--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...>
wrote:
> >
> > HOWEVER -- any _reviewers_ are welcome to suggest lexicon
> > alternatives, in this forum, for any of the former six or the
latter
> > three reasons.
> >
> > ---larry
>
> Wearing my reviewer hat:
>
> Do you think it might be a mistake to have set all the digits to
single-syllable
> words. This might make them harder to distinguish, and I'm not sure
that
> brevity is of all that much value in this context. Also, I wouldn't
mind freeing up
> a few of the rare single-syllable words for other uses,
particularly in
> compounds.
>
> I'm thinking of a scheme like this (not literally this...it collides
with some
> existing words):
>
> 0 - to
> 1 - mu
> 2 - xuma
> 3 - sila
> 4 - kufa
> 5 - fepa
> 6 - sota
> 7 - pixa
> 8 - teka
> 9 - lema
>
> I'm hoping that the combinations of consonantal articulation points,
plus vowel
> distinctions, would render this set easily lip-readable.
>
> Thoughts?
> --larry

Yes, this scheme is much better.  Numbers typically do not have enough
context to assist the listener that they are heard correctly in noisy
environments.  The simpler numbers, although "easier" to pronounce,
have no built in redundancy.  Long strings of the simpler numbers will
blend together and possibly enable mistakes.  In contrast, words will
have a grammatical/semantic context to protect them from mis-hearing.
  (couldn't think of a better word)


-Christopher

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
>
> HOWEVER -- any _reviewers_ are welcome to suggest lexicon
> alternatives, in this forum, for any of the former six or the latter
> three reasons.
>
> ---larry

Wearing my reviewer hat:

Do you think it might be a mistake to have set all the digits to single-syllable
words. This might make them harder to distinguish, and I'm not sure that
brevity is of all that much value in this context. Also, I wouldn't mind freeing
up
a few of the rare single-syllable words for other uses, particularly in
compounds.

I'm thinking of a scheme like this (not literally this...it collides with some
existing words):

0 - to
1 - mu
2 - xuma
3 - sila
4 - kufa
5 - fepa
6 - sota
7 - pixa
8 - teka
9 - lema

I'm hoping that the combinations of consonantal articulation points, plus vowel
distinctions, would render this set easily lip-readable.

Thoughts?
--larry

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
> Main page updated, lexicon increased to about 500 words. Not
> necessarily happy with all new words, but....

I checked the new lexicon, and it doesn't look bad, though some of the
forms looked a little long. If a concept will be used a lot (on its own
and/or as a compounding element), its form should be no more than two
syllables long. Save the trisyllables for concepts that don't enter
into compounds and aren't extremely common in their own right. As I
recall, Sasxsek is fairly well designed in this regard.

Steve

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "ansric" <ansric@y...> wrote:
>
> I think I get your point. I think what I'm going to do is introduce
> present and past participles and, just as in English, let the form
of
> the past participle double as the form of the gerund (since one is
> always a modifier and one is always a noun, this should be okay, as
> long as I don't lie about it).
>
> "kusyu" = 'to cook'
> "kusyuna" = 'cooking' (pres.part.) and 'cooking' (gerund)
> "kusyupa" = 'cooked' (past part.) and 'to be cooked' (???)
>
> "kota kusyu" = 'a cat cooks (something)'
> "kota kusyuna" = 'a cooking cat (cat who cooks)'
> "kota kusyupa" = 'a cooked cat'
> "kusyuna seyu funa" = 'cooking is fun'
> "kusyupa seyu funa" = 'to be cooked is fun' ???
>
> Then I'll let "kusa" take a meaning that is definitely related (for
> compounding reasons, among others), but not in a predictable
> way. 'cuisine' might be a good choice, as you suggest.

Clarification: What you're calling present and past participles are
active and passive participles. (It's hard to make the distinction in
English, but if you work with a participle-happy language such as
Esperanto, Russian, or Greek or Latin, you'll learn to do so or
perish.)

Outside of that, there shouldn't be any problems.

Steve

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
> Main page updated, lexicon increased to about 500 words. Not
> necessarily happy with all new words, but....

I'm reviewing the lexicon and will be making changes from time to
time for the following reasons:

1) duplication

2) improper core word form

3) incorrect compound construction

4) poor choice of predicate over functional, or vice versa

5) fine distinction between verbs and nouns/modifiers

6) new words, of course

I will try very hard _not_ to change the lexicon on my own just
because of:

1) words that bother or embarrass me

2) realization that a core word could be a compound, or vice versa

3) long words that I think will be frequently used, or short words
that I think will be infrequently used

(The word changes that got the better of me recently, and that prompt
me to swear this oath, are: "su" = 'person', which used to
be "lu"; "lu" = 'location', which used to be 'person'; and "loka",
which used to be 'location'.)

HOWEVER -- any _reviewers_ are welcome to suggest lexicon
alternatives, in this forum, for any of the former six or the latter
three reasons.

---larry

What Steve and others have been trying to clarify for me WRT verb
transitivity is finally sinking in. Here's what I should be saying:

In Konya, as in English, verbs are inherently transitive or
intransitive. They are not distinguishable by form; the predicate
structure of a verb simply has to be learned with the verb.

A transitive verb can be made reflexive by using "sefa" ('self') as
the object.

An intransitive verb can be made transitive by compounding "hu"
('cause') to it as a prefix. (The transitive thus created may
eventually develop shades of meaning that differ somewhat from the
original verb, but that's okay.) For example:

"ninpe pomatyu" = 'the boy walks'

* "ninpe pomatyu wi huna" = (incorrect) 'the boy walks the dog'

"ninpe hunpomatyu wi huna" = (correct) 'the boy walks the dog'

That is, the boy causes the dog to exhibit a behaviour that the boy
himself would exhibit if the intransitive verb had not been
transitivised.

I guess originally I was thinking that the presence of "wi" was
enough to force the verb into transitivity. But now I agree with
Steve and Dana -- that might cause problems downstream, maybe with
things like participles, I don't know for sure. But it's suspect at
best, and it overloads "wi". "hu" is readily available as a free-use
prefix, so it makes sense to use it.

NOW am I making sense?

---larry

Main page updated, lexicon increased to about 500 words. Not
necessarily happy with all new words, but....

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "ansric" <ansric@y...> wrote:

> The more probable meaning would be "cuisine," so that kusa
Kenatyala
> would mean "Canadian cooking/cuisine."

LOL. I'll have to add a word for 'poutine'!

> Perhaps kusa moma would
> be "home cooking."

That's cute!

>
> This assumes that the head word functions almost as a subject. But
> what then of "air/water pollution"? Perhaps those cases could
> use "wa."

Yes, when the 'modifier' is actually just another noun, then "wa" is
the right thing to do.

>
> > What about "luyu", 'to find, to locate'? Does this suggest "lu"
> > = 'location'? Or "lu" = 'a finding, a found thing'?
>
> The terms are ambiguous. It would mean "location" when that word
> means "locating"; otherwise "a finding/discovery" be better.
>
> Incidentally, I thought "lu" meant "person."

Oops. I'm in the middle of a very few vocabulary changes, and that's
one of them. I really should not have done that; I apologize. I will
resist the urge more strongly from now on.

>
> > Or do I just define verbs and nouns independently?
>
> I usually say that even a bad system is better than none at all. If
> you're worried about people processing part-of-speech changes on
the
> fly, that's nothing compared to wading through a non-system.
> Esperantists and Idists run into this when they don't know whether
a
> given root is a tool or a verb, so they don't know how to derive
the
> necessary form.
>
> Steve

I think I get your point. I think what I'm going to do is introduce
present and past participles and, just as in English, let the form of
the past participle double as the form of the gerund (since one is
always a modifier and one is always a noun, this should be okay, as
long as I don't lie about it).

"kusyu" = 'to cook'
"kusyuna" = 'cooking' (pres.part.) and 'cooking' (gerund)
"kusyupa" = 'cooked' (past part.) and 'to be cooked' (???)

"kota kusyu" = 'a cat cooks (something)'
"kota kusyuna" = 'a cooking cat (cat who cooks)'
"kota kusyupa" = 'a cooked cat'
"kusyuna seyu funa" = 'cooking is fun'
"kusyupa seyu funa" = 'to be cooked is fun' ???

Then I'll let "kusa" take a meaning that is definitely related (for
compounding reasons, among others), but not in a predictable
way. 'cuisine' might be a good choice, as you suggest.

Think it will work?
--larry

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
> While I'm digesting Steve's additional comments, I'd like to get
some
> insight on the following:
>
> Given: "kutyu" = 'to cut'.
>
> This suggests to me that "kuta" = 'the action of cutting', but it
also
> suggests that "kuta" = 'a cut' (that is, the inevitable result of
the
> action of cutting).
>
> I can't decide between these two. Do I need to? Are they the same
> thing?

Not as such, but they are certainly similar. Hogben in Interglossa
explicitly promoted action/result nouns, so that "grapho"
meant "writing" as both act and result. Ido (which is a lot pickier
about such things) also allows it.

> Also, are they exactly analogous to the following:
>
> Given: "kusyu" = 'to cook'.
> Conclusion: "kusa" = 'the action of cooking' or "kusa" = 'a meal'.
>
> ???
>
> I feel as though 'a cut', which is the direct, even abstract result
> of 'cutting', is not parallel to 'a meal'; it's parallel to the
> gerund 'cooking'.
>
> A) 'Hey, man, nice cut. Nice cooking, too.'
>
> B) 'Hey, man, nice cutting. Nice cooking, too.'
>
> C) 'Hey, man, nice cut. Nice meal, too.'
>
> A & B seem equivalent, but C seems different. What do others think?

The more probable meaning would be "cuisine," so that kusa Kenatyala
would mean "Canadian cooking/cuisine." Perhaps kusa moma would
be "home cooking."

This assumes that the head word functions almost as a subject. But
what then of "air/water pollution"? Perhaps those cases could
use "wa."

> What about "luyu", 'to find, to locate'? Does this suggest "lu"
> = 'location'? Or "lu" = 'a finding, a found thing'?

The terms are ambiguous. It would mean "location" when that word
means "locating"; otherwise "a finding/discovery" be better.

Incidentally, I thought "lu" meant "person."

> Or do I just define verbs and nouns independently?

I usually say that even a bad system is better than none at all. If
you're worried about people processing part-of-speech changes on the
fly, that's nothing compared to wading through a non-system.
Esperantists and Idists run into this when they don't know whether a
given root is a tool or a verb, so they don't know how to derive the
necessary form.

Steve

While I'm digesting Steve's additional comments, I'd like to get some
insight on the following:

Given: "kutyu" = 'to cut'.

This suggests to me that "kuta" = 'the action of cutting', but it also
suggests that "kuta" = 'a cut' (that is, the inevitable result of the
action of cutting).

I can't decide between these two. Do I need to? Are they the same
thing?

Also, are they exactly analogous to the following:

Given: "kusyu" = 'to cook'.
Conclusion: "kusa" = 'the action of cooking' or "kusa" = 'a meal'.

???

I feel as though 'a cut', which is the direct, even abstract result
of 'cutting', is not parallel to 'a meal'; it's parallel to the
gerund 'cooking'.

A) 'Hey, man, nice cut. Nice cooking, too.'

B) 'Hey, man, nice cutting. Nice cooking, too.'

C) 'Hey, man, nice cut. Nice meal, too.'

A & B seem equivalent, but C seems different. What do others think?

What about "luyu", 'to find, to locate'? Does this suggest "lu"
= 'location'? Or "lu" = 'a finding, a found thing'?

Or do I just define verbs and nouns independently?

--larry

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, steve rice <ansric@y...> wrote:

> Technically, I did/do have CV[V] "short forms" for grammatical and common
derivational functions. The core words actually had the form CV[n]CV, with B
for biological (fibu - chest [anat], ciba - abdomen, cemba - claw, pincer,
etc.), P
for physical qualities and phenomena, etc. The idea was not to have amazing
philosophical categories but the kind of groupings you'd find in a phrase book
or topical vocabulary.

That sounds like a reasonable approach. I find the task of building a perfect
vocabulary to be too daunting. And impossible, too.

>
> One of the reasons I made the second consonant significant was that
people can usually remember the start of a word, so I wanted the random part
there, leaving the part with the mnemonic for later. Whether that would
actually aid learning, I don't know.

I think it probably would. One thing that I did in Konya recently was change
the normal order of components in a compound word so that they are now in
the same order as they would be if they were separate words (mostly). One
downside is that, for example, all "do-er" words, like teacher, hunter, singer,
etc., start with "kon-". I'm hoping that such prefix-like components will
naturally
destress and allow more emphasis on the distinguishing component that
follows.

>
> Did it sound monotonous? It could, certainly. The following is a version of
the Lord's Prayer from ten years ago:
>
>
> Ge eKunsu Fesu
>
> Komo no eCisa ni mo linsan we!
>
> Kawa, ge fome no pensu gi fawu. Ge fome no cena du mo yanga pinu mi
mo linsan we.
>
> Fesu, yoma luma gu ge timan luma cinda wi komo. Ga fiwu ne komo no
lowa komo pinu mi ba komo ga fiwu ge lowan du wi komo. Sa gu tusu komo
wi lowan kensu, lane ga komo wa lowa.
>
> Femi, fome du tusi fono pani fono pewi mo cogu funa.
>
> Kawa, du!
>

Not self-segregating, true? And no words longer than 2 syllables?

I think it sounds quite good. No more repetitious than a great many African
and Polynesian languages of various families. In fact, its overall sound is not
terribly dissimilar from Konya's, and the Afro-Oceanic sound is sort of my
target.

> As you can see, one problem is that the finals sometimes got repetitious. (In
case you wonder: stress is unimportant, and the letters are pronounced as in
Konya, except c = Konya x.) I still have a grammatical exposition of the thing
lying around, if you're that curious.

I am curious. A separate email of it, please?

>
> I mothballed the project in the late 90s, concluding that I didn't know enough
to construct an adequate vocabulary for it at that time. Instead, I shifted to
an a
posteriori project (Linu), which is still under occasional development as part
of
my probably apocalyptic Hydra project.
>
> Steve
>

Which also sounds like it's worth knowing more about, if you care to share, in
this forum or elsewise.

I'll try to put together a Lord's prayer in Konya soon, before tackling the
Babel
Text. But this weekend it looks like the Chief will have me drywalling and
painting, so I may not get to it until next week.

---larry

Steve Rice sent me an analysis in a separate email. I interspersed my
replies and am posting it here.

STEVE RICE >>>>>>>>
I do find your project interesting, and your attitude toward it is
better than average as well. So I thought I'd make some comments on
your Konya page by sentence number:

LARRY SULKY >>>>>>>>
Thanks so much for your analysis, Steve! You know, as I was building
the Konya sample sentences I thought, "Someone is going to want to
discuss these points, so I'd better number them for easier
reference". And here you are!

I'll try to respond point-by-point:

SR >>>>>>>>
2. tu seyu wi lu = you [were] a person.
1) You're using seyu (exist) as a copular verb. While that isn't
impossible, it doesn't make much sense: the preceding sentence would
then mean "You exist a person."

LS >>>>>>>>
I would have translated it as 'You exist as a person', or as the
given 'You are a person'. It's hard to give a translation that plugs
cleanly into the various uses of English 'to be'.

SR >>>>>>>>
2) Your use of "wi" is hard to follow. If it marks a direct object,
what is it doing in a sentence that has no direct object? In this
sentence, "lu" is a predicate nominative or a verb complement (the
terminology varies). It is not a direct object. Some languages do
mark complements, but it's a bit unusual. I assume that you're doing
it mostly to distinguish between predicate adjectives (unmarked) and
predicate nouns (marked).

LR >>>>>>>>
I did consider having the copula be a functional, but found the
pseudo-verb formulation to be more effective, in particular for the
adjective/noun distinction that you mention. True, I am force-fitting
the copula into the role of a verb, and artificially equating the
predicate nominative to a direct object of that verb. Does this
render the construction difficult to understand for the average user?
Am I on shaky ground only from a theoretical point of view, or also
from a usability point of view? Would it help if I fessed up in the
explanations: '"wi" is also used to mark a predicate nominative.'?

SR >>>>>>>>
Recommendation: simplify by making the complement a verb: tu luyu.

LS >>>>>>>>
If I do that, then people have to be ready to convert any noun or
modifier into a verb on the fly. I'm more comfortable with them
learning words as verbs and as nouns/modifiers independently. Also,
if "luyu" means 'be a person', then doesn't "selyu" have to mean 'be
a sale', and "lo selyu" mean 'it is a sale' rather than 'it sells'?

SR >>>>>>>>
"d. There are no articles (the, a, an), nor plural forms.
Definiteness and number are taken from context, or established with
more specific words. These samples will therefore vary in their
translations of definiteness and number."
Even languages that don't specify number generally tend to specify it
for personal pronouns: Chinese, Japanese (more or less), Indonesian,
etc. The main areas this applies are in the second and third persons.

LS >>>>>>>>
At that point I allude vaguely to the possibility of using compound
pronouns as plurals, but don't give examples until much later
("mintu" and "minlo"). I should rework that explanation.

SR >>>>>>>>
3. tu seyu wi lu xo = you are a big person.
Again, there's no direct object. Why not use tu luyu xo (You are-
person big)?

LS >>>>>>>>
Same reason as above; most European languages have copulae that have
the form of verbs, and many folks are only vaguely aware of the
distinction. I think there are some advantages to doing this; the
question is, can I get away with it, or will it ultimately cause
architectural grief?

SR >>>>>>>>
4. tu seyu wi lunxo = You are a giant.
?tu lunxoyu

(Incidentally, I've been using a syllable-final nasal to mark bound
forms since the early eighties. Good choice.)

LS >>>>>>>>
Thanks. It seems that even most CV languages permit a syllable-ending
nasal, and I wasn't using it elsewise.

SR >>>>>>>>
6. [You say that there is no present particple form, but you're
actually talking about a progressive or continuous aspect. Later on
(18.) you introduce a participial usage, though you call it something
else.]

LS >>>>>>>>
I remember being tired and fuzzy when I was reworking verbs and
thinking "I'll have to review this later"...which I failed to do.
Same thing with transitive/intransitive (there's some discussion on
that in a message thread). I'll review and correct.

SR >>>>>>>>
7. "Verbs are transitive or intransitive based on context. We expect
that the boy is walking himself, but not eating himself."
Bad idea. This simplifies the grammar superficially, but it
introduces complexities deeper down. For a start, many languages
spread over many families make some kind of transitive-intransitive
distinction, usually involving suffixes or conjugational types. But
there are other problems as well. For example, the boy probably
*isn't* walking himself; I doubt he has a collar and leash and jerks
himself every time he stops to sniff a hydrant. No, he is simply
walking.

LS >>>>>>>>
You don't know my son :-)

But if he is "simply" walking, isn't he then walking himself? What is
he walking if it isn't himself? He is both the agent and the patient.
No?

Anyway, at this point I should have been talking about reflexive
verbs rather than intransitive, yes?

SR >>>>>>>>
Now, it's reasonable to say that the object of a transitive verb may
be omitted: I think most languages allow that. But consider another
case:
John drowns Mary [transitive]
John drowns [intransitive? Or have we just omitted the object?]
John burns the book [transitive (We've obviously caught him in a bad
mood today.)]
John burns [intransitive?]
And so on. I suppose you could require users to leave the object
there or at least use a dummy object, but it would get annoyingly
verbose real fast. This gets even worse once you start deriving
forms, because then you can't stick an object in to clear things up.

LS >>>>>>>>
That was why I wanted to leave it to context. Some verbs will imply
an object; others will not. Either way, it will be possible, though
more verbose, to get to the truth of the matter.

In one earlier version I had all verbs be implicitly reflexive if no
object or placeholder was present, which meant if you said "lunpe
komyu" it HAD to mean 'the boy is eating himself'. To say simply that
the boy was eating something without specifying what, you had to at
least say "lunpe komyu wi", using a direct object marker with a null
direct object. And you're right, this got annoying. But equally
annoying was my design wherein all verbs were implicitly transitive,
so if you wanted to say 'the boy walks', you HAD to say "lunpe
pomatyu sefa" (although at that time "sefa", 'self', was a one-
syllable functional).

What would you recommend?

SR >>>>>>>>
Later note: from re-examining the rest of the text, I conclude that
you're just using a popular but silly definition of "transitive"
and "intransitive": that a verb with an expressed direct object is
transitive, but one without an expressed direct object is
intransitive. Poppycock. At a deep level, the object is there; it's
merely that a deletion rule has been used higher up. So if I
understand you correctly, you are not saying that transitivity as
such appears or disappears on a whim; you are saying that the object
needn't always be expressed.

LS >>>>>>>>
I'm not sure if that's the silly poppycock I meant to say. I meant
that a verb, by usage, will probably develop in listeners an
expectation that there is a direct object even if not expressed. So
that 'walk' will be intransitive (reflexive?) if there is no
expressed object but can take a direct object; whereas 'eat' will be
transitive even if there is no expressed object.

Oh, wait. That's just what you're saying. I think.

Could I express it this way:
"In Konya, any verb can take a direct object. If there is no
expressed direct object, then the verb might be reflexive, or might
imply an unexpressed direct object, depending on the verb."?

SR >>>>>>>>
14. kota seyu wila supa wa mesa
Again, it should be possible to save a syllable and say "kota wilayu
supa wa mesa."

LS >>>>>>>>
I just don't like the idea of on-the-fly conjugation/conversion. (I
do it for some less-used constructs, but this is the main
verb...every sentence will have one.)

One idea I've toyed with recently was to contract "seyu wi"
into "swi", but that didn't help predicate adjectives, nor constructs
like "seyu wila". How would you maintain the distinction between
predicate adjective and predicate nominative without the "wi" marker?

SR >>>>>>>>
17. "Unlike English, subordinate clauses include an explicit
reference to the headword that they relate to, usually using the
pronoun lo. They can therefore be placed anywhere after this
headword, but in practice usually follow it immediately."
I would suggest introducing a special resumptive pronoun that would
invariably refer back to the headword.

LS >>>>>>>>
You mean, instead of "lo"? I thought long about that, but decided not
to get too clever. What do other languages do?

SR >>>>>>>>
18. "There is no precise concept of a gerund adjective."
Well, technically there is no such concept in much any language. What
you're talking about here is our old friend the participle--or its
functional equivalent. A gerund (in English) is a verbal noun: Seeing
is believing, walking is good for you, etc. Historically these were
distinct from the active participle (which ended in -in: seein,
walkin, etc.), being related to German forms in -ung.

LS >>>>>>>>
More dazed and confused terminology...I'd been staring at it so long
before ever posting it that I don't think I could see any of these
goofs anymore.

SR >>>>>>>>
19. mo xepyu wi kota koma  "This method is not precise; the sample
could be interpreted as referring to a cat that is, or is prone to,
eating or being eaten, or has some meal-like quality. But context is
often sufficient to clarify."
Technically, if you dispense with the inherent fuzziness of ignoring
transitivity, this should be clear: it is a cat that exhibits the
property/action of eating and is therefore an eating cat, not an
eaten one.

LS >>>>>>>>
Could you suggest a specific mechanism to do this? Are you thinking
of, say, a different suffix than just "yu" for reflexive verbs, or
something like that?

SR >>>>>>>>
20. mo xepyu wi kota yo lo seyu wila supa wa sita "It's common for a
prepositional phrase to occur in a relative clause with the verb
seyu. It can be a bit long-winded, though."

On the other hand, "mo xepyu wi kota yo wilayu supa wa sita" isn't so
much.

LS >>>>>>>>
True, it's one syllable shorter.  :-)

SR >>>>>>>>
24. kota noxyu po wi xoma wa lunpe "Note that Konya does not treat
this kind of expression with an idiomatic prepositional phrase the
way English does. As it is the leg that is bitten, leg must be the
direct object."
Nonsense; unless the leg was really a prosthesis, kota noxyu po wi
xoma wa lunpe entails that kota noxyu po wi lunpe. The guy is
attached to his leg, presumably, so biting the leg is biting him,
and "on the leg" merely specifies the site. There is nothing
particularly idiomatic about the English phrase here except the
precise choice of preposition. In the Romance languages, for example,
one would say that the cat bit the leg to the man, making "the man"
an indirect object.

LS >>>>>>>>
'Silly, poppycock, and nonsense'...I'm so discouraged now. ;-)

To my mind, 'The cat bites the man on the leg', 'The cat bites the
man on the chair', and 'The cat bites the man on the table' all seem
completely parallel to me, but in the first example we're specifying
the location of the bite, in the second the location of the direct
object, and in the third the location of the subject (though it's
hard to tell). So that's why it seems idiomatic to me.

The Romance equivalent that you give seems to parallel Konya's usage.
Maybe I'll just remove the 'idiomatic' comment and move on.

SR >>>>>>>>
39-41 ho pulyu/pula seyu/pula
If one might ask, why not simply allow impersonal verbs to be
subjectless? Then pulyu by itself would mean "It rains," rather like
Sp Llueve and Eo Pluvas. Technically, this could be construed as an
imperative, but Konya generally eschews such fiddly precision.

LS >>>>>>>>
I could, and did in earlier versions. I don't remember why I dropped
it, but it could have something to do with confusion with
imperatives...which no longer exists because I now handle imperatives
simply as indicatives with a specific modifier. I think I'll
reinstate it.

I'll also probably rework or drop #40 and #41, which put emphasis on
being able to convert verbs to nouns on the fly. The reason I'm chary
of these conversions is that I want (I think) to have some
flexibility between the definition of a verb and the definition of
its noun/modifier counterpart.

SR >>>>>>>>
67. Polya metaka seyu wila Kulasya leka "Titles can also be applied
to inanimate objects."
Right, but "Klaus Lake" is a *lake*, not a Klaus, so it should be
rendered "leka Kulasya." "Mr. Shen," on the other hand, is basically
a Shen, not a mister. So if you refer to him as "Xenya," everyone
will know who you mean. But if you refer to the lake as "Kulasya,"
will people think of the lake? In a very specific context, yes;
ordinarily, no: Names tend to refer to people or personified things.

LS >>>>>>>>
Hmmm. On this one I see the issue completely differently from you,
Steve. Within the reference to 'Mister Shen', I see him basically as
a mister, specifically the one named Shen. Also, if I refer
to "Kulasya" to people who have no context at all, they won't know if
I'm talking about a person, a planet, a company.... But with a bit of
context, like "Let's go up to Kulasya for a picnic", they'll probably
know I mean a location -- perhaps a town, maybe a lake or a region.

SR >>>>>>>>
68. mi sina wi Yata nunmo
Should be "sinyu," right?

LS >>>>>>>>
Oops.

SR >>>>>>>>
85. "When appropriate power-of-ten numbers do not exist, order-of-
magnitude approximation is done using a wa construct, much as in
English. For example, there is no single word for tens of thousands."
Technically, the word is "myriad(s)," though few use it in its
literal sense.

LS >>>>>>>>
LOL. I meant, no Konya word. I needed an example of a power-of-ten
number that exists in English but not in Konya, so I picked 10,000
specifically because of the word 'myriad'.

SR >>>>>>>>
97. Fiddly point: ""Which one" questions are usually not inverted as
in English, but simply include ki as a demonstrative adjective
modifying the headword in question."
Technically, "ki" isn't demonstrative (that's tisa, tifa); it's
interrogative.

LS >>>>>>>>
Righto. Will fix.

SR >>>>>>>>
I need to digest the work as a whole more carefully, but I do look
forward to more words as a means of testing this project.
>
> Steve

LS >>>>>>>>
Thanks, Steve. I'm trying to add more words by stealing from Kali-
sise, but it's taking a bit of time. I'm finding that it's providing
an excessive number of 3-syllable roots and leaving empty a goodly
number of 2-syllable slots. I don't want to use every possible 2-
syllable word as a root -- that will reduce redundancy to too low a
level -- but I do think I could use about two-thirds of them; that
is, about 270 of them.

Also, I'm not sure about some of the Kali-sise roots, so I'm also
looking at other word lists.

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "ansric" <ansric@y...> wrote:
---SNIP---

>
> In one of my (theoretically just dormant) projects, I actually
> reversed the usual method: given that the core vocab had the form
> CVCV, the category marker was the internal VC sequence, so the
> resulting words would still have the taxonomic mnemonic (go ahead--
> say it five times fast!) but also look and feel random and natural.

Welcome, Steve!

That's very interesting. So "loti",  "kote", "sotu", and "sota" would have a
common taxonomic mnemonic (!) ... all be parts of the body, for example? In
this project, did you find your language excessively verbose or mechanical
because all roots were two syllables? I've tried to retain one-syllable roots
for
fear of that, but there are only 40 such possible in Konya, so I don't know how
big a difference it's making.

--Larry

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher"
<christopher641@c...> wrote:
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...>
wrote:
> I kind of agree with Andrew here.... <shudders>.  Given that Konya
is
> designed with simple phonology/morphology as a fundemental
principle,
> I don't think the perception he noted can be avoided.  I had a
similar
> reaction (independently) once I sat down and started working my way
> through the numbered samples.  Early on we learn that "xo" means
big.
>  Great, that seems easy enough to remember.  But then I started to
> look at the lexicon page and noticed several words start with "xo"
> although they don't have anything to do with the concept of bigness:
>
> xola - happy
> xoma - leg
> xona - illumination
> xota - doubt
> xoxa - many
>
> Now I know you have morphological rules to prevent my interpretation
> of any of these words as having to do with biggness.  But my gut
> reaction is to see XO=BIG in all of them.  If the
phonology/morphology
> remains simple, can it support a large vocabulary (say... ~5000
words)
> without alot of the words sounding/looking the same but not be
> conceptually related?  Of course, I accept this every day in English
> (big, bigamy, bigot), but English is not being designed from the
> ground up.  I'm also not saying that you have to change it either.
> It's one of those trade-offs that has to be considered in auxlang
> design.

It actually doesn't work to have words that are similar in both form
and meaning, so that all xo- words involve size, for example. Look at
the taxonomic a priori auxlangs such as Ro: words that begin with the
same syllable belong in the same semantic category, which makes it a
lot easier to mishear one word for another. Part of the natural
disambiguation process involves inference from probable meanings
("big" fits, but "leg" doesn't). It's harder to do this when the
meanings for such words are already close.

(On the other hand, I will admit that there are famous cases where
initial sounds often form categories. Thus /sn/ or /Sn/ gives us
snore, sneeze, snot, sniff, sniffle, snoot, schnozz[ola], etc. But
there are many counterexamples as well: snare, snow, snide, etc.)

In one of my (theoretically just dormant) projects, I actually
reversed the usual method: given that the core vocab had the form
CVCV, the category marker was the internal VC sequence, so the
resulting words would still have the taxonomic mnemonic (go ahead--
say it five times fast!) but also look and feel random and natural.

Ygyde's forms simply are not natural or credible. I think this is why
a priori languages have such a phenomenal failure rate: deep down,
even their supporters can't believe they are real languages. (If
anyone's interested, I wrote up a brief rebuttal of Ygyde last year.)

Steve

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher"
<christopher641@c...> wrote:
---SNIP---

>
> I kind of agree with Andrew here.... <shudders>.  Given that Konya
is
> designed with simple phonology/morphology as a fundemental
principle,
> I don't think the perception he noted can be avoided.  I had a
similar
> reaction (independently) once I sat down and started working my way
> through the numbered samples.  Early on we learn that "xo" means
big.
>  Great, that seems easy enough to remember.  But then I started to
> look at the lexicon page and noticed several words start with "xo"
> although they don't have anything to do with the concept of bigness:
>
> xola - happy
> xoma - leg
> xona - illumination
> xota - doubt
> xoxa - many
>
> Now I know you have morphological rules to prevent my interpretation
> of any of these words as having to do with biggness.  But my gut
> reaction is to see XO=BIG in all of them.

Oh! I didn't get that from Andrew's comment. I thought he just didn't
understand that there is a way to distinguish the situations. But
you're
saying that you have a sense that, if "xo" = 'big', then that
syllable "should"
mean 'big' everywhere. I never thought of that.

> If the phonology/morphology
> remains simple, can it support a large vocabulary (say... ~5000
words)
> without alot of the words sounding/looking the same but not be
> conceptually related?

No, it can't. If a single syllable needs to convey a single meaning,
then
then syllables would have to allow voiced consonants, diphthongs,
more vowels,
consonant clusters, and final consonants in order to get up to a few
thousand core predicates, from which millions of compounds could be
created.

> Of course, I accept this every day in English
> (big, bigamy, bigot),

Probably why this never occurred to me. "Bee, beetle, beeper, beaver,
beaker, beacon..."

> but English is not being designed from the
> ground up.  I'm also not saying that you have to change it either.
> It's one of those trade-offs that has to be considered in auxlang
> design.

True. I'm happier with it this way because this is a characteristic
of almost every natural
language, but complex syllable structures are only a characteristic
of a large minority
of natural languages.

>
> Now that I've burned through all of my "street cred" by agreeing
with
> Andrew, my next comment will disagree with him.
>
>  :)
>
---SNIP---
>
> Spoken punctuation is one of the best ideas that I've seen in the
> auxlang community.  I've included it in most of my toy languages.
> I've also often put the punctuation at the beginning of the
> sentence/utterance.  It clues the reader/listener into a kind of
> "meta-context" before the actual content is communicated.  I'd like
to
> think front-loaded punctuation also sets the tempo of the spoken
words
> in scenarios where someone is reading unfamiliar material aloud.  I
> hope it will avoid the last minute tempo/tonal changes that happen
> when the verbalizing reader noticies the sentence ends with an
> exclamation point or a question mark.
>
>

We do this in English and in French for questions, when we invert
verb and subject,
or use an auxiliary verb, to signal our intention. I haven't
addressed the exclamation
point because I figured emphaticness doesn't change the fundamental
meaning of
an utterance. But I suppose we could just start off by saying "wosa!"
>
> >
> > >
> > > Compounding provides for some good shortcuts, but it's one of
> > > many options available.
> > >
> > > > Ygyde is the auxlang to beat because the mixture of
> > > > Standard Ygyde syllables and Long Ygyde syllables is easy
> > > > to pronounce for everyone (much more so than Konya words)
> > > > and yet the words made of those mixed syllables are terse.

I missed this comment from Andrew last time. Ygyde is much easier to
pronounce than Konya?! I wonder what his criteria for ease of
pronunciation
are? And I wonder how he decided that Konya was in competition with
Ygyde and was out to beat it?

>
> I like the grammar so far.  It seems pretty rational and
consistent.
> I see the simple phonology/morphology as a downside, however.  But I
> can accept the principles behind those choices and respect them.

Christopher, have a look at Ceqli, which has a similar focus on logic
but
uses a drastically different syllable structure from Konya.

Thanks for the input, and keep it coming!

---larry

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
> LUNCHTIME! I'll try to respond to as much as I can in these few
> minutes.
>
> --- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...>
wrote:
> > Here was Dana's response to a lengthy response from Andrew
Nowicki.

> >
> > > 35. ... names end in "ya."
> > > 70. ... words "wu" and "punwu" enclose foreign names.
> >
> > > The problem with "ya" is that some other words have
> > > "ya" inside them: xuyama, siyama, yafa, yala, yama,
> > > Yata, xayama.
> >
> > So what if they do?
>
> The idea is that "yafa", etc., cannot be confused with separate
> morphemes "ya
> fa" because "fa" cannot begin a word in Konya.  I concede that
people
> will not
> consciously parse such things out in speech, but suspect that the
> pattern will
> ultimately be internalised....much the way, in English, we know that
> a word
> boundary cannot immediately precede the phoneme string "mb": words
> just
> can't begin that way in English, although in some other languages
> they can.
>
> Another motivation in pursuing audible self-segregation is simply to
> give
> myself a framework to guide vocabulary and grammar development. I
> fear
> that if I let go of this design constraint, I may walk myself into
> trouble (or at
> least extra work) in other areas of the language.



I kind of agree with Andrew here.... <shudders>.  Given that Konya is
designed with simple phonology/morphology as a fundemental principle,
I don't think the perception he noted can be avoided.  I had a similar
reaction (independently) once I sat down and started working my way
through the numbered samples.  Early on we learn that "xo" means big.
  Great, that seems easy enough to remember.  But then I started to
look at the lexicon page and noticed several words start with "xo"
although they don't have anything to do with the concept of bigness:

xola - happy
xoma - leg
xona - illumination
xota - doubt
xoxa - many

Now I know you have morphological rules to prevent my interpretation
of any of these words as having to do with biggness.  But my gut
reaction is to see XO=BIG in all of them.  If the phonology/morphology
remains simple, can it support a large vocabulary (say... ~5000 words)
without alot of the words sounding/looking the same but not be
conceptually related?  Of course, I accept this every day in English
(big, bigamy, bigot), but English is not being designed from the
ground up.  I'm also not saying that you have to change it either.
It's one of those trade-offs that has to be considered in auxlang
design.

Now that I've burned through all of my "street cred" by agreeing with
Andrew, my next comment will disagree with him.

  :)



> >
> > I've seen quite a few constructed languages with "spoken"
> > punctuation marks, but have never seen any real basis for them
> > rooted in any natural languages.
> >
>
> Yep, and these are among those "logical" constructs that might be
the
> first to
> go.  But I don't know that all languages recognize and use pauses
the
> same
> way, so I'm reluctant to say, "you indicate a grammatical break by
> pausing for
> X milliseconds" or something like that. So I chose a syllable, "yo",
> that seemed
> to already have some currency among young North American urbanites
as
> a
> way to explicitly pause in their speech.
>
> As for "yo" also functioning as clause markers: I note that, while
> English
> frequently dispenses with dependent clause marker "that", French
> refuses to
> do so. I also note that, when English does this, it starts getting
> difficult to parse
> and understand.

Spoken punctuation is one of the best ideas that I've seen in the
auxlang community.  I've included it in most of my toy languages.
I've also often put the punctuation at the beginning of the
sentence/utterance.  It clues the reader/listener into a kind of
"meta-context" before the actual content is communicated.  I'd like to
think front-loaded punctuation also sets the tempo of the spoken words
in scenarios where someone is reading unfamiliar material aloud.  I
hope it will avoid the last minute tempo/tonal changes that happen
when the verbalizing reader noticies the sentence ends with an
exclamation point or a question mark.



>
> >
> > Compounding provides for some good shortcuts, but it's one of
> > many options available.
> >
> > > Ygyde is the auxlang to beat because the mixture of
> > > Standard Ygyde syllables and Long Ygyde syllables is easy
> > > to pronounce for everyone (much more so than Konya words)
> > > and yet the words made of those mixed syllables are terse.
> > > Ygyde basics: http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew /ygyde/ygyde.htm
> > > Dictionary: http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew /ygyde/ygyded.htm
> > > Grammar: http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew /ygyde/ygydeg.htm
> >
> > I've seen Ygyde several times, and I'd say every other auxlang
> > beats it because these other languages do not look or sound like
> > machine generated noise, but instead look and sound like real
> > usable languages.
>
> Opinions, please: does Konya look and sound like a real usable
> language?
>
>
>
> Thanks for input, everyone ---
> ---larry

I like the grammar so far.  It seems pretty rational and consistent.
I see the simple phonology/morphology as a downside, however.  But I
can accept the principles behind those choices and respect them.

-Christopher

LUNCHTIME! I'll try to respond to as much as I can in these few
minutes.

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
> Here was Dana's response to a lengthy response from Andrew Nowicki.
It
had
> started getting more generalised than just the question of names,
and more
> focused on Konya, so I brought it over here. I'll just post this
as-is, then reply
> separately.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Dana Nutter   Jun 19, 11:59 am     show options
> Newsgroups: alt.language.artificial
> From: Dana Nutter <dn20...@n...> - Find messages by this author
> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:59:47 -0400
> Local: Sun,Jun 19 2005 11:59 am
> Subject: Re: names
> Reply |Reply to Author| Forward| Print| Individual Message| Show
original|
> Report Abuse
>
>
> [Andrew Nowicki] pis ra ...
>
> > Larry Sulky wrote:
>
> > >... Check the current page at
> > > http://ca.geocities.com/HandyD ad/konya/konya-main.html, items
34, 68,
> > > and 120-122.
>
> > 35. ... names end in "ya."
> > 70. ... words "wu" and "punwu" enclose foreign names.
>
> > The problem with "ya" is that some other words have
> > "ya" inside them: xuyama, siyama, yafa, yala, yama,
> > Yata, xayama.
>
> So what if they do?

The idea is that "yafa", etc., cannot be confused with separate
morphemes "ya
fa" because "fa" cannot begin a word in Konya.  I concede that people
will not
consciously parse such things out in speech, but suspect that the
pattern will
ultimately be internalised....much the way, in English, we know that
a word
boundary cannot immediately precede the phoneme string "mb": words
just
can't begin that way in English, although in some other languages
they can.

Another motivation in pursuing audible self-segregation is simply to
give
myself a framework to guide vocabulary and grammar development. I
fear
that if I let go of this design constraint, I may walk myself into
trouble (or at
least extra work) in other areas of the language.

>
> > The same page claims that:
> > "Konya is a constructed, international auxiliary language.
> > It's designed to be easy to learn for as many people as
> > possible -- not just Europeans, everybody."
>
> > I disagree with this claim. Konya has phoneme "r" which
> > is very difficult to pronounce for many speakers.
>
> Which "R" is difficult? Tthere are many different pronunciations
> for the letter R, any or all of which can be used as allophones.
> The "L" sounds could be used as well.  This covers most of the
> human race.
>
> BTW: Maybe you should have paid attention to the website.  It
> states that the "R" in Konya is only for foreign names.

At any rate, that is a bit of hubris on my part. When I say
"designed" or
"intended", I don't mean to claim that it _is_, only that that's the
_goal_. I
should tone that statement down.

>
> > 4. f. "Compounds are formed by joining core words with the
> >        compounding hyphen n, unless this would result
in
> >        the letter sequence nn, in which case the
compounding
> >        hyphen is changed to m."
>
> > Same problem as before. Letter "n" is part of many root
> > words, so when you see "n" you do not know if this is
> > the link between the root words.
>
> Other words won't make sense. So figuring out the compound will
> be easy.
>

Also, the morpheme formation rules don't permit "n" immediately
before a
consonant, so it's theoretically clear when the "n" represents a
compounding
hyphen and when it doesn't. That's the idea, anyway. But I honestly
would
expect new learners to learn words like "lunpe" as units, perhaps
only later
beginning to understand that such words are compounds, and becoming
comfortable with making their own compounds on the fly.

BTW, I'm thinking of further loosening the compounding guidelines, so
that,
aside from a few broad principles, Konya would not be terribly fussy
as long
as folks could agree, perhaps through usage rather than theory, on
the
meanings of compounds. Reactions, anyone?

>
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
>
> > 5. c. "The first syllable of a core predicate consists of a >
       consonant
> followed by one of the vowels e, i, o, or u. >      
 Second and subsequent
> syllables consist of a consonant >        followed by
the vowel a. >    d.  The
first
> syllable of a core functional consists of a >        w
or y followed by a vowel.
> Second and subsequent >        syllables consist of a
consonant followed by
> the vowel a."
>
> > What you call "core predicate" is actually called a root word >
or a
> morpheme.

I'm trying to maintain a distinction between core predicates and core
functionals, which have different forms, though both are root words
or
morphemes. I'll review the page and see if I said what I thought I
said.

>
> > 7. e. "Verbs are transitive or intransitive based on context."
>
> > Actually, verbs are transitive or intransitive regardless of >
context. A
> transitive verb is accompanied by a direct object > from which a
passive can
> be formed, for example: deny, rectify, > elect. You probably meant
the
passive
> form. "He writes a letter" > is the active form, while "Letter is
written" is the
> passive form.
> True.  He does have those terms mixed up.
>

Was I really trying to say "reflexive"? I wanted to explain that in
Konya, you
can't tell from the form of a verb whether an unstated object means
that the
verb acts reflexively -- "The boy runs (himself)" -- or doesn't
--"The boy eats
(something)".  That is to say, technically, "lunpe komyu" _can_ mean
"the boy
eats himself", but it isn't likely that that is what is meant. I did
this as a cop-out,
so that I wouldn't have to lay down a rule for the valence of every
verb that
gets created. Is that too much of a cheat?

> > 17. yo = spoken comma, punyo = spoken ending comma
>
> > They are the same as Ygyde parentheses (spelled e and y).
>
> I've seen quite a few constructed languages with "spoken"
> punctuation marks, but have never seen any real basis for them
> rooted in any natural languages.
>

Yep, and these are among those "logical" constructs that might be the
first to
go.  But I don't know that all languages recognize and use pauses the
same
way, so I'm reluctant to say, "you indicate a grammatical break by
pausing for
X milliseconds" or something like that. So I chose a syllable, "yo",
that seemed
to already have some currency among young North American urbanites as
a
way to explicitly pause in their speech.

As for "yo" also functioning as clause markers: I note that, while
English
frequently dispenses with dependent clause marker "that", French
refuses to
do so. I also note that, when English does this, it starts getting
difficult to parse
and understand.

> > ______________________________
> ______________________________ _____
>
> > PS. It is easy to make simple auxlang grammar, and it is just
> > as easy to learn the simple grammar. In this sense, auxlang
> > grammar is not important.
>
> Not entirely.  Learning and knowing how to use it from a book,
> or other reference, may be easy but making it into a
> subconscious habit may not be so easy.  It's important to keep
> everyone's needs in mind, and also to consider the handful of
> known language universals.
>
> > The difference between good auxlang
> > and mediocre one is its vocabulary -- it should be easy to
> > learn
>
> "Easy to learn" can be a relative term, depending on the
> students background.
>
> > easy to pronounce, and easy to understand in spoken
> > language (good word parsing).
>
> What you call "good", others may not.  "Good" is too general of
> a term to be using.  Try something that shows what you mean by
> "good".

Jeez, I didn't find it easy at all to build the grammar. The
vocabulary is much
easier to me, since words, for the most part, don't have to interlock
perfectly
with one another the way the components of a grammar have to. (And
many
word-interlocking issues are resolved by a self-segregating
morphology.) I'm
happy to let anyone here start creating, abusing, and destroying
vocabulary
as part of the language development.

>
> >  Jeffrey Henning and I believe
> > that well designed compound words are the key to good auxlang
> > design.
>
> Maybe you should let Jeffrey speak for himself?

BTW, Jeffrey says we're free to adapt Kali-sise vocab to Konya, and
urges me
to put Konya's vocab -- when it's of a decent size -- in the public
domain,
which I will do. I've completed a first cut of the expanded
vocabulary, but it's
still only on the order of 500-600 words...I'll try to get it in
presentable shape
this week and post it.

>
> Compounding provides for some good shortcuts, but it's one of
> many options available.  
>
> > Ygyde is the auxlang to beat because the mixture of
> > Standard Ygyde syllables and Long Ygyde syllables is easy
> > to pronounce for everyone (much more so than Konya words)
> > and yet the words made of those mixed syllables are terse.
> > Ygyde basics: http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew /ygyde/ygyde.htm
> > Dictionary: http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew /ygyde/ygyded.htm
> > Grammar: http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew /ygyde/ygydeg.htm
>
> I've seen Ygyde several times, and I'd say every other auxlang
> beats it because these other languages do not look or sound like
> machine generated noise, but instead look and sound like real
> usable languages.

Opinions, please: does Konya look and sound like a real usable
language?

>
> ------------------------------
>
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
>
> Dana Nutter \ dejnx nxtxr dn20...@n... RI SASXSEK LATIS. http://
> www.nutter.net/sasxsek

Thanks for input, everyone ---
---larry

Here was Dana's response to a lengthy response from Andrew Nowicki. It had
started getting more generalised than just the question of names, and more
focused on Konya, so I brought it over here. I'll just post this as-is, then
reply
separately.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dana Nutter   Jun 19, 11:59 am     show options
Newsgroups: alt.language.artificial
From: Dana Nutter <dn20...@...> - Find messages by this author
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:59:47 -0400
Local: Sun,Jun 19 2005 11:59 am
Subject: Re: names
Reply |Reply to Author| Forward| Print| Individual Message| Show original|
Report Abuse


[Andrew Nowicki] pis ra ...

> Larry Sulky wrote:

> >... Check the current page at
> > http://ca.geocities.com/HandyD ad/konya/konya-main.html, items 34, 68,
> > and 120-122.

> 35. ... names end in "ya."
> 70. ... words "wu" and "punwu" enclose foreign names.

> The problem with "ya" is that some other words have
> "ya" inside them: xuyama, siyama, yafa, yala, yama,
> Yata, xayama.

So what if they do?

> The same page claims that:
> "Konya is a constructed, international auxiliary language.
> It's designed to be easy to learn for as many people as
> possible -- not just Europeans, everybody."

> I disagree with this claim. Konya has phoneme "r" which
> is very difficult to pronounce for many speakers.

Which "R" is difficult? Tthere are many different pronunciations
for the letter R, any or all of which can be used as allophones.
The "L" sounds could be used as well.  This covers most of the
human race.

BTW: Maybe you should have paid attention to the website.  It
states that the "R" in Konya is only for foreign names.

> 4. f. "Compounds are formed by joining core words with the
>        compounding hyphen n, unless this would result in
>        the letter sequence nn, in which case the compounding
>        hyphen is changed to m."

> Same problem as before. Letter "n" is part of many root
> words, so when you see "n" you do not know if this is
> the link between the root words.

Other words won't make sense. So figuring out the compound will
be easy.


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> 5. c. "The first syllable of a core predicate consists of a >        consonant
followed by one of the vowels e, i, o, or u. >        Second and subsequent
syllables consist of a consonant >        followed by the vowel a. >    d.  The
first
syllable of a core functional consists of a >        w or y followed by a vowel.
Second and subsequent >        syllables consist of a consonant followed by
the vowel a."

> What you call "core predicate" is actually called a root word > or a
morpheme.

> 7. e. "Verbs are transitive or intransitive based on context."

> Actually, verbs are transitive or intransitive regardless of > context. A
transitive verb is accompanied by a direct object > from which a passive can
be formed, for example: deny, rectify, > elect. You probably meant the passive
form. "He writes a letter" > is the active form, while "Letter is written" is
the
passive form.
True.  He does have those terms mixed up.

> 17. yo = spoken comma, punyo = spoken ending comma

> They are the same as Ygyde parentheses (spelled e and y).

I've seen quite a few constructed languages with "spoken"
punctuation marks, but have never seen any real basis for them
rooted in any natural languages.

> ______________________________
______________________________ _____

> PS. It is easy to make simple auxlang grammar, and it is just
> as easy to learn the simple grammar. In this sense, auxlang
> grammar is not important.

Not entirely.  Learning and knowing how to use it from a book,
or other reference, may be easy but making it into a
subconscious habit may not be so easy.  It's important to keep
everyone's needs in mind, and also to consider the handful of
known language universals.

> The difference between good auxlang
> and mediocre one is its vocabulary -- it should be easy to
> learn

"Easy to learn" can be a relative term, depending on the
students background.

> easy to pronounce, and easy to understand in spoken
> language (good word parsing).

What you call "good", others may not.  "Good" is too general of
a term to be using.  Try something that shows what you mean by
"good".

>  Jeffrey Henning and I believe
> that well designed compound words are the key to good auxlang
> design.

Maybe you should let Jeffrey speak for himself?

Compounding provides for some good shortcuts, but it's one of
many options available.  

> Ygyde is the auxlang to beat because the mixture of
> Standard Ygyde syllables and Long Ygyde syllables is easy
> to pronounce for everyone (much more so than Konya words)
> and yet the words made of those mixed syllables are terse.
> Ygyde basics: http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew /ygyde/ygyde.htm
> Dictionary: http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew /ygyde/ygyded.htm
> Grammar: http://www.medianet.pl/~andrew /ygyde/ygydeg.htm

I've seen Ygyde several times, and I'd say every other auxlang
beats it because these other languages do not look or sound like
machine generated noise, but instead look and sound like real
usable languages.

------------------------------

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Dana Nutter \ dejnx nxtxr dn20...@... RI SASXSEK LATIS. http://
www.nutter.net/sasxsek

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher"
<christopher641@c...> wrote:

---BLUSH & SNIP---

> So, please keep working on Konya.  The grammar seems well designed but
> we need a lot more vocabulary so that we can begin to test its feature
> set.  Give us some more words to play with.
>
> Also, promote Konya more.  Make an announcement in the Yahoo auxlang
> group and the auxlang usent groups.
>
> -Christopher

Wow! Thank you for your kind and, IMHO, wise words (about the value of
auxlangs).

The interest Konya has got these past few days has really inspired me!
I'm working on additional vocabulary now, mainly by adapting Jeffrey
Henning's Kali-sise roots to Konya's slightly larger phonemic
inventory. (Maybe I should ask his permission before I go much
further...but he's done all this great work already...it'd be a shame
to duplicate it...I'm sure if I give him credit he'll be okay with
it...I hope....)

Tomorrow is Father's Day and I get to do whatever I want. After 9 holes
of golf in the morning I believe I'll Konyate the rest of the day
away. :-)

Thanks again, Christopher!

--Larry

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "HandyDad" <lsulky@r...> wrote:
> That's great, Yann, and welcome!
>
> After initially posting Konya, I began to have second thoughts about
> its value and the value of all auxlangs except Esperanto. But now I
> feel that they're all worth investing time in (including Esperanto
:-) ).
>
> If you have ideas, we'd love to hear them. If you want to work on
your
> own thing and borrow from Konya, feel free! Most of the folks in
this
> group have their own auxlangs and we contribute to and support one
> another. Who knows what will come of it? But the journey is at least
> as important as the destination!

You've created a great auxlang that seems pretty sophisticated and I
hope that you'll continue to invest time in it.  I just found out
about it the other day via the blog posting at Langmaker.com and I was
really impressed by the amount of work you've done already.  I intend
to give it a spin, there's a lot I like about it.  It takes a lot of
courage to put something "out there" for others to critique.

As for other auxlang proposals...  you know, anymore, I think the
world still doesn't have ENOUGH auxlangs to choose from.  It's still
too early for the world to adopt one (as most people don't have a
compelling reason to do so... in particular, most English speakers).
But with each auxlang created, more and more people discover and
recognize what an auxlang is, the auxlang community sharpens its
skills and the concept of "auxlang" becomes more accepted.  People who
create music for a hobby (whether its a garage band or singing in the
church choir or learning to play a musical instrument) don't have to
justify their love or passion for time well spent, even if the
majority of the world doesn't find out about their creations.  Neither
should auxlangers, conlangers or artlangers.  If nothing else, future
auxlangers will build upon your work (and Ceqli and Sasxsek and
lojban, etc... all worthy projects themselves) because of its level of
craftsmanship.

So, please keep working on Konya.  The grammar seems well designed but
we need a lot more vocabulary so that we can begin to test its feature
set.  Give us some more words to play with.

Also, promote Konya more.  Make an announcement in the Yahoo auxlang
group and the auxlang usent groups.


-Christopher

That's great, Yann, and welcome!

After initially posting Konya, I began to have second thoughts about
its value and the value of all auxlangs except Esperanto. But now I
feel that they're all worth investing time in (including Esperanto :-) ).

If you have ideas, we'd love to hear them. If you want to work on your
own thing and borrow from Konya, feel free! Most of the folks in this
group have their own auxlangs and we contribute to and support one
another. Who knows what will come of it? But the journey is at least
as important as the destination!

1. Removed phoneme represented by "c".
2. Changed compounding hyphen from "wa" to "n".
3. Removed apostrophe as schwa placeholder.
4. Abandoned dropping of "a" in most situations.
5. Changed some functionals and functional series.
6. Changed some vocabulary.
7. Reversed usual order of lexemes within compound words, to parallel
normal word order in phrases.
8. Loosened guidelines on creating compound words.

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "yann_kiraly" <yann_kiraly@g...> wrote:
> Hi. I just joined the group. I've been thinking about ways to create an easy
to learn, and
still
> very efficient (in terms of grammar, not of syllables) conlang. And then I
found Konya! I
hope
> this language will grow in popularity, and, as soon as I've learned the
basics, I'll put the
> grammar to some testing and, if I find some words that don't exist yet, try to
add to the
> dictionary.
Now that I think about it, I'll toy around with a few ideas I have for my own
IAL. But I'll still
invest some time in Konya.

Hi. I just joined the group. I've been thinking about ways to create an easy to
learn, and still
very efficient (in terms of grammar, not of syllables) conlang. And then I found
Konya! I hope
this language will grow in popularity, and, as soon as I've learned the basics,
I'll put the
grammar to some testing and, if I find some words that don't exist yet, try to
add to the
dictionary.

--- In konyalanguage@yahoogroups.com, "Rex May" <rmay@m...> wrote:
> wosa!
> --Reksya

Reksya yo mi seyu xola yo tu seyu lokanmi!

I'm studying Eo these days, but I can't seem to put our various pet
auxlangs down. So many great ideas, so much great discussion! I'm
updating the Konya page almost daily lately, and checking out the
various Yahoo groups, including Ceqli's, frequently.

--Loya

wosa!
--Reksya

Well! A few folks have joined this group despite my silence. Welcome,
All.

Once I got Kon'ya into some kind of published form I got to thinking
more about what I wanted to achieve with it. I realized that, while
Kon'ya is an interesting project, when all is said and done I suspect
that Esperanto still has the best chance among constructed languages
to serve as a worldwide-sanctioned IAL.

So now I tend to look at Kon'ya as more of a hobby or a sandbox of
interesting linguistic ideas (though nothing all that revolutionary).
I like the way it sounds; it seems to work; I still have ideas about
improvements. Therefore, I'm still interested in your ideas.

Dana Nutter was nice enough to respond to an inadvertent email
several weeks ago. Dana suggested a couple of things to consider
(I'll paraphrase here...these are not Dana's literal words):

"1) The phoneme /tS/, spelled 'c' in Kon'ya, may not be sufficiently
distinct from /S/, spelled 'x'. French lacks the former, Spanish the
latter, and some languages lack both."

I will consider the impact of doing away with 'c'. With Kon'ya
already being phonemically small, I'm reluctant to do so. However, if
I did so, it would be more feasible to permit consonant final 'n' for
non-final syllables; I avoided it because /ntS/ and /nS/ certainly
are hard to distinguish.

"2) Let the direct object be unmarked, unless it does not immediately
follow the verb."

If I do this, then a listener can't tell where the verb modifiers end
and the direct object begins. And I don't want to introduce a word
form to distinguish between modifiers and nouns, since many
languages, including English, are perfectly happy allowing nouns to
modify other nouns; besides, Kon'ya needs markers for all other
objects anyway, so what's one more? :-)

Thoughts?

I inadvertently sent the first message directly to Dana. I meant to
post it to the message board. Basically, it was:

Do you think self-segregating morphology is a particularly useful
feature?