zompist bboard

Ool hjyymän pii'ings aa poon frii än iikyöl in tikniti än raits. Dei aa endaud vit riison än konšöns än šyd äkt tuaats van önadöö in ö spirid of pradöhuud.

In Finnish there is no -{language} suffix. There are two ways to refer languages, three if you count languages with non-nation, separate names: 1) 'Language of [Place or language name]': suomen kieli, suomenkielinen 'Finnish, Finnish-speaking', ruotsin kieli, ruotsinkielinen 'Swedish, swedish-speaki...

I'm sure Zomp realises just how massive that kind of project is, but eh. Finnish has tietää 'know' (< *'to road, to path'), know of something, know of someone, and the opposite know is tuntea , 'to know someone', but also 'to feel, to feel an emotion, to register touching sensations'. Some completel...

Nae used to have a thingy for the GIMP he programmed that produced a quite credible-looking texture. I still have, it's a GIMP Scheme script that you apply to a given image, and which spits out a basic "texturised" image that you can then modify to your liking. I use this script for all my parchmen...

ol bofoshnae wrote:I suppose so. Although maybe Nae called himself that because of that. Who knows, eh?

I knows.

I had to find out what stative verbs mean but now I can firmly state that no, there is no language that doesn't have transitive stative verbs.

Thanks guys, but I have to decline the honour of my delicious victory because my current project (it's for a game), which I'm tentatively calling Māinm, cannot really be called an experimental conworld: I mean, it's style is really, really old. As in, they made up worlds like it thousands and thousa...

Piotr wrote:Kiitos. Is there a phonetic difference between /a.a:/ and /a:.a/?

You will never find /a.a:/ in Finnish, because only /a:.a/ is a valid context for consonant gradation.

EDIT: There's a difference. A pause, not glottal closure, but cessation of breath.

Loss of -k- medially due to consonant gradation doesn't result in a glottal plosive, just a syllable boundary. The glottal final is a result of loss of several kinds of word-final consonants, and the only time it's an actual glottal is when it's geminated between two vowels. For this reason, it's us...

Guitarplayer wrote:

finlay wrote:gentle sarcasm doesn't seem to work too well

Much of the ZBB is deficient in that regard. I blame it on the high quota of aspies.

why blame us when you can blame the fucking ENGLISH

Standards. While language may change in one region in a certain way, it helps facilitate communication to other regions. If Americans and British were to both write in a more phonemically correct way than we currently do, for example, American kids would have to learn two writing systems just to re...

15 bucks? Sold.

Looks like we get our flying cars after all. Thanks, Moller! And it's about damned time. And it'll continue to be about damned time for a long time yet. Moller is the cold fusion of flying cars - they've been around for ages, and have nothing to show for it except a few blurry photos and an obvious...

As a general comment, what you are suggesting (sarcastically or not) for Finnish is exactly what English and French have done. In both languages, you can reconstruct quite well the history of phonetic changes by looking at the vagaries of orthography. As an almost exact replica of the Finnish vesi ...

You wanted to analyse a phonemic /ji/ as a /gi/ for phonohistorical reasons (or, rather, as /j 2 i/). No, not really I wasn't using phonohistorical reasons, solely synchronic alternation patterns. And the rule that you seem to imply that i am implying is the hypercomplex rule, which, as you say, Oc...

So, I should analyse Finnish <vesi> as <vete> because the < i > is only an allophone of <e> at the end of a word, and <s> is only an allophone of <t> before word-final <e>? Oh, ok. Sure. That sounds logical. I didn't comment on Finnish because I know nothing about it, I only stated what is the case...

I don't like the latter analysis. Mainly because there is evidence in the same language that the [j] sound in [ji] "give" is different from the [j] sound in [ja] "yes" because when the verb /gi/ is put in the past tense it is pronounced [ga] "gave" and not *[ja]. There is a differentiation between ...

I feel that a linguist should analyse a languages' phonemic structure by, yes, looking at the phonetic reality in question, and interpret it that way, and not ignore the historical development that has occured in that language (which the "calling 'shu' 'syu'"-thing IS, imho)... Of course, analysing ...

vehke wrote:Ugh, Escaflowne. Vihaan sit?.

Mi? n?in sen mun ensimm?isen Suuren Animekauden alussa (sain lainaksi yst?v?n 200+ anime-cd kokoelman), eik? se ollu mium mielest? niin paha. Vaikkei se niim paraskaa ollu, jostain syyst?. V?h?m pomppuileva.