Conlang Mailing List – February 2001, week 1

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:

• "first language" test (was Re: A DISTURBING proposal!) (2 messages)
• "Lative" case (was Re: Conlang book)
• /p/ versus devoiced b? (2 messages)
• 3rd -us neuters in Romance (was: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101))
• 3rd declension -us neuters (was Re: Worse Greek 102 (...)) (3 messages)
• <No subject>
• A disturbing proposal (2 messages)
• A DISTURBING proposal!
• A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux) (16 messages)
• A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse ofaux) (7 messages)
• A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converseofaux)
• Active case-marking natlangs (5 messages)
• Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system?)
• Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What is needed in anconlang classificatory system?) (3 messages)
• Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What is needed inanconlang classificatory system?) (2 messages)
• Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What is neededinanconlang classificatory system?)
• Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What isneeded in anconlang classificatory system?)
• An arabo-romance conlang? (9 messages)
• ANN: Kura 1.0 released (26 messages)
• apostrophes in transliteration (stress in Tokana) (4 messages)
• Back again, with YANC (6 messages)
• Bad Latin 101: The Double-Plural of Neuter Nouns (4 messages)
• Bantu & losing tones, was: niKòmbá changes
• Blade II language: The price of conlanging
• CHAT Jargon-mangling (was: Worse Greek 102) (3 messages)
• CHAT: multilingual families
• CHAT: my conlanger code
• CHAT: Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (10 messages)
• CHAT: Rhinocerotes (was: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101)) (3 messages)
• Code (12 messages)
• Code (was: What is needed in a conlang classification....) (2 messages)
• Code (was: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system?) (3 messages)
• Conlang book (30 messages)
• conlang classification and productivity
• conlanger code (8 messages)
• elvish tidbit (3 messages)
• Enochian (was Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system?) (3 messages)
• Enochian; Christianhood and conlanging (7 messages)
• first lang test (4 messages)
• Kash Morphology: Nouns and pronouns (3 messages)
• Kash phonology III
• Language universal? (13 messages)
• Latin (was Language universal?) (2 messages)
• Local cases - lots of them (was Re: Conlang book)
• Modal adverbs! (2 messages)
• My Book (2 messages)
• Newbie here (16 messages)
• OT: Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released
• Pain sounds (was: Re: A DISTURBING proposal!) (2 messages)
• Paralinguistic grunts
• past tense formation
• Personal langs and converse of aux (28 messages)
• query: mixing natlangs
• R: Conlang book
• R: Re: Conlang book
• R: Re: past tense formation (2 messages)
• R: Typologic survey, part II
• Speaking Conlang To Kids (4 messages)
• Speaking Conlang to Lovers (was Re: Speaking Conlang To Kids)
• Specifics (was Re: Personal langs and convers
• Spoken Thoughts = Amaapare / Amennapare
• The Conlanger Code v1.1 (3 messages)
• the dirt on Korean "glottalized/tensified" stops
• THEORY: What is an active language (was Re: Active case-marking natlangs) (3 messages)
• THEORY: What is an active language? (4 messages)
• Tokana: active? (was Re: Active case-marking natlangs) (3 messages)
• Typologic survey, part II (7 messages)
• Typologic survey, parts I and II...and a new conlang [Veldane'as Lingwas]
• und we me gseht (2 messages)
• Updated the homepage!
• USAGE: Western Usonian /a/ (5 messages)
• Vaiysi grammar revised: sintax
• Vaiysi grammar revised: verbs
• Vampire dialogue again
• Varabhán Kínnan
• Viruses (Virii? :-P) (Was: Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) )
• Vocatives (was Re: Newbie here)
• What is needed in an conlang classificatory system? (10 messages)
• What ME Disturbing? (was Personal langs et al...) (4 messages)
• Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (51 messages)

1. "first language" test (was Re: A DISTURBING proposal!)
   • "first language" test (was Re: A DISTURBING proposal!) (45 lines)
     From: Yoon Ha Lee <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:21:05 -0500
   • Re: "first language" test (was Re: A DISTURBING proposal!) (36 lines)
     From: jesse stephen bangs <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:43:30 -0800

2. "Lative" case (was Re: Conlang book)
   • "Lative" case (was Re: Conlang book) (70 lines)
     From: Dan Seriff <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:38:10 -0600

3. /p/ versus devoiced b?
   • Re: /p/ versus devoiced b? (52 lines)
     From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 02:09:46 -0500
   • Re: /p/ versus devoiced b? (51 lines)
     From: Oskar Gudlaugsson <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:06:05 -0500

4. 3rd -us neuters in Romance (was: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101))
   • 3rd -us neuters in Romance (was: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101)) (77 lines)
     From: Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 14:23:26 +0000

5. 3rd declension -us neuters (was Re: Worse Greek 102 (...))
   • 3rd declension -us neuters (was Re: Worse Greek 102 (...)) (32 lines)
     From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 23:24:58 +0100
   • Re: 3rd declension -us neuters (was Re: Worse Greek 102 (...)) (49 lines)
     From: Steg Belsky <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 00:12:48 -0500
   • Re: 3rd declension -us neuters (was Re: Worse Greek 102 (...)) (60 lines)
     From: Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 02:11:26 -0600

6. <No subject>
   • <No subject> (20 lines)
     From: Leo Caesius <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:02:59 -0500

7. A disturbing proposal
   • Re: A disturbing proposal (80 lines)
     From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 23:30:28 +0100
   • Re: A disturbing proposal (108 lines)
     From: Brian Phillips <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:40:50 -0500

8. A DISTURBING proposal!
   • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (40 lines)
     From: Irina Rempt <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:58:10 +0100

9. A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux)
   • A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux) (108 lines)
     From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 01:30:16 +0100
   • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux) (62 lines)
     From: Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 01:59:12 -0000
   • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux) (162 lines)
     From: E-Ching Ng <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:04:47 -0500
   • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux) (97 lines)
     From: Yoon Ha Lee <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:18:31 -0500
   • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux) (27 lines)
     From: SMITH,MARCUS ANTHONY <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:25:16 -0800
   • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux) (60 lines)
     From: H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 22:42:47 -0500
   • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux) (33 lines)
     From: Andrew Chaney <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 22:59:54 -0600
   • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux) (105 lines)
     From: Luís Henrique <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:32:03 -0500
   • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux) (93 lines)
     From: Dan Sulani <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:19:32 +0200
   • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux) (24 lines)
     From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 00:00:02 -0500
   • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux) (189 lines)
     From: Levi Caddell <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:55:28 -0500
   • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux) (36 lines)
     From: Steg Belsky <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:03:07 -0500
   • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux) (74 lines)
     From: Levi Caddell <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:40:59 -0500
   • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux) (41 lines)
     From: Dan Sulani <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:05:45 +0200
   • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux) (46 lines)
     From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:08:10 -0500
   • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse of aux) (92 lines)
     From: jesse stephen bangs <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:37:18 -0800

10. A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse ofaux)
    • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse ofaux) (88 lines)
      From: J Matthew Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:04:31 -0800
    • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse ofaux) (45 lines)
      From: SMITH,MARCUS ANTHONY <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:38:44 -0800
    • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse ofaux) (32 lines)
      From: Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 02:06:06 -0000
    • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse ofaux) (36 lines)
      From: Yoon Ha Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:21:37 -0500
    • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse ofaux) (145 lines)
      From: Levi Caddell <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:46:57 -0500
    • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse ofaux) (50 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:31:17 -0500
    • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converse ofaux) (44 lines)
      From: Luís Henrique <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:53:33 -0500

11. A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converseofaux)
    • Re: A DISTURBING proposal! (was Re: Personal langs and converseofaux) (40 lines)
      From: J Matthew Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:14:44 -0800

12. Active case-marking natlangs
    • Re: Active case-marking natlangs (89 lines)
      From: daniel andreasson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:12:22 +0100
    • Re: Active case-marking natlangs (95 lines)
      From: Marcus Smith <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:04:54 -0800
    • Re: Active case-marking natlangs (57 lines)
      From: J Matthew Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:45:03 -0800
    • Re: Active case-marking natlangs (200 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 00:39:41 +0100
    • Re: Active case-marking natlangs (48 lines)
      From: daniel andreasson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 01:31:29 +0100

13. Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system?)
    • Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system?) (68 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:04:30 +0100

14. Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What is needed in anconlang classificatory system?)
    • Re: Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What is needed in anconlang classificatory system?) (51 lines)
      From: J Matthew Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:57:35 -0800
    • Re: Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What is needed in anconlang classificatory system?) (47 lines)
      From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 15:21:15 -0000
    • Re: Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What is needed in anconlang classificatory system?) (56 lines)
      From: Marcus Smith <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 11:01:05 -0800

15. Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What is needed inanconlang classificatory system?)
    • Re: Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What is needed inanconlang classificatory system?) (113 lines)
      From: J Matthew Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 11:58:43 -0800
    • Re: Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What is needed inanconlang classificatory system?) (76 lines)
      From: Marcus Smith <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:15:04 -0800

16. Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What is neededinanconlang classificatory system?)
    • Re: Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What is neededinanconlang classificatory system?) (32 lines)
      From: J Matthew Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 23:06:56 -0800

17. Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What isneeded in anconlang classificatory system?)
    • Re: Active case-marking natlangs (was Re: What isneeded in anconlang classificatory system?) (151 lines)
      From: J Matthew Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 11:39:16 -0800

18. An arabo-romance conlang?
    • Re: An arabo-romance conlang? (136 lines)
      From: Vasiliy Chernov <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:17:12 -0500
    • Re: An arabo-romance conlang? (36 lines)
      From: Steg Belsky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:27:27 -0500
    • Re: An arabo-romance conlang? (48 lines)
      From: Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:50:45 -0600
    • Re: An arabo-romance conlang? (26 lines)
      From: J Matthew Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:18:10 -0800
    • Re: An arabo-romance conlang? (34 lines)
      From: Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:33:29 -0600
    • Re: An arabo-romance conlang? (22 lines)
      From: Vasiliy Chernov <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:08:05 -0500
    • Re: An arabo-romance conlang? (51 lines)
      From: Vasiliy Chernov <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:17:01 -0500
    • Re: An arabo-romance conlang? (30 lines)
      From: Vasiliy Chernov <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:24:36 -0500
    • Re: An arabo-romance conlang? (57 lines)
      From: Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:25:19 -0600

19. ANN: Kura 1.0 released
    • ANN: Kura 1.0 released (107 lines)
      From: Boudewijn Rempt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 00:03:42 +0100
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (42 lines)
      From: Steg Belsky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:43:49 -0500
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (59 lines)
      From: Boudewijn Rempt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:37:21 +0100
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (26 lines)
      From: Boudewijn Rempt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:43:59 +0100
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (35 lines)
      From: Steg Belsky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:48:05 -0500
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (22 lines)
      From: Boudewijn Rempt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:40:39 +0100
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (37 lines)
      From: Eruanno the Linguist ( AKA Teorondron ) <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:48:54 -0000
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (22 lines)
      From: Boudewijn Rempt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:11:55 +0100
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (36 lines)
      From: Steg Belsky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 19:18:33 -0500
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (33 lines)
      From: Boudewijn Rempt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 08:54:45 +0100
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (24 lines)
      From: Boudewijn Rempt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 08:57:24 +0100
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (31 lines)
      From: Steg Belsky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 10:37:47 -0500
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (28 lines)
      From: Boudewijn Rempt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:58:17 +0100
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (13 lines)
      From: Eruanno the Linguist ( AKA Teorondron ) <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:45:14 -0000
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (37 lines)
      From: Boudewijn Rempt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 18:15:48 +0100
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (37 lines)
      From: Eruanno the Linguist ( AKA Teorondron ) <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 18:29:53 -0000
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (25 lines)
      From: Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 22:51:15 -0000
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (30 lines)
      From: Sylvia Sotomayor <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 15:02:50 -0800
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (34 lines)
      From: Boudewijn Rempt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 07:15:27 +0100
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (31 lines)
      From: Boudewijn Rempt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 07:17:31 +0100
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (39 lines)
      From: Sylvia Sotomayor <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:57:02 -0800
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (42 lines)
      From: Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 22:19:40 -0000
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (35 lines)
      From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:41:51 -0500
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (19 lines)
      From: Boudewijn Rempt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 07:43:10 +0100
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (35 lines)
      From: Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:41:52 -0000
    • Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (16 lines)
      From: Eruanno the Linguist ( AKA Teorondron ) <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 23:19:08 -0000

20. apostrophes in transliteration (stress in Tokana)
    • Re: apostrophes in transliteration (stress in Tokana) (24 lines)
      From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:24:48 -0000
    • Re: apostrophes in transliteration (stress in Tokana) (44 lines)
      From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:24:51 -0000
    • Re: apostrophes in transliteration (stress in Tokana) (52 lines)
      From: J Matthew Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 13:54:47 -0800
    • Re: apostrophes in transliteration (stress in Tokana) (28 lines)
      From: J Matthew Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 14:01:37 -0800

21. Back again, with YANC
    • Back again, with YANC (41 lines)
      From: Keolah Kedaire <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:45:03 +0000
    • Re: Back again, with YANC (42 lines)
      From: Yoon Ha Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:09:59 -0500
    • Re: Back again, with YANC (28 lines)
      From: Steg Belsky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:45:16 -0500
    • Re: Back again, with YANC (27 lines)
      From: Yoon Ha Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:02:17 -0500
    • Re: Back again, with YANC (24 lines)
      From: Nik Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 00:57:28 -0500
    • Re: Back again, with YANC (24 lines)
      From: Keolah Kedaire <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:13:20 +0000

22. Bad Latin 101: The Double-Plural of Neuter Nouns
    • Bad Latin 101: The Double-Plural of Neuter Nouns (44 lines)
      From: Danny Wier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 02:33:47 -0600
    • Re: Bad Latin 101: The Double-Plural of Neuter Nouns (31 lines)
      From: Irina Rempt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:56:27 +0100
    • Re: Bad Latin 101: The Double-Plural of Neuter Nouns (30 lines)
      From: Danny Wier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 04:39:31 -0600
    • Re: Bad Latin 101: The Double-Plural of Neuter Nouns (26 lines)
      From: Nik Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:09:14 -0500

23. Bantu & losing tones, was: niKòmbá changes
    • Bantu & losing tones, was: niKòmbá changes (53 lines)
      From: Vasiliy Chernov <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:28:14 -0500

24. Blade II language: The price of conlanging
    • Blade II language: The price of conlanging (63 lines)
      From: J Matthew Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:41:04 -0800

25. CHAT Jargon-mangling (was: Worse Greek 102)
    • CHAT Jargon-mangling (was: Worse Greek 102) (25 lines)
      From: taliesin the storyteller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 20:23:39 +0100
    • Re: CHAT Jargon-mangling (was: Worse Greek 102) (32 lines)
      From: dirk elzinga <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:55:49 -0700
    • Re: CHAT Jargon-mangling (was: Worse Greek 102) (40 lines)
      From: jesse stephen bangs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:56:31 -0800

26. CHAT: multilingual families
    • CHAT: multilingual families (75 lines)
      From: Danny Wier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:25:27 -0600

27. CHAT: my conlanger code
    • CHAT: my conlanger code (23 lines)
      From: dirk elzinga <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:54:25 -0700

28. CHAT: Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101)
    • CHAT: Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (25 lines)
      From: Matt Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 16:48:20 -0800
    • Re: CHAT: Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (42 lines)
      From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 20:18:05 -0500
    • Re: CHAT: Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (17 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:20:12 -0500
    • Re: CHAT: Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (28 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:37:26 -0500
    • Re: CHAT: Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (26 lines)
      From: Robert Hailman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:27:46 -0500
    • CHAT: Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (25 lines)
      From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:48:33 -0600
    • Re: CHAT: Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (33 lines)
      From: Andrew Chaney <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:47:18 -0600
    • Re: CHAT: Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (33 lines)
      From: Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 01:35:57 -0000
    • Re: CHAT: Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (22 lines)
      From: Nik Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 00:54:09 -0500
    • Re: CHAT: Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (29 lines)
      From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:01:27 -0600

29. CHAT: Rhinocerotes (was: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101))
    • CHAT: Rhinocerotes (was: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101)) (25 lines)
      From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:18:11 -0500
    • Re: CHAT: Rhinocerotes (was: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101)) (35 lines)
      From: Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 08:57:25 +0000
    • Re: CHAT: Rhinocerotes (was: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101)) (23 lines)
      From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:14:37 -0500

30. Code
    • Re: Code (33 lines)
      From: taliesin the storyteller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:27:33 +0100
    • Re: Code (37 lines)
      From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:13:52 -0600
    • Re: Code (31 lines)
      From: andrew <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 11:42:43 +1300
    • Re: Code (21 lines)
      From: Dan Jones <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:33:13 -0000
    • Re: Code (32 lines)
      From: taliesin the storyteller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 17:18:59 +0100
    • Re: Code (29 lines)
      From: Patrick Jarrett <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 12:14:33 -0500
    • Re: Code (37 lines)
      From: Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 13:24:08 -0600
    • Re: Code (28 lines)
      From: taliesin the storyteller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 20:53:22 +0100
    • Re: Code (37 lines)
      From: andrew <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:28:48 +1300
    • Re: Code (42 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 16:36:03 -0500
    • Re: Code (35 lines)
      From: Steg Belsky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 23:39:58 -0500
    • Re: Code (21 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:12:30 EST

31. Code (was: What is needed in a conlang classification....)
    • Re: Code (was: What is needed in a conlang classification....) (14 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:14:00 -0500
    • Re: Code (was: What is needed in a conlang classification....) (42 lines)
      From: Eruanno the Linguist ( AKA Teorondron ) <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:53:39 -0000

32. Code (was: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system?)
    • Re: Code (was: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system?) (20 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:08:36 -0500
    • Re: Code (was: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system?) (38 lines)
      From: jesse stephen bangs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:24:56 -0800
    • Re: Code (was: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system?) (29 lines)
      From: Marcus Smith <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:55:34 -0800

33. Conlang book
    • Conlang book (43 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:45:08 EST
    • Re: Conlang book (29 lines)
      From: Robert Hailman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:58:27 -0500
    • Re: Conlang book (58 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 16:13:52 -0500
    • Re: Conlang book (30 lines)
      From: H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:17:11 -0500
    • Re: Conlang book (34 lines)
      From: Dan Seriff <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:05:36 -0600
    • Re: Conlang book (32 lines)
      From: The Gray Wizard <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 18:20:34 -0500
    • Re: Conlang book (19 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 18:52:31 EST
    • Re: Conlang book (23 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 18:58:02 EST
    • Re: Conlang book (19 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:02:00 -0500
    • Re: Conlang book (47 lines)
      From: The Gray Wizard <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:13:14 -0500
    • Re: Conlang book (27 lines)
      From: Irina Rempt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:48:42 +0100
    • Re: Conlang book (31 lines)
      From: H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 21:19:22 -0500
    • Re: Conlang book (54 lines)
      From: H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 02:11:32 -0500
    • Re: Conlang book (83 lines)
      From: Tero Vilkesalo <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:04:39 +0200
    • Re: Conlang book (27 lines)
      From: H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:18:28 -0500
    • Re: Conlang book (50 lines)
      From: Eruanno the Linguist ( AKA Teorondron ) <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:20:21 -0000
    • Re: Conlang book (50 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:21:05 -0500
    • Conlang book (27 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:39:18 EST
    • Re: Conlang book (27 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 22:41:16 -0500
    • Re: Conlang book (62 lines)
      From: Nik Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 00:17:58 -0500
    • Re: Conlang book (26 lines)
      From: Tommaso R. Donnarumma <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:12:32 +0100
    • Re: Conlang book (36 lines)
      From: daniel andreasson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:40:51 +0100
    • Re: Conlang book (25 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:30:28 -0500
    • Re: Conlang book (38 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:33:49 -0500
    • Re: Conlang book (32 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:42:26 -0500
    • Re: Conlang book (42 lines)
      From: jesse stephen bangs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:27:29 -0800
    • Re: Conlang book (20 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:43:19 -0500
    • Re: Conlang book (18 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:11:47 EST
    • Re: Conlang book (29 lines)
      From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:40:15 -0500
    • Re: Conlang book (18 lines)
      From: Eruanno the Linguist ( AKA Teorondron ) <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 03:08:30 -0000

34. conlang classification and productivity
    • conlang classification and productivity (67 lines)
      From: Dan Jones <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:57:49 -0000

35. conlanger code
    • conlanger code (44 lines)
      From: Dan Jones <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:50:08 -0000
    • conlanger code (19 lines)
      From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:42:32 -0600
    • Re: conlanger code (27 lines)
      From: Jeff Sheets <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:12:25 EST
    • Re: conlanger code (16 lines)
      From: Vasiliy Chernov <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:08:36 -0500
    • Re: conlanger code (23 lines)
      From: Tommaso R. Donnarumma <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 14:55:09 +0100
    • Re: conlanger code (15 lines)
      From: Dan Jones <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:31:05 -0000
    • Re: conlanger code (15 lines)
      From: Jim Hopkins <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 12:24:05 EST
    • Re: conlanger code (19 lines)
      From: Jeff Sheets <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 19:05:21 EST

36. elvish tidbit
    • elvish tidbit (41 lines)
      From: Mario Bonassin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:45:47 -0600
    • Re: elvish tidbit (21 lines)
      From: J Matthew Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:11:59 -0800
    • Re: elvish tidbit (44 lines)
      From: Eruanno the Linguist ( AKA Teorondron ) <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:16:26 -0000

37. Enochian (was Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system?)
    • Enochian (was Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system?) (38 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 01:42:27 +0100
    • Re: Enochian (was Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system?) (39 lines)
      From: H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:03:58 -0500
    • Re: Enochian (was Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system?) (14 lines)
      From: D Tse <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:03:38 +1100

38. Enochian; Christianhood and conlanging
    • Re: Enochian; Christianhood and conlanging (59 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 23:08:40 +0100
    • Re: Enochian; Christianhood and conlanging (26 lines)
      From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:17:21 -0500
    • Re: Enochian; Christianhood and conlanging (36 lines)
      From: Andrew Chaney <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:42:51 -0600
    • Re: Enochian; Christianhood and conlanging (41 lines)
      From: Andrew Chaney <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:45:12 -0600
    • Re: Enochian; Christianhood and conlanging (26 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:00:34 +0100
    • Re: Enochian; Christianhood and conlanging (39 lines)
      From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 20:08:00 -0500
    • Re: Enochian; Christianhood and conlanging (23 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:45:47 -0500

39. first lang test
    • first lang test (40 lines)
      From: Dan Jones <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:22:03 -0000
    • Re: first lang test (43 lines)
      From: Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:39:49 -0500
    • Re: first lang test (45 lines)
      From: Robert Hailman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:34:09 -0500
    • Re: first lang test (90 lines)
      From: E-Ching Ng <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:04:56 -0500

40. Kash Morphology: Nouns and pronouns
    • Kash Morphology: Nouns and pronouns (77 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 00:13:15 -0500
    • Re: Kash Morphology: Nouns and pronouns (83 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 00:29:35 +0100
    • Re: Kash Morphology: Nouns and pronouns (21 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 01:24:39 -0500

41. Kash phonology III
    • Kash phonology III (60 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:55:56 -0500

42. Language universal?
    • Language universal? (37 lines)
      From: jesse stephen bangs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:49:29 -0800
    • Re: Language universal? (46 lines)
      From: Yoon Ha Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:03:39 -0500
    • Re: Language universal? (42 lines)
      From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:44:09 -0600
    • Re: Language universal? (47 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:38:36 -0500
    • Re: Language universal? (31 lines)
      From: Robert Hailman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:08:26 -0500
    • Re: Language universal? (64 lines)
      From: Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 06:33:07 +0000
    • Re: Language universal? (72 lines)
      From: Tommaso R. Donnarumma <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:28:21 +0100
    • Re: Language universal? (58 lines)
      From: Tero Kukkonen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:25:39 +0200
    • Re: Language universal? (47 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:40:53 -0500
    • Re: Language universal? (39 lines)
      From: Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:22:08 +0000
    • Re: Language universal? (34 lines)
      From: jesse stephen bangs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:25:38 -0800
    • Re: Language universal? (72 lines)
      From: Robert Hailman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:51:03 -0500
    • Re: Language universal? (110 lines)
      From: jesse stephen bangs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:25:07 -0800

43. Latin (was Language universal?)
    • Re: Latin (was Language universal?) (65 lines)
      From: Yoon Ha Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 07:47:45 -0500
    • Re: Latin (was Language universal?) (34 lines)
      From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:06:26 -0500

44. Local cases - lots of them (was Re: Conlang book)
    • Local cases - lots of them (was Re: Conlang book) (51 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 00:09:43 +0100

45. Modal adverbs!
    • Modal adverbs! (74 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:34:12 -0500
    • Re: Modal adverbs! (30 lines)
      From: Dan Seriff <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:34:25 -0600

46. My Book
    • Re: My Book (44 lines)
      From: Dan Jones <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:13:48 -0000
    • Re: My Book (44 lines)
      From: Eruanno the Linguist ( AKA Teorondron ) <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:51:50 -0000

47. Newbie here
    • Newbie here (41 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 04:53:44 -0500
    • Re: Newbie here (44 lines)
      From: Tommaso R. Donnarumma <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 14:25:53 +0100
    • Re: Newbie here (43 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 14:39:29 -0500
    • Re: Newbie here (21 lines)
      From: J Matthew Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 13:28:27 -0800
    • Re: Newbie here (73 lines)
      From: J Matthew Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 13:47:24 -0800
    • Re: Newbie here (66 lines)
      From: Jesse Bangs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:50:18 -0800
    • Re: Newbie here (71 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 00:52:41 -0500
    • Re: Newbie here (119 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 08:50:59 -0500
    • Re: Newbie here (44 lines)
      From: Mangiat <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:36:55 +0100
    • Re: Newbie here (99 lines)
      From: J Matthew Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 11:09:03 -0800
    • Re: Newbie here (20 lines)
      From: J Matthew Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 11:41:06 -0800
    • Re: Newbie here (31 lines)
      From: daniel andreasson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:28:58 +0100
    • Re: Newbie here (36 lines)
      From: Yoon Ha Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:20:45 -0500
    • Re: Newbie here (36 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 16:31:33 -0500
    • Re: Newbie here (45 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 16:42:00 -0500
    • Re: Newbie here (39 lines)
      From: Yoon Ha Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:54:06 -0500

48. OT: Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released
    • OT: Re: ANN: Kura 1.0 released (41 lines)
      From: Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:57:57 -0600

49. Pain sounds (was: Re: A DISTURBING proposal!)
    • Pain sounds (was: Re: A DISTURBING proposal!) (21 lines)
      From: Irina Rempt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:33:32 +0100
    • Re: Pain sounds (was: Re: A DISTURBING proposal!) (21 lines)
      From: Keolah Kedaire <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:05:54 +0000

50. Paralinguistic grunts
    • Paralinguistic grunts (29 lines)
      From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:36:05 -0500

51. past tense formation
    • Re: past tense formation (21 lines)
      From: Dan Jones <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:56:42 -0000

52. Personal langs and converse of aux
    • Personal langs and converse of aux (175 lines)
      From: Brian Phillips <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 18:41:58 -0500
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (83 lines)
      From: jesse stephen bangs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 16:23:14 -0800
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (57 lines)
      From: Yoon Ha Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:50:35 -0500
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (43 lines)
      From: jesse stephen bangs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 16:59:13 -0800
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (49 lines)
      From: Yoon Ha Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 20:06:55 -0500
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (31 lines)
      From: D Tse <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:40:49 +1100
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (32 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:28:56 -0500
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (25 lines)
      From: H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:44:44 -0500
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (41 lines)
      From: Irina Rempt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 08:57:21 +0100
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (49 lines)
      From: daniel andreasson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:19:15 +0100
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (49 lines)
      From: E-Ching Ng <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:21:09 -0500
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (57 lines)
      From: jesse stephen bangs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:35:14 -0800
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (34 lines)
      From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:36:26 -0500
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (38 lines)
      From: Yoon Ha Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:59:40 -0500
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (37 lines)
      From: E-Ching Ng <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:06:48 -0500
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (28 lines)
      From: H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:17:28 -0500
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (48 lines)
      From: Robert Hailman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:38:22 -0500
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (32 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:50:13 -0500
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (36 lines)
      From: H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:08:52 -0500
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (40 lines)
      From: Andrew Chaney <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:54:09 -0600
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (33 lines)
      From: Herman Miller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 22:13:48 -0500
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (29 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 22:28:56 -0500
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (22 lines)
      From: Nik Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 00:54:04 -0500
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (43 lines)
      From: Barry Garcia <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 02:47:03 -0800
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (27 lines)
      From: Barry Garcia <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 02:49:07 -0800
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (57 lines)
      From: dirk elzinga <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:06:50 -0700
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (40 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:17:01 -0500
    • Re: Personal langs and converse of aux (47 lines)
      From: jesse stephen bangs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:49:47 -0800

53. query: mixing natlangs
    • query: mixing natlangs (26 lines)
      From: Yoon Ha Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:42:00 -0500

54. R: Conlang book
    • R: Conlang book (24 lines)
      From: Mangiat <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:09:47 +0100

55. R: Re: Conlang book
    • R: Re: Conlang book (29 lines)
      From: Mangiat <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:08:45 +0100

56. R: Re: past tense formation
    • R: Re: past tense formation (39 lines)
      From: Mangiat <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:07:57 +0100
    • Re: R: Re: past tense formation (46 lines)
      From: Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:55:01 -0600

57. R: Typologic survey, part II
    • R: Typologic survey, part II (48 lines)
      From: Mangiat <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:51:38 +0100

58. Speaking Conlang To Kids
    • Speaking Conlang To Kids (41 lines)
      From: Steg Belsky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:48:06 -0500
    • Re: Speaking Conlang To Kids (35 lines)
      From: Dan Jones <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:09:44 -0000
    • Re: Speaking Conlang To Kids (21 lines)
      From: Karen Robinson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:01:30 -0500
    • Re: Speaking Conlang To Kids (52 lines)
      From: jesse stephen bangs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:59:54 -0800

59. Speaking Conlang to Lovers (was Re: Speaking Conlang To Kids)
    • Speaking Conlang to Lovers (was Re: Speaking Conlang To Kids) (39 lines)
      From: David Stokes <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:58:21 -0500

60. Specifics (was Re: Personal langs and convers
    • Specifics (was Re: Personal langs and convers (67 lines)
      From: Brian Phillips <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:46:52 -0500

61. Spoken Thoughts = Amaapare / Amennapare
    • Spoken Thoughts = Amaapare / Amennapare (22 lines)
      From: Eruanno the Linguist ( AKA Teorondron ) <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:26:59 -0000

62. The Conlanger Code v1.1
    • The Conlanger Code v1.1 (14 lines)
      From: taliesin the storyteller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:02:35 +0100
    • Re: The Conlanger Code v1.1 (30 lines)
      From: Yoon Ha Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:32:56 -0500
    • Re: The Conlanger Code v1.1 (54 lines)
      From: Robert Hailman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:22:06 -0500

63. the dirt on Korean "glottalized/tensified" stops
    • the dirt on Korean "glottalized/tensified" stops (37 lines)
      From: Yoon Ha Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:10:31 -0500

64. THEORY: What is an active language (was Re: Active case-marking natlangs)
    • THEORY: What is an active language (was Re: Active case-marking natlangs) (66 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:33:53 +0100
    • Re: THEORY: What is an active language (was Re: Active case-marking natlangs) (81 lines)
      From: Marcus Smith <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:21:05 -0800
    • Re: THEORY: What is an active language (was Re: Active case-marking natlangs) (30 lines)
      From: H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:27:08 -0500

65. THEORY: What is an active language?
    • Re: THEORY: What is an active language? (133 lines)
      From: daniel andreasson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 02:14:08 +0100
    • Re: THEORY: What is an active language? (33 lines)
      From: Matt Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:24:18 -0800
    • Re: THEORY: What is an active language? (36 lines)
      From: daniel andreasson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:22:31 +0100
    • Re: THEORY: What is an active language? (23 lines)
      From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 07:00:27 -0500

66. Tokana: active? (was Re: Active case-marking natlangs)
    • Tokana: active? (was Re: Active case-marking natlangs) (263 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:14:47 +0100
    • Re: Tokana: active? (was Re: Active case-marking natlangs) (71 lines)
      From: Matt Pearson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 16:43:05 -0800
    • Re: Tokana: active? (was Re: Active case-marking natlangs) (37 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 23:20:15 +0100

67. Typologic survey, part II
    • Re: Typologic survey, part II (95 lines)
      From: Dan Sulani <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:10:15 +0200
    • Re: Typologic survey, part II (65 lines)
      From: daniel andreasson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:37:12 +0100
    • Re: Typologic survey, part II (82 lines)
      From: O'Connell James <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:24:29 +0000
    • Re: Typologic survey, part II (128 lines)
      From: Dennis Paul Himes <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:37:30 -0500
    • Re: Typologic survey, part II (69 lines)
      From: andrew <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:44:43 +1300
    • Re: Typologic survey, part II (39 lines)
      From: Elliott Lash <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:23:33 EST
    • Re: Typologic survey, part II (146 lines)
      From: The Gray Wizard <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:08:56 -0500

68. Typologic survey, parts I and II...and a new conlang [Veldane'as Lingwas]
    • Re: Typologic survey, parts I and II...and a new conlang [Veldane'as Lingwas] (99 lines)
      From: Cian Ross <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 19:14:37 -0600

69. und we me gseht
    • Re: und we me gseht (42 lines)
      From: Henrik Theiling <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 22:01:06 +0100
    • Re: und we me gseht (57 lines)
      From: daniel andreasson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:29:01 +0100

70. Updated the homepage!
    • Updated the homepage! (25 lines)
      From: Danny Wier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:14:53 -0600

71. USAGE: Western Usonian /a/
    • USAGE: Western Usonian /a/ (60 lines)
      From: dirk elzinga <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:01:19 -0700
    • Re: USAGE: Western Usonian /a/ (34 lines)
      From: Steg Belsky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 12:09:19 -0500
    • Re: USAGE: Western Usonian /a/ (33 lines)
      From: Barry Garcia <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:41:13 -0800
    • Re: USAGE: Western Usonian /a/ (35 lines)
      From: Andrew Chaney <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:13:05 -0600
    • Re: USAGE: Western Usonian /a/ (37 lines)
      From: Andrew Chaney <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:34:46 -0600

72. Vaiysi grammar revised: sintax
    • Vaiysi grammar revised: sintax (71 lines)
      From: Mangiat <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:24:43 +0100

73. Vaiysi grammar revised: verbs
    • Vaiysi grammar revised: verbs (157 lines)
      From: Mangiat <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:41:37 +0100

74. Vampire dialogue again
    • Re: Vampire dialogue again (37 lines)
      From: Christophe Grandsire <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:43:23 +0100

75. Varabhán Kínnan
    • Varabhán Kínnan (72 lines)
      From: Dan Jones <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:57:30 -0000

76. Viruses (Virii? :-P) (Was: Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) )
    • Viruses (Virii? :-P) (Was: Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) ) (33 lines)
      From: H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:18:05 -0500

77. Vocatives (was Re: Newbie here)
    • Vocatives (was Re: Newbie here) (83 lines)
      From: Jesse Bangs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:37:59 -0800

78. What is needed in an conlang classificatory system?
    • Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system? (33 lines)
      From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:14:29 -0500
    • Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system? (37 lines)
      From: taliesin the storyteller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:55:41 +0100
    • Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system? (44 lines)
      From: Robert Hailman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:48:16 -0500
    • Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system? (142 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 02:08:03 +0100
    • Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system? (45 lines)
      From: Eruanno the Linguist ( AKA Teorondron ) <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 03:06:54 -0000
    • Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system? (33 lines)
      From: andrew <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:19:07 +1300
    • Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system? (36 lines)
      From: daniel andreasson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:14:15 +0100
    • Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system? (16 lines)
      From: Dan Jones <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:03:50 -0000
    • Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system? (26 lines)
      From: Andrew Chaney <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:48:09 -0600
    • Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system? (114 lines)
      From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:24:55 -0000

79. What ME Disturbing? (was Personal langs et al...)
    • What ME Disturbing? (was Personal langs et al...) (99 lines)
      From: Brian Phillips <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:14:42 -0500
    • Re: What ME Disturbing? (was Personal langs et al...) (58 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:00:39 -0500
    • Re: What ME Disturbing? (was Personal langs et al...) (39 lines)
      From: Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:41:54 -0000
    • Re: What ME Disturbing? (was Personal langs et al...) (46 lines)
      From: Yoon Ha Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:55:24 -0500

80. Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101)
    • Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (35 lines)
      From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:23:04 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (73 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:09:35 +0100
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (27 lines)
      From: Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 07:42:12 +0000
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (33 lines)
      From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:13:20 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (19 lines)
      From: Luís Henrique <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:50:59 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (49 lines)
      From: Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:09:35 +0000
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (28 lines)
      From: Elliott Lash <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:05:24 EST
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (30 lines)
      From: Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:07:41 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (39 lines)
      From: Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:14:45 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (32 lines)
      From: Luís Henrique <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:08:34 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (12 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:45:55 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (21 lines)
      From: Robert Hailman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:16:20 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (23 lines)
      From: H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:57:10 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (22 lines)
      From: Robert Hailman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:05:38 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (31 lines)
      From: Herman Miller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:48:33 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (30 lines)
      From: Danny Wier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:23:33 -0600
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (24 lines)
      From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:24:45 -0000
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (19 lines)
      From: Andrew Chaney <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 13:18:22 -0600
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (31 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 14:27:06 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (19 lines)
      From: SMITH,MARCUS ANTHONY <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 11:33:43 -0800
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (28 lines)
      From: Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 13:27:15 -0600
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (70 lines)
      From: Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 20:14:40 +0000
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (22 lines)
      From: Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:10:27 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (23 lines)
      From: Steg Belsky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 19:24:28 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (35 lines)
      From: Jesse Bangs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 19:11:54 -0800
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (24 lines)
      From: Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 18:00:49 -0600
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (23 lines)
      From: Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 18:02:09 -0600
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (26 lines)
      From: Barry Garcia <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:45:35 -0800
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (18 lines)
      From: Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 02:44:54 -0000
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (24 lines)
      From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:15:34 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (15 lines)
      From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:16:38 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (37 lines)
      From: John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:18:07 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (23 lines)
      From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:31:25 -0600
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (57 lines)
      From: Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 18:11:09 +0000
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (29 lines)
      From: Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:35:56 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (23 lines)
      From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:30:31 -0600
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (38 lines)
      From: Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:21:28 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (38 lines)
      From: Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 20:27:18 -0000
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (54 lines)
      From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:31:18 -0600
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (66 lines)
      From: Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:45:15 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (50 lines)
      From: Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 20:53:31 -0000
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (24 lines)
      From: Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 21:00:53 -0000
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (49 lines)
      From: Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 21:45:05 -0000
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (64 lines)
      From: Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:52:51 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (39 lines)
      From: Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:42:00 -0000
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (31 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 18:44:44 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (42 lines)
      From: jesse stephen bangs <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:51:01 -0800
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (72 lines)
      From: Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 06:46:14 +0000
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (58 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:33:16 -0500
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (28 lines)
      From: Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:53:53 -0000
    • Re: Worse Greek 102 (was: Bad Latin 101) (63 lines)
      From: Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:47:36 -0500