Conlang Mailing List – September 2010, week 2

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

Options Show author | Hide author

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

1. Re: USAGE: how did English initial <x> come to be /z/? (45 lines)
   From: Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>

2. Internally Headed Relative Clauses (41 lines)
   From: neo gu <[log in to unmask]>

3. Re: USAGE: how did English initial <x> come to be /z/? (94 lines)
   From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>

4. Re: Need help with phonetics/phonology at CALS (44 lines)
   From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[log in to unmask]>

5. Re: Need help with phonetics/phonology at CALS (43 lines)
   From: John Vertical <[log in to unmask]>

6. Re: Cheyoon (Mermish) Orthography (51 lines)
   From: John Vertical <[log in to unmask]>

7. Re: Unnamed Language Phonology (30 lines)
   From: Matthew Turnbull <[log in to unmask]>

8. Re: Naming systems (51 lines)
   From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>

9. Re: USAGE: how did English initial <x> come to be /z/? (49 lines)
   From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>

10. How did English <u> get /U/ and /V/? (21 lines)
    From: Nathan Unanymous <[log in to unmask]>

11. Re: Luggnaggian (43 lines)
    From: Matthew Turnbull <[log in to unmask]>

12. Re: Cheyoon (Mermish) Orthography (24 lines)
    From: Anthony Miles <[log in to unmask]>

13. Re: And/or (26 lines)
    From: Anthony Miles <[log in to unmask]>

14. Ná&#331;ifi Fasúxa Annotated Babel Text 11:1-3 (67 lines)
    From: Anthony Miles <[log in to unmask]>

15. Re: Need help with phonetics/phonology at CALS (29 lines)
    From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>

16. Llárriésh (Llama) Trilinear Babel - Genesis 11:1-9 (103 lines)
    From: Richard Littauer <[log in to unmask]>

17. Na'vi Experts Camp (118 lines)
    From: Richard Littauer <[log in to unmask]>

18. Re: Na'vi Experts Camp (38 lines)
    From: Brett Williams <[log in to unmask]>

19. Re: Na'vi Experts Camp (50 lines)
    From: Richard Littauer <[log in to unmask]>

20. Marking of some nouns determined by properties of others (52 lines)
    From: Peter Bleackley <[log in to unmask]>

21. Re: Marking of some nouns determined by properties of others (54 lines)
    From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>

22. Re: Graavgaaln phonology the syllable (71 lines)
    From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>

23. Re: Graavgaaln grammar (55 lines)
    From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>

24. Re: Unnamed Language Phonology (52 lines)
    From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[log in to unmask]>

25. Re: Marking of some nouns determined by properties of others (85 lines)
    From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[log in to unmask]>

26. Re: How did English <u> get /U/ and /V/? (37 lines)
    From: John Vertical <[log in to unmask]>

27. Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (49 lines)
    From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>

28. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (36 lines)
    From: Jerry Muelver <[log in to unmask]>

29. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (31 lines)
    From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>

30. Re: How did English <u> get /U/ and /V/? (47 lines)
    From: David McCann <[log in to unmask]>

31. Re: Need help with phonetics/phonology at CALS (34 lines)
    From: John Vertical <[log in to unmask]>

32. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (23 lines)
    From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>

33. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (26 lines)
    From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>

34. Re: How did English <u> get /U/ and /V/? (61 lines)
    From: Daniel Prohaska <[log in to unmask]>

35. missing posts (25 lines)
    From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>

36. Re: missing posts (47 lines)
    From: Lee <[log in to unmask]>

37. Re: How did English <u> get /U/ and /V/? (52 lines)
    From: Daniel Prohaska <[log in to unmask]>

38. Re: missing posts (55 lines)
    From: [log in to unmask]

39. Re: Need help with phonetics/phonology at CALS (56 lines)
    From: David McCann <[log in to unmask]>

40. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (46 lines)
    From: Lee <[log in to unmask]>

41. Re: missing posts (54 lines)
    From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>

42. Re: How did English <u> get /U/ and /V/? (48 lines)
    From: John Vertical <[log in to unmask]>

43. Re: The 2010 Smiley Award Winner: amman iar (52 lines)
    From: M.S. Soderquist <[log in to unmask]>

44. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (30 lines)
    From: John Vertical <[log in to unmask]>

45. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (32 lines)
    From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>

46. Re: The 2010 Smiley Award Winner: amman iar (51 lines)
    From: Patrick Michael Niedzielski <[log in to unmask]>

47. Re: How did English <u> get /U/ and /V/? (48 lines)
    From: Lars Finsen <[log in to unmask]>

48. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (52 lines)
    From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>

49. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (38 lines)
    From: Brett Williams <[log in to unmask]>

50. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (48 lines)
    From: John Vertical <[log in to unmask]>

51. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (31 lines)
    From: Garth Wallace <[log in to unmask]>

52. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (38 lines)
    From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>

53. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (67 lines)
    From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>

54. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (58 lines)
    From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>

55. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (69 lines)
    From: Maxime Papillon <[log in to unmask]>

56. Re: How did English <u> get /U/ and /V/? (61 lines)
    From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>

57. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (71 lines)
    From: Eugene Oh <[log in to unmask]>

58. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (53 lines)
    From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>

59. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (85 lines)
    From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>

60. Na'vi Babel Text (61 lines)
    From: Richard Littauer <[log in to unmask]>

61. Re: Na'vi Babel Text (106 lines)
    From: Richard Littauer <[log in to unmask]>

62. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (45 lines)
    From: Daniel Nielsen <[log in to unmask]>

63. Re: Marking of some nouns determined by properties of others (73 lines)
    From: Peter Bleackley <[log in to unmask]>

64. Re: Need help with phonetics/phonology at CALS (31 lines)
    From: Daniel Nielsen <[log in to unmask]>

65. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (75 lines)
    From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>

66. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (70 lines)
    From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>

67. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (67 lines)
    From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>

68. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (60 lines)
    From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>

69. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (70 lines)
    From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>

70. Re: How did English <u> get /U/ and /V/? (69 lines)
    From: David McCann <[log in to unmask]>

71. Re: Cheyoon (Mermish) Orthography (34 lines)
    From: Anthony Miles <[log in to unmask]>

72. Re: Need help with phonetics/phonology at CALS (39 lines)
    From: David McCann <[log in to unmask]>

73. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (71 lines)
    From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>

74. Re: Na'vi Babel Text (235 lines)
    From: Samuel Stutter <[log in to unmask]>

75. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (100 lines)
    From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>

76. Teaching kids Klingon (humor) (24 lines)
    From: Sai Emrys <[log in to unmask]>

77. Re: Teaching kids Klingon (humor) (33 lines)
    From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>

78. Re: Teaching kids Klingon (humor) (41 lines)
    From: Richard Littauer <[log in to unmask]>

79. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (24 lines)
    From: Anthony Miles <[log in to unmask]>

80. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (38 lines)
    From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>

81. Re: Teaching kids Klingon (humor) (39 lines)
    From: Donald Boozer <[log in to unmask]>

82. Re: Teaching kids Klingon (humor) (52 lines)
    From: Patrick Michael Niedzielski <[log in to unmask]>

83. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (36 lines)
    From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>

84. Re: OT: Conlang Camping Trip (WAS: making an oral conlang) (61 lines)
    From: Charlie <[log in to unmask]>

85. Re: OT: Conlang Camping Trip (WAS: making an oral conlang) (42 lines)
    From: Charlie <[log in to unmask]>

86. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (84 lines)
    From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>

87. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (81 lines)
    From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>

88. NATLANG: Isolating Languages Question (41 lines)
    From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>

89. Re: NATLANG: Isolating Languages Question (46 lines)
    From: Eugene Oh <[log in to unmask]>

90. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (37 lines)
    From: neo gu <[log in to unmask]>

91. Re: NATLANG: Isolating Languages Question (36 lines)
    From: <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]>

92. Re: OT: Conlang Camping Trip (WAS: making an oral conlang) (52 lines)
    From: <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]>

93. Re: NATLANG: Isolating Languages Question (42 lines)
    From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>

94. Re: NATLANG: Isolating Languages Question (41 lines)
    From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>

95. Feayran WAYK (52 lines)
    From: David Edwards <[log in to unmask]>

96. Re: Feayran WAYK (52 lines)
    From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>

97. Re: Feayran WAYK (142 lines)
    From: David Edwards <[log in to unmask]>

98. Re: NATLANG: Isolating Languages Question (44 lines)
    From: Matthew Martin <[log in to unmask]>

99. Re: NATLANG: Isolating Languages Question (101 lines)
    From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>

100. Re: Feayran WAYK (37 lines)
     From: Miles Forster <[log in to unmask]>

101. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (154 lines)
     From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>

102. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (91 lines)
     From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>

103. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (45 lines)
     From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>

104. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (80 lines)
     From: Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]>

105. Elomi and Ilomi (22 lines)
     From: Anthony Miles <[log in to unmask]>

106. Re: NATLANG: Isolating Languages Question (37 lines)
     From: Anthony Miles <[log in to unmask]>

107. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (92 lines)
     From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>

108. Oligosynthesis (was:: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology) (69 lines)
     From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>

109. Reduncancy (35 lines)
     From: Peter Bleackley <[log in to unmask]>

110. Re: Reduncancy (84 lines)
     From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>

111. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (96 lines)
     From: Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]>

112. Re: Reduncancy (44 lines)
     From: Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]>

113. Re: Elomi and Ilomi (35 lines)
     From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>

114. Re: Oligosynthesis (was:: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology) (82 lines)
     From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>

115. Re: NATLANG: Isolating Languages Question (62 lines)
     From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>

116. Re: NATLANG: Isolating Languages Question (53 lines)
     From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>

117. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (142 lines)
     From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>

118. Re: Possibly the simplest possible self-segregating morphology (154 lines)
     From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>

119. Re: How did English <u> get /U/ and /V/? (47 lines)
     From: John Vertical <[log in to unmask]>

120. Re: NATLANG: Isolating Languages Question (28 lines)
     From: John Vertical <[log in to unmask]>

121. Complete Annotated Na'gifi Fasu'xa Babel Text (23 lines)
     From: Anthony Miles <[log in to unmask]>

122. Re: Reduncancy (21 lines)
     From: Anthony Miles <[log in to unmask]>

123. Re: Reduncancy (74 lines)
     From: Maxime Papillon <[log in to unmask]>

124. Re: Reduncancy (42 lines)
     From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>

125. Namespaces (45 lines)
     From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>

126. Re: Namespaces (46 lines)
     From: Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]>

127. Re: Namespaces (57 lines)
     From: Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>

128. Re: Namespaces (47 lines)
     From: Brett Williams <[log in to unmask]>

129. Re: NATLANG: Isolating Languages Question (44 lines)
     From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>