Conlang Mailing List – February 2010, 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:

• Aaalis Phonology, Orthography and Nominal Morphology
• Alternative timelines (was: An orthographic monster) (3 messages)
• An orthographic monster (6 messages)
• another self-defining message for CETI: CosmicOS
• CHAT: Computer Science: Natural Language Processing (5 messages)
• couple of algorithms for word-making from natlangs (3 messages)
• English sentences as conlang test (8 messages)
• First Draft Grammar for my Ideographic conlang Neoglyphic. (8 messages)
• FRENCH in the 16th Cent. (4 messages)
• LIST OPERATIONS: exceeding daily allowed number of emails (2 messages)
• My creation has escaped (18 messages)
• My easiest conlang yet (2 messages)
• Next screening of CONLANG (the movie): 2/24, NYC
• OT TECH: HTML/CSS embedded fonts problem (4 messages)
• OT TECH: Keyboards and fonts on IPod Touch/IPhone. (3 messages)
• Polish Notation was: Re: Word Order and Conjunctions (2 messages)
• Proper Names in a Soundless Language (26 messages)
• Right-branching vs. Left-branching (7 messages)
• Romance stressed vowels (was: muta cum liquida)
• TECH WTF downloading pages? (was: another self-defining message for CETI: CosmicOS) (12 messages)
• Think of conlanging from languages backwards? (11 messages)
• Why do humans not have stack-based languages? (was: Right-branching vs. Left-branching) (3 messages)

1. Aaalis Phonology, Orthography and Nominal Morphology
   • Re: Aaalis Phonology, Orthography and Nominal Morphology (101 lines)
     From: Dirk Elzinga <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 19:04:18 -0700

2. Alternative timelines (was: An orthographic monster)
   • Re: Alternative timelines (was: An orthographic monster) (114 lines)
     From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:59:32 +0100
   • Re: Alternative timelines (was: An orthographic monster) (107 lines)
     From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:25:19 -0600
   • Alternative timelines (was: An orthographic monster) (78 lines)
     From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 23:17:58 +0100

3. An orthographic monster
   • Re: An orthographic monster (197 lines)
     From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:35:02 +0100
   • Re: An orthographic monster (112 lines)
     From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:36:39 -0600
   • Re: An orthographic monster (120 lines)
     From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:30:04 +0100
   • Re: An orthographic monster (49 lines)
     From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:45:23 -0600
   • Re: An orthographic monster (30 lines)
     From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:59:25 +0100
   • Re: An orthographic monster (123 lines)
     From: Benct Philip Jonsson <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:24:22 +0100

4. another self-defining message for CETI: CosmicOS
   • another self-defining message for CETI: CosmicOS (24 lines)
     From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:49:59 -0500

5. CHAT: Computer Science: Natural Language Processing
   • Re: CHAT: Computer Science: Natural Language Processing (53 lines)
     From: Daniel Demski <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:51:15 -0500
   • Re: CHAT: Computer Science: Natural Language Processing (47 lines)
     From: Iain Davis <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:36:11 -0600
   • Re: CHAT: Computer Science: Natural Language Processing (34 lines)
     From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 00:37:25 -0500
   • Re: CHAT: Computer Science: Natural Language Processing (84 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:47:28 -0800
   • CHAT: Computer Science: Natural Language Processing (63 lines)
     From: Iain Davis <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 19:08:01 -0600

6. couple of algorithms for word-making from natlangs
   • Re: couple of algorithms for word-making from natlangs (39 lines)
     From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:37:05 +0100
   • Re: couple of algorithms for word-making from natlangs (68 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:21:36 -0800
   • couple of algorithms for word-making from natlangs (57 lines)
     From: Wesley Parish <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:54:35 +1300

7. English sentences as conlang test
   • Re: English sentences as conlang test (83 lines)
     From: Herman Miller <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:53:00 -0500
   • Re: English sentences as conlang test (38 lines)
     From: Lee <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:21:54 -0800
   • Re: English sentences as conlang test (69 lines)
     From: Mechthild Czapp <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:54:18 +0100
   • Re: English sentences as conlang test (106 lines)
     From: Douglas Koller <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:12:21 +0000
   • Re: English sentences as conlang test (89 lines)
     From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:02:22 -0500
   • Re: English sentences as conlang test (68 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:05:01 -0800
   • Re: English sentences as conlang test (81 lines)
     From: David E <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:07:25 -0800
   • English sentences as conlang test (41 lines)
     From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 23:13:48 -0500

8. First Draft Grammar for my Ideographic conlang Neoglyphic.
   • Re: First Draft Grammar for my Ideographic conlang Neoglyphic. (64 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:59:09 -0800
   • Re: First Draft Grammar for my Ideographic conlang Neoglyphic. (48 lines)
     From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:05:20 +0100
   • Re: First Draft Grammar for my Ideographic conlang Neoglyphic. (90 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:56:03 -0800
   • Re: First Draft Grammar for my Ideographic conlang Neoglyphic. (40 lines)
     From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:15:12 +0100
   • Re: First Draft Grammar for my Ideographic conlang Neoglyphic. (65 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:19:34 -0800
   • Re: First Draft Grammar for my Ideographic conlang Neoglyphic. (73 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:41:47 -0800
   • Re: First Draft Grammar for my Ideographic conlang Neoglyphic. (45 lines)
     From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:31:33 -0500
   • First Draft Grammar for my Ideographic conlang Neoglyphic. (281 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:24:58 -0800

9. FRENCH in the 16th Cent.
   • Re: FRENCH in the 16th Cent. (58 lines)
     From: Tony Harris <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:21:19 -0500
   • Re: FRENCH in the 16th Cent. (51 lines)
     From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:27:47 +0000
   • Re: FRENCH in the 16th Cent. (38 lines)
     From: David McCann <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:20:36 +0000
   • FRENCH in the 16th Cent. (42 lines)
     From: John Lategan <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:32:38 +0200

10. LIST OPERATIONS: exceeding daily allowed number of emails
    • Re: LIST OPERATIONS: exceeding daily allowed number of emails (36 lines)
      From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:33:41 +0100
    • LIST OPERATIONS: exceeding daily allowed number of emails (26 lines)
      From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:45:48 -0500

11. My creation has escaped
    • Re: My creation has escaped (44 lines)
      From: Rebecca Bettencourt <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:14:23 -0800
    • Re: My creation has escaped (48 lines)
      From: Carsten Becker <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:10:15 +0100
    • Re: My creation has escaped (42 lines)
      From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:44:55 +0100
    • Re: My creation has escaped (74 lines)
      From: Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:27:42 -0800
    • Re: My creation has escaped (63 lines)
      From: Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:19:13 -0800
    • Re: My creation has escaped (54 lines)
      From: Tony Harris <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:19:11 -0500
    • Re: My creation has escaped (73 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:15:44 +0100
    • Re: My creation has escaped (60 lines)
      From: Tony Harris <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:13:20 -0500
    • Re: My creation has escaped (53 lines)
      From: Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:11:22 +0100
    • Re: My creation has escaped (54 lines)
      From: Peter Bleackley <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:08:33 +0000
    • Re: My creation has escaped (54 lines)
      From: Mechthild Czapp <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:57:14 +0100
    • Re: My creation has escaped (42 lines)
      From: Peter Bleackley <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:41:12 +0000
    • Re: My creation has escaped (39 lines)
      From: Michael Poxon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:19:03 -0000
    • Re: My creation has escaped (47 lines)
      From: Peter Bleackley <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:11:01 +0000
    • Re: My creation has escaped (81 lines)
      From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:06:55 +0100
    • Re: My creation has escaped (67 lines)
      From: Tony Harris <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:28:47 -0500
    • Re: My creation has escaped (41 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:18:03 -0800
    • My creation has escaped (40 lines)
      From: Peter Bleackley <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:07:56 +0000

12. My easiest conlang yet
    • Re: My easiest conlang yet (62 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:55:09 -0800
    • Re: My easiest conlang yet (81 lines)
      From: Daniel Demski <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:24:15 -0500

13. Next screening of CONLANG (the movie): 2/24, NYC
    • Next screening of CONLANG (the movie): 2/24, NYC (36 lines)
      From: Sai Emrys <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:37:18 -0800

14. OT TECH: HTML/CSS embedded fonts problem
    • Re: OT TECH: HTML/CSS embedded fonts problem (48 lines)
      From: Carsten Becker <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:10:22 +0100
    • Re: OT TECH: HTML/CSS embedded fonts problem (72 lines)
      From: Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:38:36 -0800
    • Re: OT TECH: HTML/CSS embedded fonts problem (64 lines)
      From: Carsten Becker <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:01:42 +0100
    • Re: OT TECH: HTML/CSS embedded fonts problem (53 lines)
      From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:58:24 +0100

15. OT TECH: Keyboards and fonts on IPod Touch/IPhone.
    • Re: OT TECH: Keyboards and fonts on IPod Touch/IPhone. (43 lines)
      From: <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:48:12 -0500
    • Re: OT TECH: Keyboards and fonts on IPod Touch/IPhone. (38 lines)
      From: Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 06:21:47 -0800
    • OT TECH: Keyboards and fonts on IPod Touch/IPhone. (32 lines)
      From: <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:57:13 -0500

16. Polish Notation was: Re: Word Order and Conjunctions
    • Re: Polish Notation was: Re: Word Order and Conjunctions (120 lines)
      From: Eldin Raigmore <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:40:20 -0500
    • Re: Polish Notation was: Re: Word Order and Conjunctions (111 lines)
      From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 04:35:27 -0500

17. Proper Names in a Soundless Language
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (89 lines)
      From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:13:22 -0500
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (75 lines)
      From: <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:52:08 -0500
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (47 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:41:00 -0800
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (55 lines)
      From: Chris Peters <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:51:58 -0600
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (68 lines)
      From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:01:59 -0500
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (63 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:04:19 -0800
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (59 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:22:56 -0800
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (32 lines)
      From: <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:22:22 -0500
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (41 lines)
      From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:16:26 +0100
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (34 lines)
      From: René Uittenbogaard <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:10:30 +0100
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (72 lines)
      From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 01:35:08 -0500
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (69 lines)
      From: Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:37:19 -0800
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (92 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:32:40 +0100
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (76 lines)
      From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:03:20 -0600
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (57 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:14:43 -0800
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (97 lines)
      From: Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:08:00 -0800
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (56 lines)
      From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:45:58 +0100
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (71 lines)
      From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:42:24 -0600
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (44 lines)
      From: Karen Badham <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:41:19 -0500
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (98 lines)
      From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:33:12 -0500
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (96 lines)
      From: Samuel Stutter <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:18:14 +0000
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (65 lines)
      From: Samuel Stutter <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:27:08 +0000
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (38 lines)
      From: Karen Badham <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:01:26 -0500
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (37 lines)
      From: Kelvin Jackson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:57:44 -0500
    • Re: Proper Names in a Soundless Language (68 lines)
      From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:54:48 -0500
    • Proper Names in a Soundless Language (56 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:42:04 -0800

18. Right-branching vs. Left-branching
    • Re: Right-branching vs. Left-branching (61 lines)
      From: Mechthild Czapp <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:00:23 +0100
    • Re: Right-branching vs. Left-branching (35 lines)
      From: Nokta Kanto <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:22:16 -0500
    • Re: Right-branching vs. Left-branching (47 lines)
      From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:42:36 -0500
    • Re: Right-branching vs. Left-branching (31 lines)
      From: Nokta Kanto <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:28:26 -0500
    • Re: Right-branching vs. Left-branching (91 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 22:01:32 +0100
    • Re: Right-branching vs. Left-branching (52 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:30:04 -0800
    • Re: Right-branching vs. Left-branching (33 lines)
      From: John Vertical <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:01:56 -0500

19. Romance stressed vowels (was: muta cum liquida)
    • Re: Romance stressed vowels (was: muta cum liquida) (100 lines)
      From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:53:00 +0000

20. TECH WTF downloading pages? (was: another self-defining message for CETI: CosmicOS)
    • Re: TECH WTF downloading pages? (was: another self-defining message for CETI: CosmicOS) (30 lines)
      From: Sai Emrys <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:37:29 -0800
    • Re: TECH WTF downloading pages? (was: another self-defining message for CETI: CosmicOS) (59 lines)
      From: Tony Harris <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:12:53 -0500
    • Re: TECH WTF downloading pages? (was: another self-defining message for CETI: CosmicOS) (48 lines)
      From: David McCann <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:46:16 +0000
    • Re: TECH WTF downloading pages? (was: another self-defining message for CETI: CosmicOS) (65 lines)
      From: Claude Almansi <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:55:19 +0100
    • Re: TECH WTF downloading pages? (was: another self-defining message for CETI: CosmicOS) (48 lines)
      From: Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:09:38 -0800
    • Re: TECH WTF downloading pages? (was: another self-defining message for CETI: CosmicOS) (48 lines)
      From: - <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:51:25 +0100
    • Re: TECH WTF downloading pages? (was: another self-defining message for CETI: CosmicOS) (46 lines)
      From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:49:59 -0500
    • Re: TECH WTF downloading pages? (was: another self-defining message for CETI: CosmicOS) (59 lines)
      From: calculator ftvb <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:54:11 -0500
    • Re: TECH WTF downloading pages? (was: another self-defining message for CETI: CosmicOS) (56 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:19:47 -0800
    • Re: TECH WTF downloading pages? (was: another self-defining message for CETI: CosmicOS) (42 lines)
      From: Tim Smith <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:58:10 -0500
    • Re: TECH WTF downloading pages? (was: another self-defining message for CETI: CosmicOS) (40 lines)
      From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:49:28 -0500
    • TECH WTF downloading pages? (was: another self-defining message for CETI: CosmicOS) (29 lines)
      From: Ollock Ackeop <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 07:25:33 -0500

21. Think of conlanging from languages backwards?
    • Re: Think of conlanging from languages backwards? (51 lines)
      From: John Vertical <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:50:41 -0500
    • Re: Think of conlanging from languages backwards? (42 lines)
      From: <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:42:36 -0500
    • Re: Think of conlanging from languages backwards? (55 lines)
      From: Tony Harris <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:19:05 -0500
    • Re: Think of conlanging from languages backwards? (43 lines)
      From: Amanda Babcock Furrow <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:46:01 -0500
    • Re: Think of conlanging from languages backwards? (71 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:06:03 -0800
    • Re: Think of conlanging from languages backwards? (45 lines)
      From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:37:33 +0100
    • Re: Think of conlanging from languages backwards? (64 lines)
      From: Daniel Bowman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:07:50 -0700
    • Re: Think of conlanging from languages backwards? (50 lines)
      From: Daniel Bowman <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:04:36 -0700
    • Re: Think of conlanging from languages backwards? (52 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:48:39 -0800
    • Re: Think of conlanging from languages backwards? (61 lines)
      From: Tony Harris <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:40:04 -0500
    • Re: Think of conlanging from languages backwards? (35 lines)
      From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:31:24 +0100

22. Why do humans not have stack-based languages? (was: Right-branching vs. Left-branching)
    • Re: Why do humans not have stack-based languages? (was: Right-branching vs. Left-branching) (86 lines)
      From: Lee <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:21:41 -0800
    • Re: Why do humans not have stack-based languages? (was: Right-branching vs. Left-branching) (52 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:45:00 -0800
    • Why do humans not have stack-based languages? (was: Right-branching vs. Left-branching) (55 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:47:17 +0100