Conlang Mailing List – November 2010, 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:

• 30-Day Conlang (2 messages)
• 30-Day Conlang : day three
• 30-Day conlang: Day Five (8 messages)
• 30-Day Conlang: Day Seven (2 messages)
• 30-Day Conlang: Day Two
• A Good Omen?
• boredom (2 messages)
• Easy context free grammar parser? (2 messages)
• Ejective distributions (6 messages)
• Fw: Help CONLANG movie get distribution!
• I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (38 messages)
• Incorporating Romlang setting idea (6 messages)
• Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang (5 messages)
• Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa (7 messages)
• META: Conlang-L FAQ
• Naming Language for NaNoWriMo: Phonology & Orthography
• The evolution of an irregular copula (12 messages)
• The War to Baffle All Wars (4 messages)
• Two different kinds of plural? (12 messages)
• What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic? (9 messages)

1. 30-Day Conlang
   • Re: 30-Day Conlang (47 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 09:48:51 -0700
   • Re: 30-Day Conlang (34 lines)
     From: Miles Forster <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 13:47:54 +0100

2. 30-Day Conlang : day three
   • 30-Day Conlang : day three (72 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 09:55:20 -0700

3. 30-Day conlang: Day Five
   • Re: 30-Day conlang: Day Five (29 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 16:42:58 -0700
   • Re: 30-Day conlang: Day Five (33 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 09:17:55 -0700
   • Re: 30-Day conlang: Day Five (60 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 19:43:24 -0700
   • Re: 30-Day conlang: Day Five (38 lines)
     From: Parker Glynn-Adey <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 21:13:10 -0400
   • Re: 30-Day conlang: Day Five (52 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 14:35:43 -0700
   • Re: 30-Day conlang: Day Five (64 lines)
     From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 16:18:46 -0500
   • Re: 30-Day conlang: Day Five (50 lines)
     From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:09:11 -0400
   • 30-Day conlang: Day Five (44 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 13:55:14 -0700

4. 30-Day Conlang: Day Seven
   • Re: 30-Day Conlang: Day Seven (58 lines)
     From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 15:51:49 -0800
   • 30-Day Conlang: Day Seven (37 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:20:45 -0800

5. 30-Day Conlang: Day Two
   • 30-Day Conlang: Day Two (45 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 12:32:13 -0700

6. A Good Omen?
   • A Good Omen? (34 lines)
     From: kechpaja <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 01:48:29 -0400

7. boredom
   • Re: boredom (69 lines)
     From: the ursprachist ursprach <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 08:43:18 -0200
   • boredom (47 lines)
     From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:08:02 -0500

8. Easy context free grammar parser?
   • Re: Easy context free grammar parser? (38 lines)
     From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 22:36:51 +0100
   • Easy context free grammar parser? (37 lines)
     From: Matthew Martin <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 16:11:46 -0400

9. Ejective distributions
   • Re: Ejective distributions (42 lines)
     From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 23:50:37 -0500
   • Re: Ejective distributions (70 lines)
     From: Matthew Boutilier <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:20:33 -0500
   • Re: Ejective distributions (39 lines)
     From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 20:41:04 -0500
   • Re: Ejective distributions (46 lines)
     From: Wm Annis <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 19:01:00 -0600
   • Re: Ejective distributions (87 lines)
     From: Matthew Boutilier <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 19:58:28 -0500
   • Ejective distributions (32 lines)
     From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
     Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:35:10 -0600

10. Fw: Help CONLANG movie get distribution!
    • Fw: Help CONLANG movie get distribution! (65 lines)
      From: Ph.D. <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 07:34:45 -0400

11. I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (110 lines)
      From: Lars Finsen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 23:14:22 +0100
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (59 lines)
      From: Matthew Turnbull <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 16:15:24 -0500
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (61 lines)
      From: Lars Finsen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 14:52:17 +0100
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (44 lines)
      From: the ursprachist ursprach <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 08:42:25 -0200
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (120 lines)
      From: Lars Finsen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 02:53:17 +0100
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (48 lines)
      From: Lars Finsen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 00:05:05 +0100
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (113 lines)
      From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 16:49:17 -0500
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (52 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 22:47:50 +0100
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (89 lines)
      From: the ursprachist ursprach <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 19:24:08 -0200
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (78 lines)
      From: Lars Finsen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 21:25:53 +0100
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (82 lines)
      From: the ursprachist ursprach <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:59:28 -0200
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (35 lines)
      From: Parker Glynn-Adey <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 16:02:00 -0400
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (79 lines)
      From: Samuel Stutter <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 19:15:31 +0000
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (55 lines)
      From: the ursprachist ursprach <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:03:11 -0200
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (47 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 19:51:38 +0100
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (65 lines)
      From: the ursprachist ursprach <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 16:15:19 -0200
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (56 lines)
      From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 12:16:35 -0500
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (75 lines)
      From: the ursprachist ursprach <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 14:23:17 -0200
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (78 lines)
      From: Samuel Stutter <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 09:11:09 +0000
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (42 lines)
      From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 20:06:38 -0400
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (93 lines)
      From: the ursprachist ursprach <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 19:06:31 -0200
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (187 lines)
      From: the ursprachist ursprach <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 19:04:41 -0200
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (64 lines)
      From: Eugene Oh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 20:34:35 +0000
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (53 lines)
      From: the ursprachist ursprach <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 18:25:02 -0200
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (56 lines)
      From: Lars Finsen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 21:15:58 +0100
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (165 lines)
      From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 13:54:30 -0500
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (138 lines)
      From: the ursprachist ursprach <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 16:44:12 -0200
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (101 lines)
      From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 13:23:41 -0500
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (103 lines)
      From: Samuel Stutter <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 17:33:27 +0000
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (82 lines)
      From: the ursprachist ursprach <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 15:25:05 -0200
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (49 lines)
      From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 20:20:42 -0700
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (85 lines)
      From: the ursprachist ursprach <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 23:41:47 -0200
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (34 lines)
      From: Carsten Becker <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 19:35:04 +0100
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (43 lines)
      From: Douglas Koller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 17:12:06 +0000
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (36 lines)
      From: Garth Wallace <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 09:52:16 -0700
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (58 lines)
      From: Samuel Stutter <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 15:29:16 +0000
    • Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (43 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 16:16:51 +0100
    • I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan (152 lines)
      From: the ursprachist ursprach <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 22:14:51 -0200

12. Incorporating Romlang setting idea
    • Re: Incorporating Romlang setting idea (60 lines)
      From: Samuel Stutter <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 20:22:19 +0000
    • Re: Incorporating Romlang setting idea (35 lines)
      From: David McCann <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:29:46 +0000
    • Re: Incorporating Romlang setting idea (44 lines)
      From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:17:01 +0000
    • Re: Incorporating Romlang setting idea (47 lines)
      From: Eugene Oh <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:01:15 +0000
    • Re: Incorporating Romlang setting idea (46 lines)
      From: Douglas Koller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 09:31:12 +0000
    • Incorporating Romlang setting idea (44 lines)
      From: Peter Bleackley <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 09:01:22 +0000

13. Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang
    • Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang (62 lines)
      From: Peter Bleackley <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 08:04:28 +0000
    • Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang (41 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 18:38:35 -0700
    • Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang (85 lines)
      From: Ph.D. <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 21:20:47 -0400
    • Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang (44 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 14:22:21 -0700
    • Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang (51 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:26:11 -0700

14. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa
    • Re: Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa (38 lines)
      From: Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 18:35:13 -0400
    • Re: Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa (42 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 13:59:35 -0700
    • Re: Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa (65 lines)
      From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 15:44:54 -0500
    • Re: Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa (46 lines)
      From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 20:43:50 +0000
    • Re: Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa (65 lines)
      From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 15:12:34 -0500
    • Re: Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa (59 lines)
      From: [log in to unmask]
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 13:16:19 -0400
    • Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa (44 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 09:11:35 -0700

15. META: Conlang-L FAQ
    • META: Conlang-L FAQ (274 lines)
      From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:48:42 -0400

16. Naming Language for NaNoWriMo: Phonology & Orthography
    • Re: Naming Language for NaNoWriMo: Phonology & Orthography (37 lines)
      From: Arthaey Angosii <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:11:46 -0700

17. The evolution of an irregular copula
    • Re: The evolution of an irregular copula (65 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 16:21:29 -0800
    • Re: The evolution of an irregular copula (89 lines)
      From: Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 15:45:40 -0800
    • Re: The evolution of an irregular copula (64 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 13:16:10 -0800
    • Re: The evolution of an irregular copula (79 lines)
      From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 19:57:01 +0000
    • Re: The evolution of an irregular copula (41 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:51:54 -0800
    • Re: The evolution of an irregular copula (104 lines)
      From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 07:53:50 +0000
    • Re: The evolution of an irregular copula (41 lines)
      From: Keith Gaughan <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 01:00:01 +0000
    • Re: The evolution of an irregular copula (72 lines)
      From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 20:58:39 -0400
    • Re: The evolution of an irregular copula (58 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 17:37:20 -0700
    • Re: The evolution of an irregular copula (42 lines)
      From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 20:02:34 -0400
    • Re: The evolution of an irregular copula (63 lines)
      From: Matthew Turnbull <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:03:42 -0500
    • The evolution of an irregular copula (52 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 14:36:08 -0700

18. The War to Baffle All Wars
    • Re: The War to Baffle All Wars (55 lines)
      From: BPJ <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 21:04:35 +0100
    • Re: The War to Baffle All Wars (57 lines)
      From: Douglas Koller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 16:50:04 +0000
    • Re: The War to Baffle All Wars (56 lines)
      From: Matthew Boutilier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 12:31:50 -0400
    • The War to Baffle All Wars (39 lines)
      From: Douglas Koller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 15:24:02 +0000

19. Two different kinds of plural?
    • Re: Two different kinds of plural? (147 lines)
      From: Matthew Boutilier <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 20:56:57 -0400
    • Re: Two different kinds of plural? (76 lines)
      From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 20:04:44 -0400
    • Re: Two different kinds of plural? (61 lines)
      From: <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 16:52:38 -0400
    • Re: Two different kinds of plural? (48 lines)
      From: Chris Peters <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 23:14:12 -0500
    • Re: Two different kinds of plural? (67 lines)
      From: Tony Harris <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 19:21:01 -0400
    • Re: Two different kinds of plural? (43 lines)
      From: Roman Rausch <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 18:27:28 -0400
    • Re: Two different kinds of plural? (50 lines)
      From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 22:34:07 +0100
    • Re: Two different kinds of plural? (85 lines)
      From: Douglas Koller <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 20:10:07 +0000
    • Re: Two different kinds of plural? (44 lines)
      From: Lars Finsen <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 19:57:49 +0100
    • Re: Two different kinds of plural? (56 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 11:23:31 -0700
    • Re: Two different kinds of plural? (42 lines)
      From: Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 14:02:01 -0400
    • Two different kinds of plural? (38 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 10:49:41 -0700

20. What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic?
    • Re: What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic? (48 lines)
      From: Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:18:35 -0400
    • Re: What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic? (59 lines)
      From: Matthew Turnbull <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 23:05:01 -0500
    • Re: What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic? (56 lines)
      From: Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 20:53:13 -0500
    • Re: What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic? (40 lines)
      From: Amanda Babcock Furrow <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 21:50:58 -0400
    • Re: What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic? (34 lines)
      From: Matthew Martin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 15:13:52 -0400
    • Re: What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic? (36 lines)
      From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:18:59 +0100
    • Re: What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic? (42 lines)
      From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:18:19 +0100
    • Re: What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic? (58 lines)
      From: Larry Sulky <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 12:17:56 -0400
    • What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic? (40 lines)
      From: Matthew Martin <[log in to unmask]>
      Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 10:29:57 -0400