Conlang Mailing List – February 2009, 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:

• "to cause" in Ancient Greek (3 messages)
• 3rd Language Creation Conference update & preview
• a bad essay (5 messages)
• about M.A.Foster's Layaklan (formerly Singlespeech)
• Alphabets with logographic symbols (3 messages)
• Ass metonymy (WAS: a bad essay) (14 messages)
• Don & doff (was: Natural Order of Events (2 messages)
• Don & doff (was: Natural Order of Events)
• Encyclopedia of Fictional and Fantastic Languages (4 messages)
• English (Was: Portuguese (Was: French))
• French (19 messages)
• Fwd: YAEPT (was Re: French)
• In the Land of Invented Languages (was: Encyclopedia of Fictional and Fantastic Languages)
• Portuguese (Was: French) (9 messages)
• Semantic Content of Grammatical Gender? (12 messages)
• TECH: Video simulcasting & conferencing
• The radness of serial verbs (was: Re: "To slurp" in latin)
• Use of Conlang to test Language Universals (4 messages)
• YAEPT (< French) (2 messages)
• YAEPT (was Re: French) (11 messages)
• YAPTPT (was Re: French) (3 messages)

1. "to cause" in Ancient Greek
   • Re: "to cause" in Ancient Greek (59 lines)
     From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 08:12:43 +0000
   • Re: "to cause" in Ancient Greek (34 lines)
     From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 17:01:23 +0100
   • "to cause" in Ancient Greek (26 lines)
     From: Campbell Nilsen <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 06:58:01 -0800

2. 3rd Language Creation Conference update & preview
   • 3rd Language Creation Conference update & preview (129 lines)
     From: Language Creation Society <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 04:07:12 -0800

3. a bad essay
   • Re: a bad essay (33 lines)
     From: Sai Emrys <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:27:23 -0800
   • Re: a bad essay (81 lines)
     From: Campbell Nilsen <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:12:28 -0800
   • Re: a bad essay (115 lines)
     From: Daniel Bowman <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 10:50:55 +0900
   • Re: a bad essay (85 lines)
     From: Vincent Pistelli <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:48:05 -0600
   • a bad essay (65 lines)
     From: Campbell Nilsen <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 17:30:25 -0800

4. about M.A.Foster's Layaklan (formerly Singlespeech)
   • about M.A.Foster's Layaklan (formerly Singlespeech) (41 lines)
     From: Elane Imgoven <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:59:53 -0500

5. Alphabets with logographic symbols
   • Re: Alphabets with logographic symbols (52 lines)
     From: Brandon Green <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 17:01:11 -0800
   • Re: Alphabets with logographic symbols (56 lines)
     From: Keith Gaughan <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 20:10:00 +0000
   • Re: Alphabets with logographic symbols (42 lines)
     From: Henrik Theiling <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:21:40 +0100

6. Ass metonymy (WAS: a bad essay)
   • Re: Ass metonymy (WAS: a bad essay) (42 lines)
     From: Paul Kershaw <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 07:49:50 -0800
   • Re: Ass metonymy (WAS: a bad essay) (81 lines)
     From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:48:59 +0000
   • Re: Ass metonymy (WAS: a bad essay) (63 lines)
     From: Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 06:39:28 -0500
   • Re: Ass metonymy (WAS: a bad essay) (39 lines)
     From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 11:28:11 +0100
   • Re: Ass metonymy (WAS: a bad essay) (32 lines)
     From: Sai Emrys <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 02:22:48 -0800
   • Re: Ass metonymy (WAS: a bad essay) (41 lines)
     From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 11:19:17 +0100
   • Re: Ass metonymy (WAS: a bad essay) (40 lines)
     From: Sai Emrys <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 01:38:44 -0800
   • Re: Ass metonymy (WAS: a bad essay) (43 lines)
     From: Sai Emrys <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 01:35:37 -0800
   • Re: Ass metonymy (WAS: a bad essay) (35 lines)
     From: Paul Kershaw <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 22:13:16 -0800
   • Re: Ass metonymy (WAS: a bad essay) (49 lines)
     From: Chris Wright <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:57:31 -0500
   • Re: Ass metonymy (WAS: a bad essay) (56 lines)
     From: Eugene Oh <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:19:06 +0000
   • Re: Ass metonymy (WAS: a bad essay) (68 lines)
     From: Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 22:56:18 -0600
   • Re: Ass metonymy (WAS: a bad essay) (33 lines)
     From: Sai Emrys <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:24:46 -0800
   • Ass metonymy (WAS: a bad essay) (42 lines)
     From: Sai Emrys <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:22:45 -0800

7. Don & doff (was: Natural Order of Events
   • Re: Don & doff (was: Natural Order of Events (36 lines)
     From: Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:42:23 -0500
   • Re: Don & doff (was: Natural Order of Events (32 lines)
     From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 21:04:03 +0100

8. Don & doff (was: Natural Order of Events)
   • Re: Don & doff (was: Natural Order of Events) (20 lines)
     From: Eldin Raigmore <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:00:50 -0500

9. Encyclopedia of Fictional and Fantastic Languages
   • Re: Encyclopedia of Fictional and Fantastic Languages (78 lines)
     From: Donald Boozer <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 19:20:24 -0800
   • Re: Encyclopedia of Fictional and Fantastic Languages (56 lines)
     From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 21:40:19 +0100
   • Re: Encyclopedia of Fictional and Fantastic Languages (53 lines)
     From: Eldin Raigmore <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:56:51 -0500
   • Encyclopedia of Fictional and Fantastic Languages (28 lines)
     From: Israel Noletto <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:17:48 -0500

10. English (Was: Portuguese (Was: French))
    • English (Was: Portuguese (Was: French)) (38 lines)
      From: Paul Kershaw <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:45:54 -0800

11. French
    • Re: French (46 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:32:38 -0800
    • Re: French (43 lines)
      From: Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:11:27 -0500
    • Re: French (34 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:30:27 -0800
    • Re: French (47 lines)
      From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:18:03 -0500
    • Re: French (35 lines)
      From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:10:24 -0500
    • Re: French (45 lines)
      From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:08:42 -0500
    • Re: French (60 lines)
      From: Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 07:18:54 -0500
    • Re: French (47 lines)
      From: Eugene Oh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:28:36 +0000
    • Re: French (37 lines)
      From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:09:18 +0100
    • Re: French (40 lines)
      From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 21:41:28 -0500
    • Re: French (85 lines)
      From: Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 20:53:34 -0500
    • Re: French (72 lines)
      From: Eugene Oh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 00:53:12 +0000
    • Re: French (61 lines)
      From: Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 18:58:50 -0500
    • Re: French (39 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:08:14 -0800
    • Re: French (55 lines)
      From: faberic banouette <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 18:16:04 +0100
    • Re: French (75 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 06:19:28 -0800
    • Re: French (69 lines)
      From: Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 09:10:31 -0500
    • Re: French (51 lines)
      From: Henrik Theiling <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:37:38 +0100
    • Re: French (77 lines)
      From: Falcata Lusa <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 02:40:20 +0000

12. Fwd: YAEPT (was Re: French)
    • Fwd: YAEPT (was Re: French) (41 lines)
      From: René Uittenbogaard <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:20:36 +0100

13. In the Land of Invented Languages (was: Encyclopedia of Fictional and Fantastic Languages)
    • In the Land of Invented Languages (was: Encyclopedia of Fictional and Fantastic Languages) (31 lines)
      From: Sai Emrys <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 18:06:39 -0800

14. Portuguese (Was: French)
    • Re: Portuguese (Was: French) (43 lines)
      From: Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:07:58 -0500
    • Re: Portuguese (Was: French) (45 lines)
      From: Paul Kershaw <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:35:27 -0800
    • Re: Portuguese (Was: French) (36 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:23:49 -0800
    • Re: Portuguese (Was: French) (51 lines)
      From: Paul Kershaw <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 07:58:38 -0800
    • Re: Portuguese (Was: French) (42 lines)
      From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:07:44 +0100
    • Re: Portuguese (Was: French) (46 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 22:58:59 +0100
    • Re: Portuguese (Was: French) (40 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:56:04 -0800
    • Re: Portuguese (Was: French) (69 lines)
      From: Edgard Bikelis <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:12:05 -0200
    • Portuguese (Was: French) (40 lines)
      From: Henrik Theiling <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:25:37 +0100

15. Semantic Content of Grammatical Gender?
    • Re: Semantic Content of Grammatical Gender? (106 lines)
      From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:46:25 +0100
    • Re: Semantic Content of Grammatical Gender? (43 lines)
      From: David McCann <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:32:22 +0000
    • Re: Semantic Content of Grammatical Gender? (54 lines)
      From: Njenfalgar <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 10:20:37 +0100
    • Re: Semantic Content of Grammatical Gender? (61 lines)
      From: Ollock Ackeop <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 20:34:01 -0500
    • Re: Semantic Content of Grammatical Gender? (38 lines)
      From: Chris Peters <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 19:17:59 -0600
    • Re: Semantic Content of Grammatical Gender? (43 lines)
      From: Ollock Ackeop <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 20:12:29 -0500
    • Re: Semantic Content of Grammatical Gender? (91 lines)
      From: Fredrik Ekman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 20:14:54 +0100
    • Re: Semantic Content of Grammatical Gender? (39 lines)
      From: Brett Williams <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 10:31:16 -0500
    • Re: Semantic Content of Grammatical Gender? (52 lines)
      From: caeruleancentaur <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 11:32:01 -0000
    • Re: Semantic Content of Grammatical Gender? (46 lines)
      From: caeruleancentaur <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 11:21:55 -0000
    • Re: Semantic Content of Grammatical Gender? (62 lines)
      From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 11:58:56 +0100
    • Re: Semantic Content of Grammatical Gender? (40 lines)
      From: Ina van der Vegt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 11:35:22 +0100

16. TECH: Video simulcasting & conferencing
    • TECH: Video simulcasting & conferencing (134 lines)
      From: Sai Emrys <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 23:32:32 -0800

17. The radness of serial verbs (was: Re: "To slurp" in latin)
    • The radness of serial verbs (was: Re: "To slurp" in latin) (119 lines)
      From: taliesin the storyteller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 21:06:35 +0100

18. Use of Conlang to test Language Universals
    • Re: Use of Conlang to test Language Universals (41 lines)
      From: Ronald Craig <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:24:28 +0900
    • Re: Use of Conlang to test Language Universals (98 lines)
      From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 21:49:41 +0000
    • Re: Use of Conlang to test Language Universals (47 lines)
      From: David J. Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:48:29 -0800
    • Use of Conlang to test Language Universals (93 lines)
      From: John H. Chalmers <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:41:52 -0800

19. YAEPT (< French)
    • Re: YAEPT (< French) (42 lines)
      From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:32:43 -0500
    • YAEPT (< French) (41 lines)
      From: <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:29:30 -0500

20. YAEPT (was Re: French)
    • Re: YAEPT (was Re: French) (35 lines)
      From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:16:38 -0500
    • Re: YAEPT (was Re: French) (32 lines)
      From: Paul Kershaw <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:33:19 -0800
    • Re: YAEPT (was Re: French) (48 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:48:21 -0800
    • Re: YAEPT (was Re: French) (45 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:40:06 -0800
    • Re: YAEPT (was Re: French) (36 lines)
      From: Paul Kershaw <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 07:28:24 -0800
    • Re: YAEPT (was Re: French) (36 lines)
      From: Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:20:17 -0500
    • Re: YAEPT (was Re: French) (62 lines)
      From: <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 07:56:46 -0500
    • Re: YAEPT (was Re: French) (57 lines)
      From: Ph.D. <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 07:38:19 -0500
    • Re: YAEPT (was Re: French) (40 lines)
      From: Paul Kershaw <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 22:52:37 -0800
    • Re: YAEPT (was Re: French) (52 lines)
      From: Michael Poxon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 00:17:37 -0000
    • YAEPT (was Re: French) (56 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:29:08 -0800

21. YAPTPT (was Re: French)
    • Re: YAPTPT (was Re: French) (35 lines)
      From: Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:38:04 -0500
    • Re: YAPTPT (was Re: French) (24 lines)
      From: Chris Wright <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:23:38 -0500
    • YAPTPT (was Re: French) (45 lines)
      From: Falcata Lusa <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:24:29 +0000