LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for AUXLANG Archives


AUXLANG Archives

AUXLANG Archives


AUXLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

AUXLANG Home

AUXLANG Home

AUXLANG  May 2010, Week 4

AUXLANG May 2010, Week 4

Subject:

Re: Idiom Neutral revival

From:

steve rice <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

International Auxiliary Languages <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 23 May 2010 11:46:06 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (401 lines)

--- In [log in to unmask], Larry Sulky <larrysulky@...> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Stephen L. Rice <ansric@...> wrote:
> 
> > --- In [log in to unmask], Larry Sulky <larrysulky@> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM, steve rice <ansric@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- On Sat, 5/22/10, Larry Sulky <larrysulky@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It generally does work better in such cases to analyze the genders as
> > > > feminine and non-feminine (with an added "inanimate" category in this
> > case).
> > > > And yes, that does give females a special position: males are generic,
> > while
> > > > females are special.
> > > >
> > > Better? Really? Can we have some evidence, please?
> >
> > In science, including linguistics, there is generally a preference for
> > those
> > theories that are simple, powerful, and elegant. Such an analysis of the IN
> > pronominal system (3rd person) would be
> >
> > inanimate/conceptual: it
> > animate-feminine: ila
> > animate-non-feminine: il
> >
> > This disposes simply of the fact that "il" covers males and unspecified
> > animates. Note that the normal plural is the generic "ili": "ilai" exists
> > only in
> > those comparatively rare cases when it's useful to specify an all-female
> > group.
> > It would give better symmetry to have a dedicated masculine pronoun as well
> > as a generic one, but it's not a fatal issue--indeed, it has no functional
> > import
> > at all.
> >
> But Steve, you first say, "It generally does work better in such cases to
> analyze the genders as feminine and non-feminine (with an added "inanimate"
> category in this case)." Then you say, "It would give better symmetry to
> have a dedicated masculine pronoun as well as a generic one". Then you
> conclude that it's not a fatal issue: "indeed, it has no functional import
> at all." So is the feminine/non-feminine split better than the
> feminine/masculine/epicene split, or worse, or neither?

You're conflating items that are at best similar. There is a difference between the method used in analyzing something and the thing itself. It's possible to analyze (for example) Spanish gender in terms of Latin grammatical m/f/n or English natural m/f/n. I believe that f/n-f (and the quasi-neuter) is a better approach both to Spanish gender and the gender system implicit in IN. Analysis is descriptive, no prescriptive, so I was merely explaining the existing system, not critiquing it.

As to a critique of the system, I am not opposed to generic forms and pronouns, and as I said, your proposal would add symmetry to the system. But in my opinion it isn't a necessary symmetry: IN can survive without it. I also consider unnecessary changes harmful.

Now, if you're determined to implement such a change, you can do what some Eists have done: just use your idea and we'll see whether it catches on. So far ?ri hasn't, but the generic use of -isto has. But you cannot impose it by fiat: this isn't your language; you have not created it. You're just one of the boys--or persons, whatever.

> The thing that's startling about IN is that its animate nouns do follow a
> feminine/masculine/epicene split. It's the 3rd person pronouns that are the
> exception. Why?
> 
Probably because they just didn't care. It likely seemed a trivial matter to them--it actually does to me, too, but I'm sufficiently obsessive-compulsive that I prefer symmetry even when it's trivial.
 
> > > And if the IN scheme is better, then while we're busy according special
> > > pronouns to the traditionally oppressed, and congratulating ourselves for
> > > it, I'd like to propose the pronoun "ilom" for black people, to make up
> > in
> > > some small way for the disenfranchisement they have experienced over the
> > > centuries. That way we can have "il" for the generic and for the presumed
> > > default of white males, and we can justly exalt females and black people.
> > > There are other pronouns that could be invented (for homosexuals,
> > perhaps?)
> > > but I'll leave that as an exercise for the readers. I'm sure we standard
> > > generic default white men can withstand yet another such insult.
> >
> > You got quite a lot of mileage out of misreading that remark of mine. If
> > you will
> > count to a zillion in the language of your choice and re-read my post, you
> > will
> > likely find that I was not claiming that IN is superior; I merely observed
> > that
> > there is a better way of analyzing the pronoun system than the traditional
> > m/f/
> > n.
> 
> 
> You said the f/n system is better and "yes, that does give females a special
> position: males are generic, while females are special". So although I was
> intentionally over the top, I don't think I misread what you wrote.

What I wrote was

It generally does work better in such cases to analyze the genders as feminine and non-feminine

I was referring to analysis of the existing system, not to a value judgment, so yes, you did misread what I wrote. (I bet you didn't count to a zillion, either, so you cede the moral high ground.) As to the comparative "specialness" of women, that was simply to say that

No females were harmed in the use of this auxlang

i.e., it doesn't really matter.
 
> > In fact, feminine/non-feminine works quite well for Romance languages in
> > general; its descriptive and explanatory power are far superior to the
> > older
> > view.
> 
> What is the older view that you refer to? m/f/n? If so, why is f/n far
> superior to that?

Because if you use the traditional m/f analysis (most Romance languages don't have an actual neuter), you have to explain some exceptions that don't arise under f/n-f, such as the generic use of n-f. It's simpler and more elegant.
> 
> > > > "[I]t's worked for Esperanto!" It sure has; Eo has far and away more
> > users
> > > > and a larger corpus than (say) Ido, which does the sex-neutral bit.
> > >
> > > I always suspected it was the sex-neutrality that doomed Ido!
> >
> > And you were right. But seriously, the point is that what you seem to
> > consider
> > a fatal flaw has not doomed Eo; nor has its absence made Ido victorious.
> 
> It isn't a fatal flaw, but it is an aggravating one especially in light of
> the fact that IN is m/f/n, except for pronouns.
> 
I agree. But I don't think it's a good idea to introduce a change (especially by fiat, which is what you're advocating) unless it eliminates a fatal flaw.
 
> > These considerations lead me to suppose that it's a fairly minor issue.
> > (You
> > might recall, however, that I have consistently said that Ido's personal
> > pronoun system is the best. I'm not opposed to it.)
> 
> I didn't recall that. And it seems to contradict the statement you made at
> the outset, that f/n is better (see above).

Yet again, f/n-f is a better analytical approach to certain pre-existing systems; I do not advocate it as a gender system for auxlangs. 

As to remarks about Ido's pronoun system:

Dec 22, 2004: (Ido's pronoun system, on the other hand, is
generally better.) http://listserv.brown.edu/?A2=ind0412D&L=AUXLANG&P=R2

June 13, 2006: Ido's pronoun system is an improvement... http://listserv.brown.edu/?A2=ind0606B&L=AUXLANG&P=R9838

Sept 13, 2009: I've said before that Ido has the best personal pronoun system--Novial's is a not-very-close second. http://listserv.brown.edu/?A2=ind0909B&L=AUXLANG&P=R11411

Dec 17, 2009: one of the advantages of Ido's pronoun system is that non-personal pronouns (e.g., demonstratives) can be made masculine or feminine, which in narratives can be very useful. http://listserv.brown.edu/?A2=ind0912C&L=AUXLANG&P=R3101
> 
> > > > There are whiners; there always are.
> > >
> > > Oh, okay. I'm just whining. Silly me... forget I said anything or that my
> > > concerns might have any merit.
> >
> > Gladly. Remember that I initially mentioned an actual functional issue: the
> > final
> > consonant clusters are hard to pronounce. I suggested a solution (at this
> > point I would say change the plural to -s and append -i to final consonants
> > as
> > needed), but I did so as a theoretical matter: if I could go back in time,
> > I
> > would suggest such a thing. But I oppose needless reforms, and it's
> > possible
> > that the final consonant clusters will not prove insuperable. I am open to
> > disproof.
> >
> And I did much the same -- I made a suggestion to Dave. My suggestion would
> involve adding two words to the vocabulary of IN in a "contemporary usage"
> note before IN gains any significant number of users. Clearly, Dave himself
> is not averse to adjusting the vocabulary where he felt it was useful to do
> so and where it could be done easily, for he has done so.

Some worthwhile distinctions:

1. I didn't insist on the change I suggested--in fact, had it been taken seriously, I would have argued against it. Unnecessary change is bad.

2. I had/have the impression that you actually did/do want your idea implemented.

3. Dave didn't change anything. He exercised censorship, which perhaps wasn't very nice, but anyone who's determined to reclaim the lost words can do so just by going through the dictionaries at Google. Dave couldn't prevent that, and I doubt he would try.
> 
> > > I must learn to use that technique: marginalise the opponent and you
> > > marginalise the opponent's argument.
> >
> > The opponent's argument is self-marginalizing: IN can function just fine
> > without the tweak.
> 
> But you can say that without labeling me. The entire tone of your argument,
> and the tone of my response, was affected by that.

I admit that I take practically all of these discussions as jokes, and I generally consider the participants educational toys. From a strict theological standpoint that's not right, of course: all human beings should be taken seriously, even when we're being goofy. So I do apologize for not respecting your God-given dignity.

But I'll still give you a wedgie when you aren't looking. 
> 
> > I actually wish it had a pronoun system closer to Ido's,
> 
> See above.

See above, yourself. 
> 
> > in English, the generic use of the "male" pronoun is one of the only
> > remnants of
> > grammatical gender in a system that otherwise pretty much lacks it. The
> > problem is that in terms of what a linguist would call correctness,
> > something is
> > correct if it feels right LINGUISTICALLY and wrong if it feels wrong
> > LINGUISTICALLY. How it makes one feel in terms of political correctness is
> > neither here nor there.
> 
> Except, I claim, when trying to bring an almost unknown auxlang to the
> attention of a 21st century public that is more aware of such social issues
> than it is aware of what a linguist would consider correct.

Which is a different matter than analyzing and critiquing English usage, a topic that had drifted in somehow.

I would suggest that people who encounter oddities (even ones they consider unpleasant) in natlangs usually either accept them or go elsewhere.

Amazing Bible Quotation!
Hey, it's Sunday; I get to do this:

When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. (James 4:11b)

That works for languages, too. People who are busy criticizing a language aren't learning it, and their contribution to it will be negative. Real auxlangers will accept an auxlang as it is without imposing their value judgments on it.
> 
> > A feminine pronoun (note the lack of quotes) requires a
> > feminine referent, the only exception being the personifying sense (e.g.,
> > calling
> > a ship "she"). The personifying function of the feminine is a special
> > quality it
> > possesses, just as the non-feminine possesses the quality of generic use. I
> > no
> > more expect a ship to be female than I expect a generic "he" to be male.
> >
> But, I claim, most English speakers nowadays do expect a generic "he" to be
> male, and will avoid its use if the referent is not male.

Then it isn't "generic," is it? This is another case where L1 users are increasingly making L2 errors: we no longer understand our own language.

The fact that
> Romance language speakers do not do that (yet?) is an unconvincing argument
> for the f/n system's use in IN.

I made no such argument. As a matter of ANALYSIS, I explained how a phenomenon could be accounted for. Attempting to understand is not attempting to propagandize. 
> 
> > But then, I'm literate.
> 
> The ad hominem (and this is one, by implication) does not strengthen your
> position.
> 
Your inability to spot a joke doesn't strengthen yours. 
> >
> > > However,
> > > >
> > > > 1. As noted, the current arrangement doesn't really insult anybody,
> > except
> > > > perhaps men, and we're used to it.
> > >
> > > Oh, my goodness. Us poor men! How we've suffered!
> > >
> > > I just love how it's always men who insist that such arrangements don't
> > > insult anybody.
> >
> > "Always"? That seems reckless. I could mention some women (writers, yet!)
> > who would agree with me.
> 
> I'm sure you could. I could find more who don't.

Irrelevant: you said it "always" holds. A single counter-example is sufficient disproof of your position, and you have just acknowledged that I can disprove your claim. 
> 
> > Oh, wait, there's a new episode of "Women
> > Behaving Badly" coming on! What a hoot!
> 
> I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
> 
There was a TV show called "Men Behaving Badly" at one point; the title sums up the stereotypical portrayal of men in media. It is common to portray men in ways that would not be accepted if applied to women. I dislike bigotry; your mileage may vary.
> > >
> > > > 2. The gender-neutral idea is not natural for a lot of people.
> > >
> > > LFN's generic "el" is a major mistake; if they had a more normal
> > > > system--even one like Ido's--they would likely do better.
> > >
> > > So have gender-specificity! A specific pronoun for females, AND a
> > specific
> > > pronoun for males, plus a gender-neutral one for when it doesn't matter.
> > >
> > I would support that. A large part of the problem is that they try to get
> > by on
> > only one 3s pronoun, but they lack the infrastructure, so to speak, of
> > languages that could actually pull that off.
> 
> But IN does not lack the infrastructure. It's built all around that
> structure. The 3s pronoun scheme is the one deviation.

Agreed again, but (again) unnecessary changes are bad.
> 
> > Again, I am not hostile to having a
> > dedicated generic pronoun; I just don't see the need to reverse-engineer
> > one
> > into being.
> >
> Just to be clear, I'm actually urging the reverse-engineering of a dedicated
> masculine pronoun, "ilo" (and its seldom-to-be-used plural, "iloi"), exactly
> parallel with how IN handles all masculine nouns. And if Dave can omit from
> his IN pages some vocabulary, surely he can add two words in a special note.

His omissions do not change the language; your proposed additions would. 
> 
> > > > And bear in mind how false a simplistic Whorfian view can be: Japanese
> > does
> > > > not have gender as such, but has the society that generated and used it
> > been
> > > > particularly fair to women?
> >
> > An eloquent silence, there...
> >
> 
> I didn't realise I was required to respond to every paragraph.

If you leave it in, I somewhat expect it, yes.
 
> You're suggesting that because Japanese society is strongly male-dominated
> yet the language has only a neuter 3s pronoun, it would not be useful for IN
> 3s pronouns to follow the pattern of other nouns in the language? Or
> something like that?
> 
No, I'm just saying that there's no correlation (much less a causal link) between gender neutrality in pronouns and the treatment of women. The proposed change is not only linguistically unnecessary but generally pointless.
> > > >
> > Count to a zillion again, and consider that I am not the Voice of Idiom
> > Neutral.
> > Dave is closer to that, and even he doesn't quite qualify.
> 
> I rather think he does qualify. At least Co-Voice.
> 
I hope he puts that on his business cards.
 
> > But history shows that once the tweakers win even a minor victory, the
> > result
> > for the language tends to be the death of a thousand tweaks.
> >
> The tweakers have already won a minor victory: Dave has excised some
> vocabulary from his page. It's his page. I urge him to add a "contemporary
> usage note".

Not a tweak. All writers and composers must choose what to include and exclude. Dave has no doubt left out a number of words he hasn't heard of, too, and that's not a change either.
 
> I don't disagree that tweaking is generally undesirable once a language has
> gained some kind of foothold. When it is still nascent is the time to clean
> up those things that can be cleaned up easily. Dave has declined to change
> the consonant endings -- it's too big a change. Adding two words for
> self-consistency? That's a very small change, and it's early days.

But it means that he couldn't claim to be reviving IN: he would be promoting New and Improved IN. And once he accepts one change, why not another? History tells us what happens next.

Some novelties are inevitable: I find no reference to "computers" or "Internet," and such words are needed. But different lexical classes have different tolerances for change: it's easier to add a noun than an article. I've seen a number of proposals for a dedicated generic pronoun in English, but not one has succeeded.
> 
> > Can IN function without this change? Evidently. Can it attract a female
> > adherent without this change? It has already done so.
> 
> I was hoping for more than one female adherent.
> 
I'm hoping for more than a handful of adherents regardless of sex, so we're both disappointed--at least so far. I'm surprised any auxlang at this stage would have a female adherent; they're usually late adopters unless they created the language or are at least related to the creator.

> > The proposed change is
> > thus unnecessary, and unnecessary changes, like unnecessary surgery, should
> > be avoided.
> >
> The change is unnecessary because IN has gained one female adherent? The f/n
> 3s split has also cost IN one adherent. Is it costing others?
> 
No. It hasn't even cost it one. Anyone who would abandon an auxlang over such a trivial issue would eventually have found something else to quibble over. This is the more obvious considering that you continue to misconstrue my remarks about analysis as constituting advocacy. You're looking for an excuse to reject IN, and whoever seeks, finds.

If IN had just been developed, I would object to the pronoun system, and I would try to convince the creator to amend it. But it's too late to do that with IN: we take it or leave it pretty much as we find it.
> 
> Would admitting of a contemporary usage that supports m/f/n 3s, in parallel
> with IN's m/f/n animate nouns, be more likely to gain or to lose users
> overall? I believe the former. You believe that this would trigger a domino
> effect of tweaking that would eventually lose users. Correct?
> 
I doubt it would have any significant effect. As a similar matter, I have said that if certain relatively minor changes were made to Eo, it might double its numbers--perhaps from the legendary two million to four million. Would that make a big difference? Not actually. And the difference this change would make would be even smaller, I think.

Steve
> > adherent without this change? It has already done so.
> 
> I was hoping for more than one female adherent.
> 
I'm hoping for more than a handful of adherents regardless of sex, so we're both disappointed--at least so far. I'm surprised any auxlang at this stage would have a female adherent; they're usually late adopters unless they created the language or are at least related to the creator.

> > The proposed change is
> > thus unnecessary, and unnecessary changes, like unnecessary surgery, should
> > be avoided.
> >
> The change is unnecessary because IN has gained one female adherent? The f/n
> 3s split has also cost IN one adherent. Is it costing others?
> 
No. It hasn't even cost it one. Anyone who would abandon an auxlang over such a trivial issue would eventually have found something else to quibble over. This is the more obvious considering that you continue to misconstrue my remarks about analysis as constituting advocacy. You're looking for an excuse to reject IN, and whoever seeks, finds.

If IN had just been developed, I would object to the pronoun system, and I would try to convince the creator to amend it. But it's too late to do that with IN: we take it or leave it pretty much as we find it.
> 
> Would admitting of a contemporary usage that supports m/f/n 3s, in parallel
> with IN's m/f/n animate nouns, be more likely to gain or to lose users
> overall? I believe the former. You believe that this would trigger a domino
> effect of tweaking that would eventually lose users. Correct?
> 
I doubt it would have any significant effect. As a similar matter, I have said that if certain relatively minor changes were made to Eo, it might double its numbers--perhaps from the legendary two million to four million. Would that make a big difference? Not actually. And the difference this change would make would be even smaller, I think.

Steve


      

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019, Week 4
August 2019, Week 3
August 2019, Week 2
July 2019, Week 3
July 2019, Week 2
July 2019, Week 1
June 2019, Week 4
June 2019, Week 3
June 2019, Week 1
May 2019, Week 1
April 2019, Week 4
April 2019, Week 3
March 2019, Week 5
March 2019, Week 4
February 2019, Week 3
February 2019, Week 1
January 2019, Week 5
January 2019, Week 2
October 2018, Week 2
October 2018, Week 1
September 2018, Week 3
September 2018, Week 2
August 2018, Week 5
August 2018, Week 4
August 2018, Week 3
August 2018, Week 2
July 2018, Week 4
July 2018, Week 1
June 2018, Week 4
June 2018, Week 3
June 2018, Week 2
June 2018, Week 1
May 2018, Week 3
April 2018, Week 4
April 2018, Week 3
April 2018, Week 2
March 2018, Week 4
February 2018, Week 3
February 2018, Week 1
January 2018, Week 4
January 2018, Week 3
January 2018, Week 1
December 2017, Week 5
December 2017, Week 4
December 2017, Week 2
November 2017, Week 3
November 2017, Week 2
November 2017, Week 1
October 2017, Week 5
October 2017, Week 4
October 2017, Week 3
October 2017, Week 1
September 2017, Week 5
August 2017, Week 5
August 2017, Week 4
August 2017, Week 3
August 2017, Week 2
August 2017, Week 1
July 2017, Week 4
July 2017, Week 2
July 2017, Week 1
June 2017, Week 3
June 2017, Week 1
May 2017, Week 5
May 2017, Week 4
May 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 2
May 2017, Week 1
April 2017, Week 4
April 2017, Week 3
April 2017, Week 2
April 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 4
March 2017, Week 3
March 2017, Week 2
March 2017, Week 1
February 2017, Week 4
February 2017, Week 3
February 2017, Week 2
February 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 5
January 2017, Week 4
January 2017, Week 3
January 2017, Week 2
January 2017, Week 1
December 2016, Week 5
December 2016, Week 4
December 2016, Week 3
December 2016, Week 2
December 2016, Week 1
November 2016, Week 5
November 2016, Week 4
November 2016, Week 3
November 2016, Week 2
November 2016, Week 1
October 2016, Week 5
October 2016, Week 3
October 2016, Week 2
October 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 2
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 3
August 2016, Week 2
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 5
July 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 3
July 2016, Week 2
July 2016, Week 1
June 2016, Week 5
June 2016, Week 4
June 2016, Week 3
June 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
May 2016, Week 5
May 2016, Week 4
May 2016, Week 3
May 2016, Week 2
May 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 5
April 2016, Week 4
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 5
March 2016, Week 3
March 2016, Week 2
March 2016, Week 1
February 2016, Week 5
February 2016, Week 4
February 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 2
February 2016, Week 1
January 2016, Week 5
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
January 2016, Week 2
January 2016, Week 1
December 2015, Week 5
December 2015, Week 4
December 2015, Week 3
December 2015, Week 2
December 2015, Week 1
November 2015, Week 4
November 2015, Week 3
November 2015, Week 2
November 2015, Week 1
October 2015, Week 5
October 2015, Week 4
October 2015, Week 3
October 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 4
September 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 1
August 2015, Week 5
August 2015, Week 4
August 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 2
August 2015, Week 1
July 2015, Week 4
July 2015, Week 3
July 2015, Week 2
July 2015, Week 1
June 2015, Week 5
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 5
May 2015, Week 3
May 2015, Week 2
May 2015, Week 1
April 2015, Week 5
April 2015, Week 4
April 2015, Week 3
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 4
March 2015, Week 3
March 2015, Week 2
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 3
February 2015, Week 2
February 2015, Week 1
January 2015, Week 5
January 2015, Week 4
January 2015, Week 3
January 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 1
December 2014, Week 5
December 2014, Week 4
December 2014, Week 3
December 2014, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 5
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 3
November 2014, Week 2
November 2014, Week 1
October 2014, Week 5
October 2014, Week 4
October 2014, Week 3
October 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 1
September 2014, Week 5
September 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 3
September 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 5
August 2014, Week 4
August 2014, Week 3
August 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 1
July 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 4
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
June 2014, Week 5
June 2014, Week 4
June 2014, Week 3
June 2014, Week 2
June 2014, Week 1
May 2014, Week 5
May 2014, Week 4
May 2014, Week 2
May 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 2
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 5
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 5
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 5
November 2013, Week 4
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 4
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
October 2013, Week 1
September 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 5
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 5
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 5
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 3
October 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 5
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 2
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 5
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 5
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 4
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 4
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 5
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 3
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 5
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 5
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 5
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 5
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
July 2008, Week 1
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 5
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007, Week 5
December 2007, Week 4
December 2007, Week 3
December 2007, Week 2
December 2007, Week 1
November 2007, Week 5
November 2007, Week 4
November 2007, Week 3
November 2007, Week 2
November 2007, Week 1
October 2007, Week 5
October 2007, Week 4
October 2007, Week 3
October 2007, Week 2
October 2007, Week 1
September 2007, Week 5
September 2007, Week 4
September 2007, Week 3
September 2007, Week 2
September 2007, Week 1
August 2007, Week 5
August 2007, Week 4
August 2007, Week 3
August 2007, Week 2
August 2007, Week 1
July 2007, Week 5
July 2007, Week 4
July 2007, Week 3
July 2007, Week 2
July 2007, Week 1
June 2007, Week 5
June 2007, Week 4
June 2007, Week 3
June 2007, Week 2
June 2007, Week 1
May 2007, Week 5
May 2007, Week 4
May 2007, Week 3
May 2007, Week 2
May 2007, Week 1
April 2007, Week 5
April 2007, Week 4
April 2007, Week 3
April 2007, Week 2
April 2007, Week 1
March 2007, Week 5
March 2007, Week 4
March 2007, Week 3
March 2007, Week 2
March 2007, Week 1
February 2007, Week 4
February 2007, Week 3
February 2007, Week 2
February 2007, Week 1
January 2007, Week 5
January 2007, Week 4
January 2007, Week 3
January 2007, Week 2
January 2007, Week 1
December 2006, Week 5
December 2006, Week 4
December 2006, Week 3
December 2006, Week 2
December 2006, Week 1
November 2006, Week 5
November 2006, Week 4
November 2006, Week 3
November 2006, Week 2
November 2006, Week 1
October 2006, Week 5
October 2006, Week 4
October 2006, Week 3
October 2006, Week 2
October 2006, Week 1
September 2006, Week 5
September 2006, Week 4
September 2006, Week 3
September 2006, Week 2
September 2006, Week 1
August 2006, Week 5
August 2006, Week 4
August 2006, Week 3
August 2006, Week 2
August 2006, Week 1
July 2006, Week 5
July 2006, Week 4
July 2006, Week 3
July 2006, Week 2
July 2006, Week 1
June 2006, Week 5
June 2006, Week 4
June 2006, Week 3
June 2006, Week 2
June 2006, Week 1
May 2006, Week 5
May 2006, Week 4
May 2006, Week 3
May 2006, Week 2
May 2006, Week 1
April 2006, Week 5
April 2006, Week 4
April 2006, Week 3
April 2006, Week 2
April 2006, Week 1
March 2006, Week 5
March 2006, Week 4
March 2006, Week 3
March 2006, Week 2
March 2006, Week 1
February 2006, Week 4
February 2006, Week 3
February 2006, Week 2
February 2006, Week 1
January 2006, Week 5
January 2006, Week 4
January 2006, Week 3
January 2006, Week 2
January 2006, Week 1
December 2005, Week 5
December 2005, Week 4
December 2005, Week 3
December 2005, Week 2
December 2005, Week 1
November 2005, Week 5
November 2005, Week 4
November 2005, Week 3
November 2005, Week 2
November 2005, Week 1
October 2005, Week 5
October 2005, Week 4
October 2005, Week 3
October 2005, Week 2
October 2005, Week 1
September 2005, Week 5
September 2005, Week 4
September 2005, Week 3
September 2005, Week 2
September 2005, Week 1
August 2005, Week 5
August 2005, Week 4
August 2005, Week 3
August 2005, Week 2
August 2005, Week 1
July 2005, Week 5
July 2005, Week 4
July 2005, Week 3
July 2005, Week 2
July 2005, Week 1
June 2005, Week 5
June 2005, Week 4
June 2005, Week 3
June 2005, Week 2
June 2005, Week 1
May 2005, Week 5
May 2005, Week 4
May 2005, Week 3
May 2005, Week 2
May 2005, Week 1
April 2005, Week 5
April 2005, Week 4
April 2005, Week 3
April 2005, Week 2
April 2005, Week 1
March 2005, Week 5
March 2005, Week 4
March 2005, Week 3
March 2005, Week 2
March 2005, Week 1
February 2005, Week 4
February 2005, Week 3
February 2005, Week 2
February 2005, Week 1
January 2005, Week 5
January 2005, Week 4
January 2005, Week 3
January 2005, Week 2
January 2005, Week 1
December 2004, Week 5
December 2004, Week 4
December 2004, Week 3
December 2004, Week 2
December 2004, Week 1
November 2004, Week 5
November 2004, Week 4
November 2004, Week 3
November 2004, Week 2
November 2004, Week 1
October 2004, Week 5
October 2004, Week 4
October 2004, Week 3
October 2004, Week 2
October 2004, Week 1
September 2004, Week 5
September 2004, Week 4
September 2004, Week 3
September 2004, Week 2
September 2004, Week 1
August 2004, Week 5
August 2004, Week 4
August 2004, Week 3
August 2004, Week 2
August 2004, Week 1
July 2004, Week 5
July 2004, Week 4
July 2004, Week 3
July 2004, Week 2
July 2004, Week 1
June 2004, Week 5
June 2004, Week 4
June 2004, Week 3
June 2004, Week 2
June 2004, Week 1
May 2004, Week 5
May 2004, Week 4
May 2004, Week 3
May 2004, Week 2
May 2004, Week 1
April 2004, Week 5
April 2004, Week 4
April 2004, Week 3
April 2004, Week 2
April 2004, Week 1
March 2004, Week 5
March 2004, Week 4
March 2004, Week 3
March 2004, Week 2
March 2004, Week 1
February 2004, Week 5
February 2004, Week 4
February 2004, Week 3
February 2004, Week 2
February 2004, Week 1
January 2004, Week 5
January 2004, Week 4
January 2004, Week 3
January 2004, Week 2
January 2004, Week 1
December 2003, Week 5
December 2003, Week 4
December 2003, Week 3
December 2003, Week 2
December 2003, Week 1
November 2003, Week 5
November 2003, Week 4
November 2003, Week 3
November 2003, Week 2
November 2003, Week 1
October 2003, Week 5
October 2003, Week 4
October 2003, Week 3
October 2003, Week 2
October 2003, Week 1
September 2003, Week 5
September 2003, Week 4
September 2003, Week 3
September 2003, Week 2
September 2003, Week 1
August 2003, Week 5
August 2003, Week 4
August 2003, Week 3
August 2003, Week 2
August 2003, Week 1
July 2003, Week 5
July 2003, Week 4
July 2003, Week 3
July 2003, Week 2
July 2003, Week 1
June 2003, Week 5
June 2003, Week 4
June 2003, Week 3
June 2003, Week 2
June 2003, Week 1
May 2003, Week 5
May 2003, Week 4
May 2003, Week 3
May 2003, Week 2
May 2003, Week 1
April 2003, Week 5
April 2003, Week 4
April 2003, Week 3
April 2003, Week 2
March 2003, Week 5
March 2003, Week 4
March 2003, Week 3
March 2003, Week 2
March 2003, Week 1
February 2003, Week 4
February 2003, Week 3
February 2003, Week 2
February 2003, Week 1
January 2003, Week 5
January 2003, Week 4
January 2003, Week 3
January 2003, Week 2
January 2003, Week 1
December 2002, Week 5
December 2002, Week 4
December 2002, Week 3
December 2002, Week 2
December 2002, Week 1
November 2002, Week 4
November 2002, Week 3
November 2002, Week 2
November 2002, Week 1
October 2002, Week 5
October 2002, Week 4
October 2002, Week 3
October 2002, Week 2
October 2002, Week 1
September 2002, Week 5
September 2002, Week 4
September 2002, Week 3
September 2002, Week 2
September 2002, Week 1
August 2002, Week 5
August 2002, Week 4
August 2002, Week 3
August 2002, Week 2
August 2002, Week 1
July 2002, Week 5
July 2002, Week 4
July 2002, Week 3
July 2002, Week 2
July 2002, Week 1
June 2002, Week 5
June 2002, Week 4
June 2002, Week 3
June 2002, Week 2
June 2002, Week 1
May 2002, Week 5
May 2002, Week 4
May 2002, Week 3
May 2002, Week 2
May 2002, Week 1
April 2002, Week 5
April 2002, Week 4
April 2002, Week 3
April 2002, Week 2
April 2002, Week 1
March 2002, Week 5
March 2002, Week 4
March 2002, Week 3
March 2002, Week 1
February 2002, Week 4
February 2002, Week 3
February 2002, Week 2
February 2002, Week 1
January 2002, Week 5
January 2002, Week 4
January 2002, Week 3
January 2002, Week 2
January 2002, Week 1
December 2001, Week 5
December 2001, Week 4
December 2001, Week 3
December 2001, Week 2
December 2001, Week 1
November 2001, Week 5
November 2001, Week 4
November 2001, Week 3
November 2001, Week 2
November 2001, Week 1
October 2001, Week 5
October 2001, Week 4
October 2001, Week 3
October 2001, Week 2
October 2001, Week 1
September 2001, Week 5
September 2001, Week 4
September 2001, Week 3
September 2001, Week 2
September 2001, Week 1
August 2001, Week 5
August 2001, Week 4
August 2001, Week 3
August 2001, Week 2
August 2001, Week 1
July 2001, Week 5
July 2001, Week 4
July 2001, Week 3
July 2001, Week 2
July 2001, Week 1
June 2001, Week 5
June 2001, Week 4
June 2001, Week 3
June 2001, Week 2
June 2001, Week 1
May 2001, Week 5
May 2001, Week 4
May 2001, Week 3
May 2001, Week 2
May 2001, Week 1
April 2001, Week 5
April 2001, Week 4
April 2001, Week 3
April 2001, Week 2
April 2001, Week 1
March 2001, Week 5
March 2001, Week 4
March 2001, Week 3
March 2001, Week 2
March 2001, Week 1
February 2001, Week 4
February 2001, Week 3
February 2001, Week 2
February 2001, Week 1
January 2001, Week 5
January 2001, Week 4
January 2001, Week 3
January 2001, Week 2
January 2001, Week 1
December 2000, Week 5
December 2000, Week 4
December 2000, Week 3
December 2000, Week 2
December 2000, Week 1
November 2000, Week 5
November 2000, Week 4
November 2000, Week 3
November 2000, Week 2
November 2000, Week 1
October 2000, Week 5
October 2000, Week 4
October 2000, Week 3
October 2000, Week 2
October 2000, Week 1
September 2000, Week 5
September 2000, Week 4
September 2000, Week 3
September 2000, Week 2
September 2000, Week 1
August 2000, Week 5
August 2000, Week 4
August 2000, Week 3
August 2000, Week 2
August 2000, Week 1
July 2000, Week 5
July 2000, Week 4
July 2000, Week 3
July 2000, Week 2
July 2000, Week 1
June 2000, Week 5
June 2000, Week 4
June 2000, Week 3
June 2000, Week 2
June 2000, Week 1
May 2000, Week 5
May 2000, Week 4
May 2000, Week 3
May 2000, Week 2
May 2000, Week 1
April 2000, Week 5
April 2000, Week 4
April 2000, Week 3
April 2000, Week 2
April 2000, Week 1
March 2000, Week 5
March 2000, Week 4
March 2000, Week 3
March 2000, Week 2
March 2000, Week 1
February 2000, Week 5
February 2000, Week 4
February 2000, Week 3
February 2000, Week 2
February 2000, Week 1
January 2000, Week 5
January 2000, Week 4
January 2000, Week 3
January 2000, Week 2
January 2000, Week 1
December 1999, Week 5
December 1999, Week 4
December 1999, Week 3
December 1999, Week 2
December 1999, Week 1
November 1999, Week 5
November 1999, Week 4
November 1999, Week 3
November 1999, Week 2
November 1999, Week 1
October 1999, Week 5
October 1999, Week 4
October 1999, Week 3
October 1999, Week 2
October 1999, Week 1
September 1999, Week 5
September 1999, Week 4
September 1999, Week 3
September 1999, Week 2
September 1999, Week 1
August 1999, Week 5
August 1999, Week 4
August 1999, Week 3
August 1999, Week 2
August 1999, Week 1
July 1999, Week 5
July 1999, Week 4
July 1999, Week 3
July 1999, Week 2
July 1999, Week 1
June 1999, Week 5
June 1999, Week 4
June 1999, Week 3
June 1999, Week 2
June 1999, Week 1
May 1999, Week 5
May 1999, Week 4
May 1999, Week 3
May 1999, Week 2
May 1999, Week 1
April 1999, Week 5
April 1999, Week 4
April 1999, Week 3
April 1999, Week 2
April 1999, Week 1
March 1999, Week 5
March 1999, Week 4
March 1999, Week 3
March 1999, Week 2
March 1999, Week 1
February 1999, Week 5
February 1999, Week 4
February 1999, Week 3
February 1999, Week 2
February 1999, Week 1
January 1999, Week 5
January 1999, Week 4
January 1999, Week 3
January 1999, Week 2
January 1999, Week 1
December 1998, Week 5
December 1998, Week 4
December 1998, Week 3
December 1998, Week 2
December 1998, Week 1
November 1998, Week 5
November 1998, Week 4
November 1998, Week 3
November 1998, Week 2
November 1998, Week 1
October 1998, Week 5
October 1998, Week 4
October 1998, Week 3
October 1998, Week 2
October 1998, Week 1
September 1998, Week 5
September 1998, Week 4
September 1998, Week 3
September 1998, Week 2
September 1998, Week 1
August 1998, Week 4
August 1998, Week 3
August 1998, Week 2
August 1998, Week 1
July 1998, Week 5
July 1998, Week 4
July 1998, Week 3
July 1998, Week 2
July 1998, Week 1
June 1998, Week 5
June 1998, Week 4
June 1998, Week 3
June 1998, Week 2
June 1998, Week 1
May 1998, Week 5
May 1998, Week 4
May 1998, Week 3
May 1998, Week 2
May 1998, Week 1
April 1998, Week 5
April 1998, Week 4
April 1998, Week 3
April 1998, Week 2
April 1998, Week 1
March 1998, Week 5
March 1998, Week 4
March 1998, Week 3
March 1998, Week 2
March 1998, Week 1
February 1998, Week 5
February 1998, Week 4
February 1998, Week 3
February 1998, Week 2
February 1998, Week 1
January 1998, Week 5
January 1998, Week 4
January 1998, Week 3
January 1998, Week 2
January 1998, Week 1
December 1997, Week 5
December 1997, Week 4
December 1997, Week 3
December 1997, Week 2
December 1997, Week 1
November 1997, Week 5
November 1997, Week 4
November 1997, Week 3
November 1997, Week 2
November 1997, Week 1
October 1997, Week 5
October 1997, Week 4
October 1997, Week 3
October 1997, Week 2
October 1997, Week 1
September 1997, Week 5
September 1997, Week 4
September 1997, Week 3
September 1997, Week 2
September 1997, Week 1
August 1997, Week 5
August 1997, Week 4
August 1997, Week 3
August 1997, Week 2
August 1997, Week 1
July 1997, Week 5
July 1997, Week 4
July 1997, Week 3
July 1997, Week 2
July 1997, Week 1
June 1997, Week 5
June 1997, Week 4
June 1997, Week 3
June 1997, Week 2
June 1997, Week 1
May 1997, Week 5
May 1997, Week 4
May 1997, Week 3
May 1997, Week 2
May 1997, Week 1
April 1997, Week 5
April 1997, Week 4
April 1997, Week 3
April 1997, Week 2
April 1997, Week 1
March 1997, Week 5
March 1997, Week 4
March 1997, Week 3
March 1997, Week 2
March 1997, Week 1
February 1997, Week 5
February 1997, Week 4
February 1997, Week 3
February 1997, Week 2
February 1997, Week 1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager