sandhi rules that affect both prefixes and compounds. And it's possible, maybe even likely, that speakers, over time, will extract the "wrong" base from a prefixed form. I've often done this deliberately, eg. Kash _lica_ 'cut' > aN+lica /andica/ 'thing that cuts i.e. knife', but then we have _tica_ 'knife' because of the colloq. tendency to prefer bisyllables for basic nouns. (In Kash, ...N+ t, n, l all > /-nd-/, N + p, m, v, n etc., so there's lots of potential for homophones. When creating base forms, I try to avoid such situations, but sometimes I just like the sound ~ rightness of a new form, so let the chips fall where they will :-)))))
                >
                > Also, often the homophones simply can't occur in the same places. In Engl. no one confuses "so" and "sew", or "made" and "maid", etc. and even things like
                >
                > "I have to."
                > "I have, too."
                > "I have two."
                >
                > are usually distinguished by stress/intonation.

                Besides, if "you have too", we can say that "we have two". :-P

                Até mais!

                Leonardo

                >
                > But even words that are just near-homophones get confused, esp. (I've noticed) "gibe" and "jive", "rack" and "wrack" (the latter admittedly rare), and the egregious use-- sometimes even in places where a good copy editor ought to have caught it-- of "loose" for "lose".
              • Padraic Brown
                ... He s a made man. He s a maid man. Me I don t notice any discernible stress shift on this one. Unless interlocutor does some phake Italian accent and end
                Message 7 of 23 , Feb 11, 2014
                  Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...> wrote:


                  >Roger Mills <romiltz@...> wrote:
                  >> --- On Sun, 3/24/13, Patrick Dunn <pwdunn@...> wrote:

                  >> Also, often the homophones simply can't occur in the same places. In Engl. no
                  >> one confuses "so" and "sew", or "made" and "maid", etc. and even things like

                  He's a made man.
                  He's a maid man.

                  Me I don't notice any discernible stress shift on this one.

                  Unless interlocutor does some phake Italian accent and end the first sentence
                  with "capisce?" I wouldn't know which to assume. Context is helpful, but at
                  least in this instance I might easily confuse those two unless some further
                  information is forthcoming!

                  At least "so" and "sew" are different POS. But "sow" (nòt "sow"!) and "sew"
                  have some potential for confusion. (Excepting, of course, our predilection
                  for verbing words that aren't properly verbs, I suppose some confusion could
                  arise: "Don't you 'so' me, mister!" -- though I am at a loss why anyone would
                  order someone else not to sew them!)

                  Padraic

                  >> "I have to."
                  >> "I have, too."
                  >> "I have two."
                  >>
                  >> are usually distinguished by stress/intonation.
                  >
                  > Besides, if "you have too", we can say that "we have two".
                  > :-P
                  >
                  > Até mais!
                  >
                  > Leonardo
                  >
                  >>
                  >> But even words that are just near-homophones get confused, esp. (I've
                  > noticed) "gibe" and "jive", "rack" and
                  > "wrack" (the latter admittedly rare), and the egregious use--
                  > sometimes even in places where a good copy editor ought to have caught it-- of
                  > "loose" for "lose".
                  >
                • Padraic Brown
                  Right -- I think YMMV, Mr Schoolmarm! In neither do I really have a different stress pattern. As for being unfamiliar with a maid man -- I think that s
                  Message 8 of 23 , Feb 11, 2014
                    Right -- I think YMMV, Mr Schoolmarm! In neither do I really have a different stress pattern.

                    As for being unfamiliar with a "maid man" -- I think that's probably a good thing! I rather had
                    it in mind to mean a man who has a thing, a fetish, a particular liking for maids. Almost certainly
                    of the stereotypically French maid's costume bedight variety. And quite possibly not an actual
                    maid by occupation...

                    Valet is the word you're thinking of for "male maid" I believe. I know there are various ranks of
                    household servants, but am not especially familiar with them.


                    Padraic



                    >________________________________
                    > From: Roger Mills <romiltz@...>
                    >To: Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>
                    >Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 22:31
                    >Subject: Re: Creating a Conlang with homophones
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >Padraic wrote:
                    >"He's a made man.
                    >He's a maid man.
                    >Me I don't notice any discernible stress shift on this one."
                    >
                    >
                    >Well (<trigger schoolmarm mode>) you ought to ..... 'made man' has equal stress on both words (for me) like "black bird", whereas 'maid man' (which I find totally unfamiliar and a bit weird) should IMO have compound stress, like bláckbird.
                    >
                    >
                    >I assume a maid man is a male maid? That's what I'd call such a person, or _maybe_ a "man maid"
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:30 PM, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >>Roger Mills <romiltz@...> wrote:
                    >>>  --- On Sun, 3/24/13, Patrick Dunn <pwdunn@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >>>  Also, often the homophones simply can't occur in the same places. In Engl. no
                    >>> one confuses "so" and "sew", or "made" and "maid", etc. and even things like
                    >
                    >He's a made man.
                    >He's a maid man.
                    >
                    >Me I don't notice any discernible stress shift on this one.
                    >
                    >Unless interlocutor does some phake Italian accent and end the first sentence
                    >with "capisce?" I wouldn't know which to assume. Context is helpful, but at
                    >least in this instance I might easily confuse those two unless some further
                    >information is forthcoming!
                    >
                    >At least "so" and "sew" are different POS. But "sow" (nòt "sow"!) and "sew"
                    >have some potential for confusion. (Excepting, of course, our predilection
                    >for verbing words that aren't properly verbs, I suppose some confusion could
                    >arise: "Don't you 'so' me, mister!" -- though I am at a loss why anyone would
                    >order someone else not to sew them!)
                    >
                    >Padraic
                    >
                    >
                    >>>  "I have to."
                    >>>  "I have,
                    too."
                    >>>  "I have two."
                    >>>
                    >>>  are usually distinguished by stress/intonation.
                    >>
                    >> Besides, if "you have too", we can say that "we have two".
                    >> :-P
                    >>
                    >> Até mais!
                    >>
                    >> Leonardo
                    >>
                    >>>
                    >>>  But even words that are just near-homophones get confused, esp. (I've
                    >> noticed) "gibe" and "jive", "rack" and
                    >> "wrack" (the latter admittedly rare), and the egregious use--
                    >> sometimes even in places where a good copy editor ought to have caught it-- of
                    >> "loose" for "lose".
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Eugene Oh
                    Maid / Manservant? Eugene Sent from my iPhone
                    Message 9 of 23 , Feb 12, 2014
                      Maid / Manservant?

                      Eugene

                      Sent from my iPhone

                      > On 12 Feb 2014, at 04:03, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Right -- I think YMMV, Mr Schoolmarm! In neither do I really have a different stress pattern.
                      >
                      > As for being unfamiliar with a "maid man" -- I think that's probably a good thing! I rather had
                      > it in mind to mean a man who has a thing, a fetish, a particular liking for maids. Almost certainly
                      > of the stereotypically French maid's costume bedight variety. And quite possibly not an actual
                      > maid by occupation...
                      >
                      > Valet is the word you're thinking of for "male maid" I believe. I know there are various ranks of
                      > household servants, but am not especially familiar with them.
                      >
                      >
                      > Padraic
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >> ________________________________
                      >> From: Roger Mills <romiltz@...>
                      >> To: Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>
                      >> Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 22:31
                      >> Subject: Re: Creating a Conlang with homophones
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> Padraic wrote:
                      >> "He's a made man.
                      >> He's a maid man.
                      >> Me I don't notice any discernible stress shift on this one."
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> Well (<trigger schoolmarm mode>) you ought to ..... 'made man' has equal stress on both words (for me) like "black bird", whereas 'maid man' (which I find totally unfamiliar and a bit weird) should IMO have compound stress, like bláckbird.
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> I assume a maid man is a male maid? That's what I'd call such a person, or _maybe_ a "man maid"
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:30 PM, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...> wrote:
                      >>
                      >> Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...> wrote:
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>> Roger Mills <romiltz@...> wrote:
                      >>>> --- On Sun, 3/24/13, Patrick Dunn <pwdunn@...> wrote:
                      >>
                      >>>> Also, often the homophones simply can't occur in the same places. In Engl. no
                      >>>> one confuses "so" and "sew", or "made" and "maid", etc. and even things like
                      >>
                      >> He's a made man.
                      >> He's a maid man.
                      >>
                      >> Me I don't notice any discernible stress shift on this one.
                      >>
                      >> Unless interlocutor does some phake Italian accent and end the first sentence
                      >> with "capisce?" I wouldn't know which to assume. Context is helpful, but at
                      >> least in this instance I might easily confuse those two unless some further
                      >> information is forthcoming!
                      >>
                      >> At least "so" and "sew" are different POS. But "sow" (nòt "sow"!) and "sew"
                      >> have some potential for confusion. (Excepting, of course, our predilection
                      >> for verbing words that aren't properly verbs, I suppose some confusion could
                      >> arise: "Don't you 'so' me, mister!" -- though I am at a loss why anyone would
                      >> order someone else not to sew them!)
                      >>
                      >> Padraic
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>>> "I have to."
                      >>>> "I have,
                      > too."
                      >>>> "I have two."
                      >>>>
                      >>>> are usually distinguished by stress/intonation.
                      >>>
                      >>> Besides, if "you have too", we can say that "we have two".
                      >>> :-P
                      >>>
                      >>> Até mais!
                      >>>
                      >>> Leonardo
                      >>>
                      >>>>
                      >>>> But even words that are just near-homophones get confused, esp. (I've
                      >>> noticed) "gibe" and "jive", "rack" and
                      >>> "wrack" (the latter admittedly rare), and the egregious use--
                      >>> sometimes even in places where a good copy editor ought to have caught it-- of
                      >>> "loose" for "lose".
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                    • R A Brown
                      ... Not really. Man servant might be OK, but male servant is probably less likely to be misunderstood. Manservant , though in theory generic, in
                      Message 10 of 23 , Feb 12, 2014
                        On 12/02/2014 08:54, Eugene Oh wrote:
                        > Maid / Manservant?

                        Not really. "Man servant" might be OK, but "male servant"
                        is probably less likely to be misunderstood. "Manservant",
                        though in theory generic, in practice usually means a
                        "valet" (see below).

                        [snip]
                        >> On 12 Feb 2014, at 04:03, Padraic Brown
                        >> <elemtilas@...> wrote:
                        [snip]
                        >> As for being unfamiliar with a "maid man"

                        Nor am I.
                        My first thought was of a rather effeminate bloke who acted
                        like a stereotypical fussy "old maid"; but ...

                        >> -- I think that's probably a good thing! I rather had
                        >> it in mind to mean a man who has a thing, a fetish, a
                        >> particular liking for maids. Almost certainly of the
                        >> stereotypically French maid's costume bedight variety.

                        Or rather a bloke who likes cross-dressing in such an out
                        fit (you'll find such pictures on the Internet).

                        >> And quite possibly not an actual maid by occupation...

                        Certainly not an actual maid by profession! Indeed, I first
                        read your _bedight_ as "bednight" ;)

                        >> Valet is the word you're thinking of for "male maid" I
                        >> believe. I know there are various ranks of household
                        >> servants, but am not especially familiar with them.

                        There are. A "valet" is just one variety of man servant; a
                        "butler" would be another; and then there was the bootboy,
                        usually a gardener or two (or more), the chauffeur, footmen,
                        stable boy etc. A "valet" is a personal male servant to an
                        another man - a "gentleman's gentleman" like Jeeves; see:
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valet

                        But "maid man" is certainly not a phrase I've come across
                        before and its meaning is certainly ambiguous.

                        --
                        Ray
                        ==================================
                        http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                        ==================================
                        "Ein Kopf, der auf seine eigene Kosten denkt,
                        wird immer Eingriffe in die Sprache thun."
                        [J.G. Hamann, 1760]
                        "A mind that thinks at its own expense
                        will always interfere with language".
                      • PETER BLEACKLEY
                        ... Pete
                        Message 11 of 23 , Feb 12, 2014
                          staving R A Brown:

                          >
                          >But "maid man" is certainly not a phrase I've come across
                          >before and its meaning is certainly ambiguous.
                          >
                          >
                          >I am reminded of the following quote from Twelfth Night, "Thou art betrothed to both a maid and man," i.e. a male virgin.

                          Pete
                        • Padraic Brown
                          Could be. Would have to pay closer attention to Downton Abbey... Padraic
                          Message 12 of 23 , Feb 12, 2014
                            Could be. Would have to pay closer attention to Downton Abbey...

                            Padraic





                            >________________________________
                            > From: Eugene Oh <un.doing@...>
                            >To: Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>
                            >Cc: "CONLANG@..." <CONLANG@...>
                            >Sent: Wednesday, 12 February 2014, 3:54
                            >Subject: Re: Creating a Conlang with homophones
                            >
                            >
                            >Maid / Manservant?
                            >
                            >Eugene
                            >
                            >Sent from my iPhone
                            >
                            >
                            >> On 12 Feb 2014, at 04:03, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...> wrote:
                            >>
                            >> Right -- I think YMMV, Mr Schoolmarm! In neither do I really have a different stress pattern.
                            >>
                            >> As for being unfamiliar with a "maid man" -- I think that's probably a good thing! I rather had
                            >> it in mind to mean a man who has a thing, a fetish, a particular liking for maids. Almost certainly
                            >> of the stereotypically French maid's costume bedight variety. And quite possibly not an actual
                            >> maid by occupation...
                            >>
                            >> Valet is the word you're thinking of for "male maid" I believe. I know there are various ranks of
                            >> household servants, but am not especially familiar with them.
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> Padraic
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>> ________________________________
                            >>> From: Roger Mills <romiltz@...>
                            >>> To: Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>
                            >>> Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 22:31
                            >>> Subject: Re: Creating a Conlang with homophones
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>> Padraic wrote:
                            >>> "He's a made man.
                            >>> He's a maid man.
                            >>> Me I don't notice any discernible stress shift on this one."
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>> Well (<trigger schoolmarm mode>) you ought to ..... 'made man' has equal stress on both words (for me) like "black bird", whereas 'maid man' (which I find totally unfamiliar and a bit weird) should IMO have compound stress, like bláckbird.
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>> I assume a maid man is a male maid? That's what I'd call such a person, or _maybe_ a "man maid"
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:30 PM, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...> wrote:
                            >>>
                            >>> Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...> wrote:
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>> Roger Mills <romiltz@...> wrote:
                            >>>>>  --- On Sun, 3/24/13, Patrick Dunn <pwdunn@...> wrote:
                            >>>
                            >>>>>  Also, often the homophones simply can't occur in the same places. In Engl. no
                            >>>>> one confuses "so" and "sew", or "made" and "maid", etc. and even things like
                            >>>
                            >>> He's a made man.
                            >>> He's a maid man.
                            >>>
                            >>> Me I don't notice any discernible stress shift on this one.
                            >>>
                            >>> Unless interlocutor does some phake Italian accent and end the first sentence
                            >>> with "capisce?" I wouldn't know which to assume. Context is helpful, but at
                            >>> least in this instance I might easily confuse those two unless some further
                            >>> information is forthcoming!
                            >>>
                            >>> At least "so" and "sew" are different POS. But "sow" (nòt "sow"!) and "sew"
                            >>> have some potential for confusion. (Excepting, of course, our predilection
                            >>> for verbing words that aren't properly verbs, I suppose some confusion could
                            >>> arise: "Don't you 'so' me, mister!" -- though I am at a loss why anyone would
                            >>> order someone else not to sew them!)
                            >>>
                            >>> Padraic
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>>>  "I have to."
                            >>>>>  "I have,
                            >> too."
                            >>>>>  "I have two."
                            >>>>>
                            >>>>>  are usually distinguished by stress/intonation.
                            >>>>
                            >>>> Besides, if "you have too", we can say that "we have two".
                            >>>> :-P
                            >>>>
                            >>>> Até mais!
                            >>>>
                            >>>> Leonardo
                            >>>>
                            >>>>>
                            >>>>>  But even words that are just near-homophones get confused, esp. (I've
                            >>>> noticed) "gibe" and "jive", "rack" and
                            >>>> "wrack" (the latter admittedly rare), and the egregious use--
                            >>>> sometimes even in places where a good copy editor ought to have caught it-- of
                            >>>> "loose" for "lose".
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >
                            >
                          • Roger Mills
                            That sounds better. Maid is definitely a feminine word in Engl. I haven t read enough Brit-lit (or seen enough British TV) to know whether the duties of a
                            Message 13 of 23 , Feb 13, 2014
                              That sounds better. "Maid" is definitely a feminine word in Engl. I haven't read enough Brit-lit (or seen enough British TV) to know whether the duties of a "manservant/valet" are the same as those of a maid....but I don't thnk so.... Any residents of Downton who can enlighten me???





                              On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:54 AM, Eugene Oh <un.doing@...> wrote:

                              Maid / Manservant?

                              Eugene

                              Sent from my iPhone


                              > On 12 Feb 2014, at 04:03, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Right -- I think YMMV, Mr Schoolmarm! In neither do I really have a different stress pattern.
                              >
                              > As for being unfamiliar with a "maid man" -- I think that's probably a good thing! I rather had
                              > it in mind to mean a man who has a thing, a fetish, a particular liking for maids. Almost certainly
                              > of the stereotypically French maid's costume bedight variety. And quite possibly not an actual
                              > maid by occupation...
                              >
                              > Valet is the word you're thinking of for "male maid" I believe. I know there are various ranks of
                              > household servants, but am not especially familiar with them.
                              >
                              >
                              > Padraic
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >> ________________________________
                              >> From: Roger Mills <romiltz@...>
                              >> To: Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...>
                              >> Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 22:31
                              >> Subject: Re: Creating a Conlang with homophones
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> Padraic wrote:
                              >> "He's a made man.
                              >> He's a maid man.
                              >> Me I don't notice any discernible stress shift on this one."
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> Well (<trigger schoolmarm mode>) you ought to ..... 'made man' has equal stress on both words (for me) like "black bird", whereas 'maid man' (which I find totally unfamiliar and a bit weird) should IMO have compound stress, like bláckbird.
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> I assume a maid man is a male maid? That's what I'd call such a person, or _maybe_ a "man maid"
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:30 PM, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@...> wrote:
                              >>
                              >> Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...> wrote:
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>> Roger Mills <romiltz@...> wrote:
                              >>>>  --- On Sun, 3/24/13, Patrick Dunn <pwdunn@...> wrote:
                              >>
                              >>>>  Also, often the homophones simply can't occur in the same places. In Engl. no
                              >>>> one confuses "so" and "sew", or "made" and "maid", etc. and even things like
                              >>
                              >> He's a made man.
                              >> He's a maid man.
                              >>
                              >> Me I don't notice any discernible stress shift on this one.
                              >>
                              >> Unless interlocutor does some phake Italian accent and end the first sentence
                              >> with "capisce?" I wouldn't know which to assume. Context is helpful, but at
                              >> least in this instance I might easily confuse those two unless some further
                              >> information is forthcoming!
                              >>
                              >> At least "so" and "sew" are different POS. But "sow" (nòt "sow"!) and "sew"
                              >> have some potential for confusion. (Excepting, of course, our predilection
                              >> for verbing words that aren't properly verbs, I suppose some confusion could
                              >> arise: "Don't you 'so' me, mister!" -- though I am at a loss why anyone would
                              >> order someone else not to sew them!)
                              >>
                              >> Padraic
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>>>  "I have to."
                              >>>>  "I have,
                              > too."
                              >>>>  "I have two."
                              >>>>
                              >>>>  are usually distinguished by stress/intonation.
                              >>>
                              >>> Besides, if "you have too", we can say that "we have two".
                              >>> :-P
                              >>>
                              >>> Até mais!
                              >>>
                              >>> Leonardo
                              >>>
                              >>>>
                              >>>>  But even words that are just near-homophones get confused, esp. (I've
                              >>> noticed) "gibe" and "jive", "rack" and
                              >>> "wrack" (the latter admittedly rare), and the egregious use--
                              >>> sometimes even in places where a good copy editor ought to have caught it-- of
                              >>> "loose" for "lose".
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.