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)
30-Day Conlang
Re: 30-Day Conlang
(34 lines)
From:
Miles Forster <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: 30-Day Conlang
(47 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
30-Day Conlang : day three
30-Day Conlang : day three
(72 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
30-Day conlang: Day Five
30-Day conlang: Day Five
(44 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: 30-Day conlang: Day Five
(50 lines)
From:
Larry Sulky <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: 30-Day conlang: Day Five
(64 lines)
From:
Patrick Dunn <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: 30-Day conlang: Day Five
(52 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: 30-Day conlang: Day Five
(38 lines)
From:
Parker Glynn-Adey <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: 30-Day conlang: Day Five
(60 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: 30-Day conlang: Day Five
(33 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: 30-Day conlang: Day Five
(29 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
30-Day Conlang: Day Seven
30-Day Conlang: Day Seven
(37 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: 30-Day Conlang: Day Seven
(58 lines)
From:
Roger Mills <
[log in to unmask]
>
30-Day Conlang: Day Two
30-Day Conlang: Day Two
(45 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
A Good Omen?
A Good Omen?
(34 lines)
From:
kechpaja <
[log in to unmask]
>
boredom
boredom
(47 lines)
From:
Patrick Dunn <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: boredom
(69 lines)
From:
the ursprachist ursprach <
[log in to unmask]
>
Easy context free grammar parser?
Easy context free grammar parser?
(37 lines)
From:
Matthew Martin <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Easy context free grammar parser?
(38 lines)
From:
Philip Newton <
[log in to unmask]
>
Ejective distributions
Ejective distributions
(32 lines)
From:
Patrick Dunn <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Ejective distributions
(87 lines)
From:
Matthew Boutilier <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Ejective distributions
(46 lines)
From:
Wm Annis <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Ejective distributions
(39 lines)
From:
Alex Fink <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Ejective distributions
(70 lines)
From:
Matthew Boutilier <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Ejective distributions
(42 lines)
From:
Alex Fink <
[log in to unmask]
>
Fw: Help CONLANG movie get distribution!
Fw: Help CONLANG movie get distribution!
(65 lines)
From:
Ph.D. <
[log in to unmask]
>
I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(152 lines)
From:
the ursprachist ursprach <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(43 lines)
From:
Jörg Rhiemeier <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(58 lines)
From:
Samuel Stutter <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(36 lines)
From:
Garth Wallace <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(43 lines)
From:
Douglas Koller <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(34 lines)
From:
Carsten Becker <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(85 lines)
From:
the ursprachist ursprach <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(49 lines)
From:
David Peterson <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(82 lines)
From:
the ursprachist ursprach <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(103 lines)
From:
Samuel Stutter <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(101 lines)
From:
Patrick Dunn <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(138 lines)
From:
the ursprachist ursprach <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(165 lines)
From:
Patrick Dunn <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(56 lines)
From:
Lars Finsen <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(53 lines)
From:
the ursprachist ursprach <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(64 lines)
From:
Eugene Oh <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(187 lines)
From:
the ursprachist ursprach <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(93 lines)
From:
the ursprachist ursprach <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(42 lines)
From:
Alex Fink <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(78 lines)
From:
Samuel Stutter <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(75 lines)
From:
the ursprachist ursprach <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(56 lines)
From:
Patrick Dunn <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(65 lines)
From:
the ursprachist ursprach <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(47 lines)
From:
Jörg Rhiemeier <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(55 lines)
From:
the ursprachist ursprach <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(79 lines)
From:
Samuel Stutter <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(35 lines)
From:
Parker Glynn-Adey <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(82 lines)
From:
the ursprachist ursprach <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(78 lines)
From:
Lars Finsen <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(89 lines)
From:
the ursprachist ursprach <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(52 lines)
From:
Jörg Rhiemeier <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(113 lines)
From:
Patrick Dunn <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(48 lines)
From:
Lars Finsen <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(120 lines)
From:
Lars Finsen <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(44 lines)
From:
the ursprachist ursprach <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(61 lines)
From:
Lars Finsen <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(59 lines)
From:
Matthew Turnbull <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: I Ching + finnegans wake + McLuhan
(110 lines)
From:
Lars Finsen <
[log in to unmask]
>
Incorporating Romlang setting idea
Incorporating Romlang setting idea
(44 lines)
From:
Peter Bleackley <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Incorporating Romlang setting idea
(46 lines)
From:
Douglas Koller <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Incorporating Romlang setting idea
(47 lines)
From:
Eugene Oh <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Incorporating Romlang setting idea
(44 lines)
From:
And Rosta <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Incorporating Romlang setting idea
(35 lines)
From:
David McCann <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Incorporating Romlang setting idea
(60 lines)
From:
Samuel Stutter <
[log in to unmask]
>
Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang
Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang
(51 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang
(44 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang
(85 lines)
From:
Ph.D. <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang
(41 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Just For Fun: A 30-Day Conlang
(62 lines)
From:
Peter Bleackley <
[log in to unmask]
>
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa
(44 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa
(59 lines)
From:
[log in to unmask]
Re: Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa
(65 lines)
From:
Patrick Dunn <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa
(46 lines)
From:
And Rosta <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa
(65 lines)
From:
Patrick Dunn <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa
(42 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa
(38 lines)
From:
Jim Henry <
[log in to unmask]
>
META: Conlang-L FAQ
META: Conlang-L FAQ
(274 lines)
From:
Alex Fink <
[log in to unmask]
>
Naming Language for NaNoWriMo: Phonology & Orthography
Re: Naming Language for NaNoWriMo: Phonology & Orthography
(37 lines)
From:
Arthaey Angosii <
[log in to unmask]
>
The evolution of an irregular copula
The evolution of an irregular copula
(52 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
(63 lines)
From:
Matthew Turnbull <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
(42 lines)
From:
Alex Fink <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
(58 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
(72 lines)
From:
Larry Sulky <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
(41 lines)
From:
Keith Gaughan <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
(104 lines)
From:
R A Brown <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
(41 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
(79 lines)
From:
R A Brown <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
(64 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
(89 lines)
From:
Roger Mills <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: The evolution of an irregular copula
(65 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
The War to Baffle All Wars
The War to Baffle All Wars
(39 lines)
From:
Douglas Koller <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: The War to Baffle All Wars
(56 lines)
From:
Matthew Boutilier <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: The War to Baffle All Wars
(57 lines)
From:
Douglas Koller <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: The War to Baffle All Wars
(55 lines)
From:
BPJ <
[log in to unmask]
>
Two different kinds of plural?
Two different kinds of plural?
(38 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Two different kinds of plural?
(42 lines)
From:
Jim Henry <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Two different kinds of plural?
(56 lines)
From:
Gary Shannon <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Two different kinds of plural?
(44 lines)
From:
Lars Finsen <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Two different kinds of plural?
(85 lines)
From:
Douglas Koller <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Two different kinds of plural?
(50 lines)
From:
Philip Newton <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Two different kinds of plural?
(43 lines)
From:
Roman Rausch <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Two different kinds of plural?
(67 lines)
From:
Tony Harris <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Two different kinds of plural?
(48 lines)
From:
Chris Peters <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Two different kinds of plural?
(61 lines)
From:
<deinx nxtxr> <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Two different kinds of plural?
(76 lines)
From:
MorphemeAddict <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: Two different kinds of plural?
(147 lines)
From:
Matthew Boutilier <
[log in to unmask]
>
What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic?
What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic?
(40 lines)
From:
Matthew Martin <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic?
(58 lines)
From:
Larry Sulky <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic?
(42 lines)
From:
Philip Newton <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic?
(36 lines)
From:
Philip Newton <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic?
(34 lines)
From:
Matthew Martin <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic?
(40 lines)
From:
Amanda Babcock Furrow <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic?
(56 lines)
From:
Patrick Dunn <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic?
(59 lines)
From:
Matthew Turnbull <
[log in to unmask]
>
Re: What kind of minimal pairs are most problematic?
(48 lines)
From:
Jim Henry <
[log in to unmask]
>
Back to the main CONLANG page
LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
![[Conlang Flag]](http://www.theiling.de/00/conflag_25gif.gif){kind=small}
Conlang Mailing List – November 2010, week 1
Conlang Mailing List – November 2010, week 1
