Conlang Mailing List – July 2011, week 5

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:

• "Conlanging" to unstick your brain (4 messages)
• </lurk>Ergativity and Active-Stative Contrasts
• ablaut diachronics (5 messages)
• Are contronyms necessarily a defect in a conlang? (7 messages)
• Bêsel asa Êm (was: ablaut diachronics) (2 messages)
• Ceqli Lesson Seven
• Conlang fans vs. conworld fans (was: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction) (3 messages)
• Conlanger Labor Day Get Together (Philadelphia area) (4 messages)
• Derivation of Austronesian-Type Alignment
• Exolanging (was: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction)
• fate of topic markers (2 messages)
• Gnoli triangle with color (4 messages)
• Going on holidays... again!
• Is Kēlen cyan or green? (5 messages)
• Is Kēlen cyan or green? (was: revisit ing the artlang/engelang distinction) (2 messages)
• Is Kēlen cyan or green? (was: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction) (2 messages)
• Loglan as an auxlang (was: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction)
• Mixed writing system using Roman alphabet (2 messages)
• Natlang loglangs? (3 messages)
• Natlanginess of Esperanto (was: Is KÄ“ len cyan or green?)
• Natlanginess of Esperanto (was: Is Kē len cyan or green?) (3 messages)
• Natlanginess of Esperanto (was: Is Kēlen cyan or green?)
• Non-Static Orthography (3 messages)
• Optimum Language (was: Exolanging was: revisiting the artlang...) (13 messages)
• reversed agreement (6 messages)
• reversed agreement: a pseudohistorical approach (via Alex Fink)
• revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (6 messages)
• revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (26 messages)
• the Shwa script (14 messages)
• Translation Challenge: Reading and Writing
• Translations please: "Are you a conlanger?" (2 messages)

1. "Conlanging" to unstick your brain
   • "Conlanging" to unstick your brain (28 lines)
     From: Krista Casada <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: "Conlanging" to unstick your brain (31 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: "Conlanging" to unstick your brain (42 lines)
     From: Michael Everson <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: "Conlanging" to unstick your brain (49 lines)
     From: Sam Stutter <[log in to unmask]>

2. </lurk>Ergativity and Active-Stative Contrasts
   • Re: </lurk>Ergativity and Active-Stative Contrasts (55 lines)
     From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>

3. ablaut diachronics
   • Re: ablaut diachronics (53 lines)
     From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: ablaut diachronics (36 lines)
     From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: ablaut diachronics (92 lines)
     From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: ablaut diachronics (120 lines)
     From: Matthew Boutilier <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: ablaut diachronics (41 lines)
     From: neo gu <[log in to unmask]>

4. Are contronyms necessarily a defect in a conlang?
   • Are contronyms necessarily a defect in a conlang? (38 lines)
     From: Matthew Martin <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: Are contronyms necessarily a defect in a conlang? (39 lines)
     From: Roman Rausch <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: Are contronyms necessarily a defect in a conlang? (39 lines)
     From: Matthew Martin <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: Are contronyms necessarily a defect in a conlang? (52 lines)
     From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: Are contronyms necessarily a defect in a conlang? (41 lines)
     From: Roman Rausch <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: Are contronyms necessarily a defect in a conlang? (47 lines)
     From: Matthew Martin <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: Are contronyms necessarily a defect in a conlang? (86 lines)
     From: Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]>

5. Bêsel asa Êm (was: ablaut diachronics)
   • Bêsel asa Êm (was: ablaut diachronics) (89 lines)
     From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: Bêsel asa Êm (was: ablaut diachronics) (97 lines)
     From: Matthew Boutilier <[log in to unmask]>

6. Ceqli Lesson Seven
   • Ceqli Lesson Seven (21 lines)
     From: Rex May <[log in to unmask]>

7. Conlang fans vs. conworld fans (was: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction)
   • Conlang fans vs. conworld fans (was: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction) (151 lines)
     From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: Conlang fans vs. conworld fans (was: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction) (172 lines)
     From: Cosman246 <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: Conlang fans vs. conworld fans (was: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction) (91 lines)
     From: Dirk Elzinga <[log in to unmask]>

8. Conlanger Labor Day Get Together (Philadelphia area)
   • Conlanger Labor Day Get Together (Philadelphia area) (26 lines)
     From: Glorious Waffle <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: Conlanger Labor Day Get Together (Philadelphia area) (41 lines)
     From: Mia Harper (Soderquist) <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: Conlanger Labor Day Get Together (Philadelphia area) (35 lines)
     From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
   • Re: Conlanger Labor Day Get Together (Philadelphia area) (45 lines)
     From: Leland Kusmer <[log in to unmask]>

9. Derivation of Austronesian-Type Alignment
   • Re: Derivation of Austronesian-Type Alignment (68 lines)
     From: Galen Buttitta <[log in to unmask]>

10. Exolanging (was: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction)
    • Exolanging (was: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction) (185 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>

11. fate of topic markers
    • Re: fate of topic markers (66 lines)
      From: Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: fate of topic markers (44 lines)
      From: David McCann <[log in to unmask]>

12. Gnoli triangle with color
    • Re: Gnoli triangle with color (78 lines)
      From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Gnoli triangle with color (120 lines)
      From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Gnoli triangle with color (45 lines)
      From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Gnoli triangle with color (55 lines)
      From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>

13. Going on holidays... again!
    • Going on holidays... again! (34 lines)
      From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[log in to unmask]>

14. Is Kēlen cyan or green?
    • Re: Is Kēlen cyan or green? (103 lines)
      From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Is Kēlen cyan or green? (131 lines)
      From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Is Kēlen cyan or green? (107 lines)
      From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Is Kēlen cyan or green? (94 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Is Kēlen cyan or green? (81 lines)
      From: Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]>

15. Is Kēlen cyan or green? (was: revisit ing the artlang/engelang distinction)
    • Re: Is Kēlen cyan or green? (was: revisit ing the artlang/engelang distinction) (59 lines)
      From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Is Kēlen cyan or green? (was: revisit ing the artlang/engelang distinction) (78 lines)
      From: Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]>

16. Is Kēlen cyan or green? (was: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction)
    • Is Kēlen cyan or green? (was: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction) (122 lines)
      From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Is Kēlen cyan or green? (was: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction) (156 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>

17. Loglan as an auxlang (was: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction)
    • Loglan as an auxlang (was: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction) (89 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>

18. Mixed writing system using Roman alphabet
    • Mixed writing system using Roman alphabet (113 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Mixed writing system using Roman alphabet (57 lines)
      From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>

19. Natlang loglangs?
    • Re: Natlang loglangs? (60 lines)
      From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Natlang loglangs? (64 lines)
      From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Natlang loglangs? (48 lines)
      From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>

20. Natlanginess of Esperanto (was: Is KÄ“ len cyan or green?)
    • Re: Natlanginess of Esperanto (was: Is KÄ“ len cyan or green?) (82 lines)
      From: neo gu <[log in to unmask]>

21. Natlanginess of Esperanto (was: Is Kē len cyan or green?)
    • Re: Natlanginess of Esperanto (was: Is Kē len cyan or green?) (68 lines)
      From: Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Natlanginess of Esperanto (was: Is Kē len cyan or green?) (78 lines)
      From: Dirk Elzinga <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Natlanginess of Esperanto (was: Is Kē len cyan or green?) (48 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>

22. Natlanginess of Esperanto (was: Is Kēlen cyan or green?)
    • Natlanginess of Esperanto (was: Is Kēlen cyan or green?) (121 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>

23. Non-Static Orthography
    • Non-Static Orthography (142 lines)
      From: Virginia Keys <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Non-Static Orthography (41 lines)
      From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Non-Static Orthography (41 lines)
      From: Virginia Keys <[log in to unmask]>

24. Optimum Language (was: Exolanging was: revisiting the artlang...)
    • Re: Optimum Language (was: Exolanging was: revisiting the artlang...) (69 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Optimum Language (was: Exolanging was: revisiting the artlang...) (83 lines)
      From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Optimum Language (was: Exolanging was: revisiting the artlang...) (47 lines)
      From: Matthew Martin <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Optimum Language (was: Exolanging was: revisiting the artlang...) (126 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Optimum Language (was: Exolanging was: revisiting the artlang...) (104 lines)
      From: Nikolay Ivankov <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Optimum Language (was: Exolanging was: revisiting the artlang...) (54 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Optimum Language (was: Exolanging was: revisiting the artlang...) (64 lines)
      From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Optimum Language (was: Exolanging was: revisiting the artlang...) (40 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Optimum Language (was: Exolanging was: revisiting the artlang...) (49 lines)
      From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Optimum Language (was: Exolanging was: revisiting the artlang...) (78 lines)
      From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Optimum Language (was: Exolanging was: revisiting the artlang...) (48 lines)
      From: Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Optimum Language (was: Exolanging was: revisiting the artlang...) (58 lines)
      From: MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Optimum Language (was: Exolanging was: revisiting the artlang...) (48 lines)
      From: Matthew Martin <[log in to unmask]>

25. reversed agreement
    • reversed agreement (44 lines)
      From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: reversed agreement (56 lines)
      From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: reversed agreement (76 lines)
      From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: reversed agreement (64 lines)
      From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: reversed agreement (44 lines)
      From: Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: reversed agreement (43 lines)
      From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>

26. reversed agreement: a pseudohistorical approach (via Alex Fink)
    • reversed agreement: a pseudohistorical approach (via Alex Fink) (178 lines)
      From: Nikolay Ivankov <[log in to unmask]>

27. revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (171 lines)
      From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (200 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (201 lines)
      From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (85 lines)
      From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (73 lines)
      From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (104 lines)
      From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>

28. revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (178 lines)
      From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (97 lines)
      From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (51 lines)
      From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (182 lines)
      From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (76 lines)
      From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (105 lines)
      From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (115 lines)
      From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (97 lines)
      From: Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (41 lines)
      From: Amanda Babcock Furrow <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (150 lines)
      From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (123 lines)
      From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (123 lines)
      From: Sam Stutter <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (66 lines)
      From: Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (100 lines)
      From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (67 lines)
      From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (52 lines)
      From: Garth Wallace <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (67 lines)
      From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (160 lines)
      From: Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (89 lines)
      From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (147 lines)
      From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (72 lines)
      From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (99 lines)
      From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (156 lines)
      From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (106 lines)
      From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (209 lines)
      From: Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: revisiting the artlang/engelang distinction (was: Re: van Steenbergen Hexagon (98 lines)
      From: David Peterson <[log in to unmask]>

29. the Shwa script
    • Re: the Shwa script (109 lines)
      From: R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: the Shwa script (200 lines)
      From: Peter Cyrus <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: the Shwa script (79 lines)
      From: Paul Roser <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: the Shwa script (150 lines)
      From: Peter Cyrus <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: the Shwa script (167 lines)
      From: Peter Cyrus <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: the Shwa script (61 lines)
      From: Paul Roser <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: the Shwa script (80 lines)
      From: Peter Cyrus <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: the Shwa script (163 lines)
      From: Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: the Shwa script (193 lines)
      From: Peter Cyrus <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: the Shwa script (56 lines)
      From: Paul Roser <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: the Shwa script (76 lines)
      From: Peter Cyrus <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: the Shwa script (70 lines)
      From: And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: the Shwa script (80 lines)
      From: Peter Cyrus <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: the Shwa script (39 lines)
      From: Paul Roser <[log in to unmask]>

30. Translation Challenge: Reading and Writing
    • Re: Translation Challenge: Reading and Writing (140 lines)
      From: Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]>

31. Translations please: "Are you a conlanger?"
    • Re: Translations please: "Are you a conlanger?" (46 lines)
      From: John Q <[log in to unmask]>
    • Re: Translations please: "Are you a conlanger?" (39 lines)
      From: Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>