Beyond Pig Latin (was Re: How can Orbital Electron Rotate Permanently without Energy Supply?)
Allan Adler
what Autymn has been doing with Latin and English. I don't think sci.chem
and the other science groups are the place to go into it, but maybe sci.lang
or humanities.classics would be a suitable venue. For that reason, I'm
cross posting this to those groups and deleting most of the science groups,
the last of which will be deleted after the thread moves to sci.lang
and humanities.classics.
As a purely linguistic exercise, no one seems to mind kids learning
pig latin, for example. So, I have no problem with Autymn's interest
trying to find replacements for words of Latin origin. I'd just like to
see more public discussion of the details about the method, so that it
can be explained to others who might like to try it, e.g. kids.
Also, I don't see any reason why the exercise should be confined to Latin.
One could try to find replacements in language A for words derived from
language B. Those replacements could be derived, in some sense, from
languages C,D,E,... (which might just be A, or not, or might be A at various
stages of its evolution). For example, suppose one wanted to get all of the
indo-european stuff out of English, according to Autymn's method. How would
that work and what would be left?
What is interesting is that Autymn isn't just trying to delete words of
Latin origin, but to develop some kind of rules for replacing them. That
seems like a legitimate language study activity, even if it doesn't actually
advance professional language studies.
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler <a...@zurich.csail.mit.edu>
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> I don't mean to intrude into this discussion, but I'm curious about
> what Autymn has been doing with Latin and English. I don't think sci.chem
> and the other science groups are the place to go into it, but maybe sci.lang
> or humanities.classics would be a suitable venue. For that reason, I'm
> cross posting this to those groups and deleting most of the science groups,
> the last of which will be deleted after the thread moves to sci.lang
> and humanities.classics.
You do realize we have no idea what you're talking about.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Richard Herring
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes
Think yourself lucky. If you can follow the thread backward into
sci.physics, where it originated, you will find out. Autymn is the
character with weird ideas about English spelling and the permissible
uses of "data".
--
Richard Herring
Peter T. Daniels
I have enough trouble stomaching AA's postings.
Dennis
>>> I don't mean to intrude into this discussion, but I'm curious about
>>> what Autymn has been doing with Latin and English. I don't think
>>> sci.chem and the other science groups are the place to go into it,
>>> but maybe sci.lang or humanities.classics would be a suitable venue.
>>> For that reason, I'm cross posting this to those groups and deleting
>>> most of the science groups, the last of which will be deleted after
>>> the thread moves to sci.lang and humanities.classics.
>>
>>You do realize we have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> Think yourself lucky. If you can follow the thread backward into
> sci.physics, where it originated, you will find out. Autymn is the
> character with weird ideas about English spelling and the permissible
> uses of "data".
It sounds like I've heard they do in Iceland: coin words with native
roots to replace anything of international origin. Thus 'electricity'
becomes 'rafmagn' = "amber power".
Maybe he thinks we should do the same in English with Latin words.
Of course, if we got rid of all the words of Romance origin, more than half
the language would be gone.
Dennis
Allan Adler
> It sounds like I've heard they do in Iceland: coin words with native
> roots to replace anything of international origin. Thus 'electricity'
> becomes 'rafmagn' = "amber power".
Interesting.
> Maybe he thinks we should do the same in English with Latin words.
> Of course, if we got rid of all the words of Romance origin, more than half
> the language would be gone.
I don't know whether Autymn D.C. is male or female. I've seen the expansion
Autymn Deborah Carleton, which suggests the latter. As for words of Latin
origin, I think Autymn is trying to replace them, not conceptually, as in
the plausible Icelandic example you cited, but somewhat mechanically.
One recent example on sci.chem was replacing the word "dissolve" with
"froloose", or something like that, with dis- mechanically replaced by
fro-, as in from, and so on (I hesitate to say "et cetera").
I think that it is perfectly all right if someone wants to play games like
that with words. It can even have some merit in making people aware of some
superficial aspects of English origins and word formation. In particular, I
see no problem with kids playing with this, just as they do with pig latin.
On the other hand, I disagree with Autymn's apparent insistence that
everyone should do this all the time. However, even that doesn't really
matter. Let's take Autymn's idea to its logical conclusion. This idea
requires infrastructure. Someone needs to write the English-Autymn
dictionary that tells people what words to use instead of the ones
Autymn is trying to get people to stop using. Someone needs to write
the rules of formation that will help people figure out how to handle
words that aren't explicitly mentioned in the dictionary. Maybe Autymn
can be entrusted with this responsibility, maybe not. I don't even know
whether Autymn is interested in doing it. In any case, there is plenty
of room on the internet and these reference materials can be placed
at a suitable website in case anyone is interested in pursuing the idea
for whatever reason.
I can imagine perfectly legitimate scenarios, other than whatever Autymn
is trying to accomplish, in which someone might be interested in doing so.
Just to take one example, let us note that there is no idea so delusional
that it cannot be made law. It is therefore conceivable that someone would
write a novel in which people who view things from Autymn's point of view
wind up in power and start revising the dictionary accordingly and requiring
people to modify their manner of speaking and writing. The author of that
novel is going to have to create dialogue in the language that Autymn wants
everyone to speak. I say, let's give that author the reference materials
he/she needs!
In view of this application, I am cross posting this to misc.writing.
An undertaking of this magnitude is not unprecedented. Tolkien designed
languages for his stories about middle earth and I used to own a Klingon
grammar.
Peter T. Daniels
> I don't know whether Autymn D.C. is male or female. I've seen the expansion
> Autymn Deborah Carleton, which suggests the latter. As for words of Latin
> origin, I think Autymn is trying to replace them, not conceptually, as in
> the plausible Icelandic example you cited, but somewhat mechanically.
> One recent example on sci.chem was replacing the word "dissolve" with
> "froloose", or something like that, with dis- mechanically replaced by
> fro-, as in from, and so on (I hesitate to say "et cetera").
Funny that "Autymn" gives itself a name transparently from Greek roots.
> In view of this application, I am cross posting this to misc.writing.
I am uncrossposting this.
> An undertaking of this magnitude is not unprecedented. Tolkien designed
> languages for his stories about middle earth and I used to own a Klingon
> grammar.
Duh.
> --
> Ignorantly,
Duh.
Alan Anderson
> An undertaking of this magnitude is not unprecedented. Tolkien designed
> languages for his stories about middle earth and I used to own a Klingon
> grammar.
It's probably a little more accurate to say it the other way around:
Tolkien wrote stories about Middle Earth as a playground for the
languages he designed. He also seemed more focused on the process of
language evolution and dialectical changes, rather than on codifying a
"finished" language.
(I don't believe mentioning Klingon grammar in this context is
appropriate. You're talking about someone whose goal is apparently
spelling reform and simple substitution of one word for another, while
keeping the existing grammar. In contrast, Klingon was designed to
have a grammar quite unlike most natural languages, which is a
completely different kind of task.)
Tommi Nieminen
> Tolkien [...] also seemed more focused on the process of
> language evolution and dialectical changes, rather than on codifying a
> "finished" language.
That's because Tolkien's own knowledge of linguistics was strictly of a
historical kind.
--
.... Tommi Nieminen .... http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tommni/ ....
Nothing is more keenly required than a defence of bores.
-G. K. Chesterton-
.... tommi dot nieminen at campus dot jyu dot fi ....
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Alan Anderson kirjoitti:
>
> > Tolkien [...] also seemed more focused on the process of
> > language evolution and dialectical changes, rather than on codifying a
> > "finished" language.
>
> That's because Tolkien's own knowledge of linguistics was strictly of a
> historical kind.
?? That's what philology _was_ when he learned and practiced it.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Allan Adler wrote:
>
> > An undertaking of this magnitude is not unprecedented. Tolkien designed
> > languages for his stories about middle earth and I used to own a Klingon
> > grammar.
>
> It's probably a little more accurate to say it the other way around:
> Tolkien wrote stories about Middle Earth as a playground for the
> languages he designed. He also seemed more focused on the process of
> language evolution and dialectical changes, rather than on codifying a
> "finished" language.
Unfortunately, we may never know -- there's an obscure note in the last
(12th) volume of Christopher Tolkien's edition of the background
materials stating that there's lots more material on the languages in
the archives (in Wheaton?), and he's not going to bother to publish it.
Neeraj Mathur
>
> It sounds like I've heard they do in Iceland: coin words with native
> roots to replace anything of international origin. Thus 'electricity'
> becomes 'rafmagn' = "amber power".
>
> Maybe he thinks we should do the same in English with Latin words.
> Of course, if we got rid of all the words of Romance origin, more than half
> the language would be gone.
It's happened twice in Hindi. First, in the early 1800's, the literary
language of Urdu (based on a spoken Delhi dialect called Khari Boli) was
purged of its Perso-Arabic vocabulary, replacing all of the 'foreign'
words with Sanskrit-derived neologisms; the result was 'pure' literary
Hindi. This has been of some success, although only a few newspapers
insist on a highly Sanskritized style; most modern Hindi admits some
Perso-Arabic words, as well as a lot of Sanskrit. (Nevertheless, the
more Persian that is admitted, the more likely a text is to be
considered Urdu rather than Hindi.)
It occurred again after independance from Britain in 1947, this time
purging Hindi of all English words and replacing them with Sanskrit.
This was almost entirely unsuccessful, since most people were confused
or amused by such words as 'agni-rath-viram-sthan' (lit. fire chariot
resting location) for 'station'.
Neeraj Mathur
Tommi Nieminen
> ?? That's what philology _was_ when he learned and practiced it.
Exactly what I meant, at least for the "when he learned it" part of your
sentence. During the 1930's and 40's Tolkien could easily have picked
new ideas from modern synchronic linguistics had he ever thought about it.
Ivor Longhorn
<tommiDOT...@campus.jyu.fi.invalid> said:
>Peter T. Daniels kirjoitti:
>
>> ?? That's what philology _was_ when he learned and practiced it.
>
>Exactly what I meant, at least for the "when he learned it" part of your
>sentence. During the 1930's and 40's Tolkien could easily have picked
>new ideas from modern synchronic linguistics had he ever thought about it.
Like what?
Dr Zen
Editor, Man of Letters of Little Renown, Writer, Liveried Lackey at Times and Occasional Masturbator
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
Editing Done Cheap. Apply for Rates. I Also Write. So Long as You Don't Want a Whole Novel. Been Known to Read Proofs.
Tommi Nieminen
>> During the 1930's and 40's Tolkien could easily have picked
>> new ideas from modern synchronic linguistics had he ever thought about it.
>
> Like what?
Are you not aware of any changes in linguistic thought during those times?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Ivor Longhorn kirjoitti:
>
> >> During the 1930's and 40's Tolkien could easily have picked
> >> new ideas from modern synchronic linguistics had he ever thought about it.
> >
> > Like what?
>
> Are you not aware of any changes in linguistic thought during those times?
I imagine "misc.writing" is for writers? I.e. people who would have been
English majors? I.e. prescriptivists? English majors are notoriously
ignorant of and hostile to linguistics -- they may have been required to
take one one-semester course to graduate, which they slept through.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in sci.lang,misc.writing:
[...]
> I imagine "misc.writing" is for writers? I.e. people who would
> have been English majors?
I know quite a few writers; a majority of them were *not* English
majors, and several were in mathematics, computer science,
science, or engineering.
[...]
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
And they wouldn't have been required to take even _one_ linguistics
course. Hence the a-fortiori irrelevance of the question I was
addressing.
Towse
I took a Logic and Philosophy class once. Got an A. Does that count?
Biology major/Chemistry, minor. Former book-shelver, 'cot cutter,
inventory taker, exo-biology researcher, computer wizard, software
engineer, proofreader, envelope stuffer, writer of code, writer of words
and investigator of cerebral tempests.
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://www.internet-resources.com/writers>
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > Brian M. Scott wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:16:15 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> >><gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in sci.lang,misc.writing:
> >>
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>>I imagine "misc.writing" is for writers? I.e. people who would
> >>>have been English majors?
> >>
> >>I know quite a few writers; a majority of them were *not* English
> >>majors, and several were in mathematics, computer science,
> >>science, or engineering.
> >
> > And they wouldn't have been required to take even _one_ linguistics
> > course. Hence the a-fortiori irrelevance of the question I was
> > addressing.
>
> I took a Logic and Philosophy class once. Got an A. Does that count?
Linguists need to know about logic, but not vice versa, so not really.
But you might be good at linguistics!
When I was an undergraduate at Cornell, Logic was in the Math department
and Semantics was in the Philosophy department, and both were
recommended for linguistics majors. The textbook for the former was by
Kalish and Montague, and Montague went on to devise "Montague Grammar,"
a highly formalized system for describing linguistic semantics. The
latter was taught by Max Black, a very well known philosopher -- and one
day he brought to class Georg Henrik von Wright, an even more important
philosopher, who had eyebrows even more astonishing than Leonid
Brezhnev's.
> Biology major/Chemistry, minor. Former book-shelver, 'cot cutter,
> inventory taker, exo-biology researcher, computer wizard, software
> engineer, proofreader, envelope stuffer, writer of code, writer of words
> and investigator of cerebral tempests.
What's 'cot?
I shelved books in Cornell's music library for a couple of years.
Towse
> Towse wrote:
>>I took a Logic and Philosophy class once. Got an A. Does that count?
>
> Linguists need to know about logic, but not vice versa, so not really.
> But you might be good at linguistics!
I was just teasing. I took Logic and Philosophy, history, anthropology,
law (international, environmental, and some other ... constitutional,
maybe?), as interesting and easy breaks from all the science.
> When I was an undergraduate at Cornell, Logic was in the Math department
> and Semantics was in the Philosophy department, and both were
> recommended for linguistics majors. The textbook for the former was by
> Kalish and Montague, and Montague went on to devise "Montague Grammar,"
> a highly formalized system for describing linguistic semantics. The
> latter was taught by Max Black, a very well known philosopher -- and one
> day he brought to class Georg Henrik von Wright, an even more important
> philosopher, who had eyebrows even more astonishing than Leonid
> Brezhnev's.
>
>>Biology major/Chemistry, minor. Former book-shelver, 'cot cutter,
>>inventory taker, exo-biology researcher, computer wizard, software
>>engineer, proofreader, envelope stuffer, writer of code, writer of words
>>and investigator of cerebral tempests.
>
>
> What's 'cot?
apricot <http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/voices/Zarko/zarko.html>
Hot days, not much pay, stretching over the drying trays, laying out
'cots I'd sliced and pitted. I still don't care for fresh apricots,
although dried are fine. The muck and slime, overripe, gooshy fruit and
the occasional worm or two are not the most appetizing memories.
> I shelved books in Cornell's music library for a couple of years.
I worked at the San Jose Public Library the last couple years I was
going to SJSU and for several years after I graduated, before I found my
way to software development. I'd taken my degree work with plans to help
develop a rice that would feed the world or to at least work in seed
development. The guy I was married to at the time came from the Central
Valley and had absolutely no desire to head back there just so I could
get a job doing what I wanted to do. Premarital counseling. Should've
had some.
Ivor Longhorn
<tommiDOT...@campus.jyu.fi.invalid> said:
>Ivor Longhorn kirjoitti:
>
>>> During the 1930's and 40's Tolkien could easily have picked
>>> new ideas from modern synchronic linguistics had he ever thought about it.
>>
>> Like what?
>
>Are you not aware of any changes in linguistic thought during those times?
I'm aware of them, bucko, but the question concerned which ideas you
think Tolkien could easily have picked.
Ivor Longhorn
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> said:
You are dimmer than Tommi. Most of misc.writing is full of people who
couldn't write if they had a gun to their head and are profoundly
lacking in education of any kind.
Clearly, for all your erudition, you're not too good at working out
the meaning of a plain English sentence. You certainly don't know not
to begin one with "ie". Tommi says Tolkien could have "picked new
ideas" from "modern synchronic linguistics". Now, I have a major in
linguistics and I think Tommi is pulling it out of his arse. So I say
"Like what?"
Getting it now or do you need pictures?
Josh Hill
<longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Most of misc.writing is full of people
Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>who
>couldn't write if they had a gun to their head and are profoundly
>lacking in education of any kind.
--
Josh
"This is a devastating storm. This is a storm that's
going to require immediate action now." -George W. Bush,
four days after Hurricane Katrina
Ivor Longhorn
<usere...@gmail.com> said:
>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>
>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>
Were I as dumb as you are, I'd need it explaining to me.
Towse
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
> <longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>
> Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
You'd say "most of America are full of people"?
>>who
>>couldn't write if they had a gun to their head and are profoundly
>>lacking in education of any kind.
Just wondering ...
Josh Hill
<longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>
>>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>
>
>Were I as dumb as you are, I'd need it explaining to me.
Were I as arrogant as you are, I'd say it isn't my job to educate you.
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>> <longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>
>> Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>
>You'd say "most of America are full of people"?
What parts of misc.writing don't have people in them? Figuratively
speaking, of course.
>>>who
>>>couldn't write if they had a gun to their head and are profoundly
>>>lacking in education of any kind.
>
>Just wondering ...
--
Ivor Longhorn
<usere...@gmail.com> said:
>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:30:14 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
>><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>>
>>>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>>
>>
>>Were I as dumb as you are, I'd need it explaining to me.
>
>Were I as arrogant as you are, I'd say it isn't my job to educate you.
Were you as arrogant as I am, you'd know you're not fitted to the job.
Ivor Longhorn
<usere...@gmail.com> said:
>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:15:16 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
>
>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>> <longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>>
>>> Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>
>>You'd say "most of America are full of people"?
>
>What parts of misc.writing don't have people in them? Figuratively
>speaking, of course.
>
Someone explain to Josh what a defining clause is
>>>>who
>>>>couldn't write if they had a gun to their head and are profoundly
>>>>lacking in education of any kind.
>>
>>Just wondering ...
Alan Hope
>What parts of misc.writing don't have people in them?
The lurker part. Those sub-human bastards. They're not people, they're
scum.
--
AH
António Marques
> One recent example on sci.chem was replacing the word "dissolve" with
> "froloose", or something like that, with dis- mechanically replaced by
> fro-, as in from, and so on (I hesitate to say "et cetera").
>
> An undertaking of this magnitude is not unprecedented. Tolkien designed
> languages for his stories about middle earth and I used to own a Klingon
> grammar.
Tolkien's linguistic endeavours are consideradbly more complex and
interesting than substituting un-off-hang-ing-ness for in-de-pend-enc-e.
--
am
laurus : rhodophyta : brezoneg : smalltalk : stargate
Josh Hill
<longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:30:14 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
>>><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>>>
>>>>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Were I as dumb as you are, I'd need it explaining to me.
>>
>>Were I as arrogant as you are, I'd say it isn't my job to educate you.
>
>Were you as arrogant as I am, you'd know you're not fitted to the job.
Were I as deluded as you are, I'd think I wasn't fitted to the job.
Josh Hill
<longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:15:16 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>>> <longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>>>
>>>> Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>>
>>>You'd say "most of America are full of people"?
>>
>>What parts of misc.writing don't have people in them? Figuratively
>>speaking, of course.
>>
>
>Someone explain to Josh what a defining clause is
Someone explain to Zen that he'd have done just as well to blame his
infelicity on Santa Clause.
Josh Hill
wrote:
Best watch what you say about them -- those lurkers have sharp clause.
Stan (the Man)
Ivor Longhorn wrote:
> You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
> <usere...@gmail.com> said:
>
>
>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:15:16 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>>>
>>>>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>>
>>>You'd say "most of America are full of people"?
>>
>>What parts of misc.writing don't have people in them? Figuratively
>>speaking, of course.
>>
>
>
> Someone explain to Josh what a defining clause is
Google down?
>>>>>who
>>>>>couldn't write if they had a gun to their head and are profoundly
>>>>>lacking in education of any kind.
>>>
>>>Just wondering ...
--
Stan
gekko
Hope <not.al...@mail.com>, who went on in
news:r43nj1pu7mdkortu9...@4ax.com to bemoan:
Yes, but they have all the fun.
--
gekko
Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to use
the Net and he won't bother you for weeks. -- Author unknown
gekko
Hill <usere...@gmail.com>, who went on in
news:igmnj1htibnkguo3h...@4ax.com to bemoan:
> clause
You've already abused that cliche'd pun.
Towse
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:50:03 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
> <longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
>><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:15:16 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>>>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>>>>
>>>>>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>>>
>>>>You'd say "most of America are full of people"?
>>>
>>>What parts of misc.writing don't have people in them? Figuratively
>>>speaking, of course.
>>
>>Someone explain to Josh what a defining clause is
>
> Someone explain to Zen that he'd have done just as well to blame his
> infelicity on Santa Clause.
He was correct.
You called him on an error that wasn't one.
You were wrong. Get over it.
Tommi Nieminen
> Tommi says Tolkien could have "picked new ideas" from "modern
> synchronic linguistics". Now, I have a major in linguistics and I
> think Tommi is pulling it out of his arse. So I say "Like what?"
>
> Getting it now or do you need pictures?
I guess you need to draw pictures...
If you really have majored in linguistics you should know there's a huge
difference between the linguistics of the 19th century and
post-Saussurean times, no matter what viewpoint is taken. Even
historical linguistics have changed; for instance, Tolkien's insistence
that everything in language is based on a few primitive roots has been
abandoned long time ago.
But what are we talking about--Tolkien's linguistics or his languages?
The "new ideas" I mentioned were a matter of linguistic presentation.
I've no idea whether modern linguistics would've changed the "substance"
of his languages.
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:50:03 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>> <longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
>>><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:15:16 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>>>>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>>>>
>>>>>You'd say "most of America are full of people"?
>>>>
>>>>What parts of misc.writing don't have people in them? Figuratively
>>>>speaking, of course.
>>>
>>>Someone explain to Josh what a defining clause is
>>
>> Someone explain to Zen that he'd have done just as well to blame his
>> infelicity on Santa Clause.
>
>He was correct.
>
>You called him on an error that wasn't one.
>
>You were wrong. Get over it.
Nonsense. "Most of misc.writing is full of people who" is patently
ridiculous.
António Marques
>> It's probably a little more accurate to say it the other way
>> around: Tolkien wrote stories about Middle Earth as a playground
>> for the languages he designed. He also seemed more focused on the
>> process of language evolution and dialectical changes, rather than
>> on codifying a "finished" language.
>
> Unfortunately, we may never know -- there's an obscure note in the
> last (12th) volume of Christopher Tolkien's edition of the background
> materials stating that there's lots more material on the languages
> in the archives (in Wheaton?), and he's not going to bother to
> publish it.
Ardalambion presents all (I think) of the canonical stuff and gives
interesting conjectures:
http://move.to/ardalambion
http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/ (to avoid advertisement)
Peter T. Daniels
The front page is very hard to read, but it doesn't seem to claim
anywhere that it includes JRRT's unpublished materials on the languages.
pandora
"Josh Hill" <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qb6oj1p9funuo987p...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 06:12:36 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
>
> >Josh Hill wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:50:03 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
> >> <longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
> >>><usere...@gmail.com> said:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:15:16 -0700, Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Josh Hill wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
> >>>>>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You'd say "most of America are full of people"?
> >>>>
> >>>>What parts of misc.writing don't have people in them? Figuratively
> >>>>speaking, of course.
> >>>
> >>>Someone explain to Josh what a defining clause is
> >>
> >> Someone explain to Zen that he'd have done just as well to blame his
> >> infelicity on Santa Clause.
> >
> >He was correct.
> >
> >You called him on an error that wasn't one.
> >
> >You were wrong. Get over it.
>
> Nonsense. "Most of misc.writing is full of people who" is patently
> ridiculous.
No, it isn't. "misc.writing" is a place. Well sortof. Rather like saying,
Yachats is full of people who......
Marg
Ivor Longhorn
<usere...@gmail.com> said:
>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:48:53 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
>><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:30:14 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You rang, m'lord. Well, even if you didn't, Josh Hill
>>>><usere...@gmail.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:15:10 +1000, Ivor Longhorn
>>>>><longho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Most of misc.writing is full of people
>>>>>
>>>>>Were I as mean as you are, I'd call attention to this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Were I as dumb as you are, I'd need it explaining to me.
>>>
>>>Were I as arrogant as you are, I'd say it isn't my job to educate you.
>>
>>Were you as arrogant as I am, you'd know you're not fitted to the job.
>
>Were I as deluded as you are, I'd think I wasn't fitted to the job.
Were you as deluded as I am, you'd need to be fitted with...
Hang on!
Ivor Longhorn
<tommiDOT...@campus.jyu.fi.invalid> said:
>Ivor Longhorn kirjoitti:
>
>> Tommi says Tolkien could have "picked new ideas" from "modern
>> synchronic linguistics". Now, I have a major in linguistics and I
>> think Tommi is pulling it out of his arse. So I say "Like what?"
>>
>> Getting it now or do you need pictures?
>
>I guess you need to draw pictures...
>
>If you really have majored in linguistics you should know there's a huge
>difference between the linguistics of the 19th century and
>post-Saussurean times, no matter what viewpoint is taken. Even
>historical linguistics have changed; for instance, Tolkien's insistence
>that everything in language is based on a few primitive roots has been
>abandoned long time ago.
>
>But what are we talking about--Tolkien's linguistics or his languages?
>The "new ideas" I mentioned were a matter of linguistic presentation.
>I've no idea whether modern linguistics would've changed the "substance"
>of his languages.
No, Tommi, you misunderstood. I said "Like what?" I can see that
English is not your first language, so let me explain. That sentence
means "which ideas are you talking about that he could have used?" I
am sending you a nice picture under separate cover.
Josh Hill
wrote:
Oh, "misc.writing is full of people who" would have been just fine.