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

Re: No Coke, Peksi [sic]

Expand Messages
  • Anthony Miles
    ... The Simayamka could possibly have words for this. In Siye, Coke is easy: kokakola . Orangina is olamkina [ola~tSina]. Pepsi presents a problem. The
    Message 1 of 59 , May 16 4:20 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      On 15/05/2013 12:58, Douglas Koller wrote:
      >> Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 12:55:21 +0100 From: Sam Stutter
      >> Subject: Re: No Coke, Peksi [sic] (was: RE: Typical
      >> lexicon size in natlangs) To:
      >> CONLANG@...
      >
      >> Wait, what has this got to do with conlangs again? :)
      >
      > ObConlang: How do you say Coke, Pepsi, and Orangina in
      > your conlangs? There, now you're covered. ;)

      The Simayamka could possibly have words for this. In Siye, Coke is easy: 'kokakola'. Orangina is 'olamkina' [ola~tSina]. Pepsi presents a problem. The maximum form for a Siye syllable is CV~. /pepsi/ does not work /pesi/ is [peSi] "peshi" if it were Russian while /pepi/ is [peCi] "peshchi" if it were Russian. It depends on which franchise lobbies the Guild of Scholars most effectively before they release the next Catalog of New and Acceptable Words.

      The Pi'naax of Ka'manu, the speakers of Na'gifi Fasu'xa, live on a devastated ecology in c. 14,000 CE. So they wouldn't have a term of fizzy non-nutritious beverages.
    • Juanma Barranquero
      ... Sure. But this thread discusses typical lexicon size , and Gary Shannon and H. S. Teoh proposed a bootstrap lexicon size as a meaningful measure. And
      Message 59 of 59 , May 20 8:56 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Anthony Miles <mamercus88@...> wrote:

        > Even in an impoverished environment humans or something like them will expand vocabulary.

        Sure. But this thread discusses "typical lexicon size", and Gary
        Shannon and H. S. Teoh proposed a "bootstrap lexicon size" as a
        meaningful measure. And I'm just pointing out that I don't think it
        would be a good metric, because if you use it for many languages, and
        the resulting size varies, let's say, between X-10% and X+10% for some
        X, that does not offer any insight about the *typical* lexicon size of
        the languages so tested. Systems of vastly different complexity can
        arise from similarly simple foundations (cellular automata are a clear
        example of that).

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