Conlang Mailing List – February 2000, week 2

Sort by Author | Date | Topic Chronologically | Most recent first

Options Show author | Hide author Show table of contents | Hide table of contents

Navigation Back to main CONLANG page Join or leave CONLANG (or change settings) Search Archives

Table of contents:

• "To be" or not "to be"?
• "To be" or not "to be"? (was Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep) (3 messages)
• Characters on the list (was: deep flutes) (4 messages)
• CHAT: Pinyin Reformed (Re: John Cowan mangles Pinyin again) (2 messages)
• CHAT: Re: Conlang dreams revisited
• CHAT: Re: Conlang dreams revisited, and Memorization (2 messages)
• CHAT: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes)
• CONLANG Digest - 5 Feb 2000 to 6 Feb 2000 (#2000-38) (4 messages)
• Four, was Re: "Sentient" (3 messages)
• in absentia
• John Cowan mangles Pinyin again (4 messages)
• Marking and Imperatives (4 messages)
• Memorization (conlang version) (11 messages)
• Nasal semivowels/fricatives? (6 messages)
• New lang (got bored) (4 messages)
• P.S. (Chinese and stuff) (2 messages)
• RV: Ubykh vowels (2 messages)
• test
• That pesky H again (was: varia)
• The Starling's Song Revisited
• Tirelat's newly found activeness (4 messages)
• TRANS: Let there be light
• TRANS: love is the law (16 messages)
• TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes) (15 messages)
• TRANS: Without Words, Without Silence (2 messages)
• Trigger systems (7 messages)
• USAGE: Louis? C'est lui (2 messages)
• [conculture] Memorization (conculture version) (7 messages)

1. "To be" or not "to be"?
   • Re: "To be" or not "to be"? (58 lines)
     Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 22:57:27 -0800

2. "To be" or not "to be"? (was Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep)
   • Re: "To be" or not "to be"? (was Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep) (154 lines)
     Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:02:12 -0500
   • Re: "To be" or not "to be"? (was Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep) (42 lines)
     Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 01:57:57 +0100
   • Re: "To be" or not "to be"? (was Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep) (191 lines)
     Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 20:46:04 +0200

3. Characters on the list (was: deep flutes)
   • Characters on the list (was: deep flutes) (43 lines)
     Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 14:52:49 -0500
   • Re: Characters on the list (was: deep flutes) (33 lines)
     Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 15:42:44 CST
   • Re: Characters on the list (was: deep flutes) (35 lines)
     Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:17:14 -0500
   • Re: Characters on the list (was: deep flutes) (47 lines)
     Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 12:11:55 +0100

4. CHAT: Pinyin Reformed (Re: John Cowan mangles Pinyin again)
   • CHAT: Pinyin Reformed (Re: John Cowan mangles Pinyin again) (47 lines)
     Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 16:05:22 CST
   • Re: CHAT: Pinyin Reformed (Re: John Cowan mangles Pinyin again) (28 lines)
     Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:26:34 -0500

5. CHAT: Re: Conlang dreams revisited
   • Re: CHAT: Re: Conlang dreams revisited (31 lines)
     Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:16:08 +0100

6. CHAT: Re: Conlang dreams revisited, and Memorization
   • Re: CHAT: Re: Conlang dreams revisited, and Memorization (41 lines)
     Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:50:42 EST
   • Re: CHAT: Re: Conlang dreams revisited, and Memorization (32 lines)
     Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:11:23 -0500

7. CHAT: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes)
   • CHAT: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes) (20 lines)
     Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 18:15:29 -0800

8. CONLANG Digest - 5 Feb 2000 to 6 Feb 2000 (#2000-38)
   • Re: CONLANG Digest - 5 Feb 2000 to 6 Feb 2000 (#2000-38) (19 lines)
     Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:33:44 -0000
   • Re: CONLANG Digest - 5 Feb 2000 to 6 Feb 2000 (#2000-38) (27 lines)
     Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 11:23:35 -0600
   • Re: CONLANG Digest - 5 Feb 2000 to 6 Feb 2000 (#2000-38) (42 lines)
     Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 19:40:55 -0500
   • Re: CONLANG Digest - 5 Feb 2000 to 6 Feb 2000 (#2000-38) (29 lines)
     Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 18:17:21 -0600

9. Four, was Re: "Sentient"
   • Re: Four, was Re: "Sentient" (25 lines)
     Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 18:34:10 -0500
   • Re: Four, was Re: "Sentient" (23 lines)
     Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 18:38:15 -0500
   • Re: Four, was Re: "Sentient" (28 lines)
     Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:23:10 +0100

10. in absentia
    • in absentia (64 lines)
      Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 16:10:18 -0000

11. John Cowan mangles Pinyin again
    • Re: John Cowan mangles Pinyin again (38 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:39:20 CST
    • Re: John Cowan mangles Pinyin again (49 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 15:17:15 -0500
    • Re: John Cowan mangles Pinyin again (74 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 19:52:56 -0800
    • Re: John Cowan mangles Pinyin again (23 lines)
      Date: Tue, 9 Feb 0100 20:37:52 -0500

12. Marking and Imperatives
    • Re: Marking and Imperatives (40 lines)
      Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:30:56 -0000
    • Re: Marking and Imperatives (41 lines)
      Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 18:14:00 -0600
    • Re: Marking and Imperatives (35 lines)
      Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:50:25 -0300
    • Re: Marking and Imperatives (35 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:52:27 +0100

13. Memorization (conlang version)
    • Memorization (conlang version) (33 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 13:42:15 -0300
    • Re: Memorization (conlang version) (23 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 19:41:26 -0700
    • Re: Memorization (conlang version) (46 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 22:10:26 -0500
    • Re: Memorization (conlang version) (36 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:40:45 -0600
    • Re: Memorization (conlang version) (35 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 18:48:17 +0100
    • Re: Memorization (conlang version) (31 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 20:14:23 +0100
    • Re: Memorization (conlang version) (29 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:39:49 -0800
    • Re: Memorization (conlang version) (41 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 21:48:13 +0100
    • Re: Memorization (conlang version) (34 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 15:13:56 -0800
    • Re: Memorization (conlang version) (38 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 15:21:19 -0800
    • Re: Memorization (conlang version) (36 lines)
      Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:15:10 +0200

14. Nasal semivowels/fricatives?
    • Nasal semivowels/fricatives? (23 lines)
      Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 23:03:13 +0200
    • Re: Nasal semivowels/fricatives? (36 lines)
      Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 19:28:38 EST
    • Re: Nasal semivowels/fricatives? (33 lines)
      Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 20:22:28 -0500
    • Re: Nasal semivowels/fricatives? (48 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:38:46 +0100
    • Re: Nasal semivowels/fricatives? (33 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:42:29 +0100
    • Re: Nasal semivowels/fricatives? (23 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:44:32 -0500

15. New lang (got bored)
    • New lang (got bored) (29 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:05:01 -0800
    • Re: New lang (got bored) (27 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:46:55 -0500
    • Re: New lang (got bored) (35 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:49:41 -0800
    • Re: New lang (got bored) (29 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:49:10 EST

16. P.S. (Chinese and stuff)
    • P.S. (Chinese and stuff) (29 lines)
      Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 16:10:21 CST
    • Re: P.S. (Chinese and stuff) (38 lines)
      Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:53:44 -0500

17. RV: Ubykh vowels
    • RV: Ubykh vowels (28 lines)
      Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:56:06 -0300
    • Re: RV: Ubykh vowels (27 lines)
      Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 18:08:44 -0600

18. test
    • test (15 lines)
      Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 09:04:58 -0000

19. That pesky H again (was: varia)
    • Re: That pesky H again (was: varia) (39 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 21:29:55 +0100

20. The Starling's Song Revisited
    • Re: The Starling's Song Revisited (222 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 22:27:38 -0800

21. Tirelat's newly found activeness
    • Re: Tirelat's newly found activeness (123 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 23:27:53 +0100
    • Re: Tirelat's newly found activeness (98 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 00:16:01 -0600
    • Re: Tirelat's newly found activeness (60 lines)
      Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:57:43 +0100
    • Re: Tirelat's newly found activeness (40 lines)
      Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 22:25:24 -0600

22. TRANS: Let there be light
    • TRANS: Let there be light (35 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 11:49:19 +0100

23. TRANS: love is the law
    • TRANS: love is the law (42 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 19:24:04 -0500
    • Re: TRANS: love is the law (54 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 02:47:05 +0100
    • Re: TRANS: love is the law (31 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 20:49:49 -0500
    • Re: TRANS: love is the law (35 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 21:19:50 -0500
    • Re: TRANS: love is the law (39 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 00:30:38 -0600
    • Re: TRANS: love is the law (66 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 00:14:02 -0800
    • Re: TRANS: love is the law (30 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 09:18:55 -0500
    • Re: TRANS: love is the law (27 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 16:28:02 -0000
    • Re: TRANS: love is the law (34 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:31:51 CST
    • Re: TRANS: love is the law (38 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 11:35:43 -0600
    • Re: TRANS: love is the law (40 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 14:39:17 -0500
    • Re: TRANS: love is the law (23 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 19:51:49 -0500
    • Re: TRANS: love is the law (31 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 22:07:31 -0600
    • Re: TRANS: love is the law (28 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 23:23:32 -0500
    • Re: TRANS: love is the law (35 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 23:25:45 -0500
    • Re: TRANS: love is the law (42 lines)
      Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:40:06 -0800

24. TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes)
    • Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes) (110 lines)
      Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 11:57:38 -0300
    • Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes) (55 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:26:57 -0500
    • Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes) (81 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:11:28 EST
    • Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes) (43 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:11:46 -0600
    • Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes) (38 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 15:40:16 -0800
    • Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes) (26 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:52:33 -0800
    • Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes) (21 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 20:39:08 -0500
    • Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes) (28 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 21:07:46 -0500
    • Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes) (34 lines)
      Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 21:37:48 -0500
    • Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes) (86 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 23:52:38 EST
    • Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes) (43 lines)
      Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 13:11:06 -0600
    • Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes) (40 lines)
      Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:54:36 -0500
    • Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes) (65 lines)
      Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 23:24:18 EST
    • Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes) (97 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:46:43 +1300
    • Re: TRANS: something slightly more deep (was: TRANS: flutes) (166 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:17:40 -0500

25. TRANS: Without Words, Without Silence
    • Re: TRANS: Without Words, Without Silence (69 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 20:08:47 +1300
    • Re: TRANS: Without Words, Without Silence (34 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 12:47:01 -0500

26. Trigger systems
    • Trigger systems (95 lines)
      Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 02:18:59 -0800
    • Re: Trigger systems (27 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:28:27 +0100
    • Re: Trigger systems (35 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 02:49:35 -0800
    • Re: Trigger systems (33 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:29:11 +0100
    • Re: Trigger systems (42 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:06:22 +0100
    • Re: Trigger systems (60 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:38:38 EST
    • Re: Trigger systems (36 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:19:29 -0800

27. USAGE: Louis? C'est lui
    • Re: USAGE: Louis? C'est lui (33 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:21:11 +0100
    • Re: USAGE: Louis? C'est lui (24 lines)
      Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 18:48:21 -0500

28. [conculture] Memorization (conculture version)
    • Re: [conculture] Memorization (conculture version) (33 lines)
      Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 15:29:57 -0800
    • Re: [conculture] Memorization (conculture version) (34 lines)
      Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 00:07:53 -0500
    • Re: [conculture] Memorization (conculture version) (43 lines)
      Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:26:03 +0200
    • Re: [conculture] Memorization (conculture version) (32 lines)
      Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 00:20:12 +0100
    • Re: [conculture] Memorization (conculture version) (19 lines)
      Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:33:20 -0800
    • Re: [conculture] Memorization (conculture version) (24 lines)
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 0100 13:28:31 -0500
    • Re: [conculture] Memorization (conculture version) (34 lines)
      Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 17:57:22 -0500