A lot of Xurnese corrections...

Yiuel Raumbesrairc · Post by **Yiuel Raumbesrairc** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:51 am

There has been a lot of corrections concerning Xurnese in the Almeopedia yesterday.

Would this be a prelude for the appearance of the Xurnese grammar?

Post by **zompist** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:25 pm

Yes, the end is in sight... I'm working on the pragmatics section now, though I still have the examples to do.

So Haleza Grise · Post by **So Haleza Grise** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:45 am

I'm curious - what would the LCK example sentence look like now?

I'm sufficiently obsessive an Almeologist to wonder if Zomp could publish his earlier version of Xurnese as a curio, like Tolkien with Gnomish. Probably a little difficult given he works electronically. . .

Post by **zompist** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:56 pm

Fortunately that example survived the transition.

Old:

Ir nevu jadzies mnoshudacij.
Toc shizen ri tos bunjachi shasik rili.
Tos denjic shush bunji dis kezi.
Syu shacho cu shush izraugi.

New:

Ir nevu jádzies mnoshuac.
Tosh to ray do shasaup rile shizen.
To am shus bunji dis kes denjic.
Syu cu shus izrues shach.

The phonology hasn't really changed. Note that c = [ts].

A factoid for you: the Word file containing the Xurnese grammar was created in June 1988, almost 20 years ago. It's currently 100 pages long.

vohpenonomae · Post by **vohpenonomae** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:48 pm

zompist wrote:Note that c = [ts].

You use APA conventions elsewhere in the language?

Dewrad · Post by **Dewrad** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:41 pm

vohpenonomae wrote:
zompist wrote:Note that c = [ts].
You use APA conventions elsewhere in the language?

That's not (just) an APA convention, it's found in the orthographies of Slavic languages as well (and is most likely where the APA got it from).

fahrradkette · Post by **fahrradkette** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:18 pm

Where do I get that Word file at? If you released it. I checked the almeopedia to no avail.

ketske · Post by **ketske** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:29 pm

He hasn't released it.

doctrellor · Post by **doctrellor** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:06 pm

zompist wrote:
A factoid for you: the Word file containing the Xurnese grammar was created in June 1988, almost 20 years ago. It's currently 100 pages long.

Wow.. cool that it's stuck around for all of us to see your original work. It is good that the grammar will be out soon..

con quesa · Post by **con quesa** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:47 pm

zompist wrote: A factoid for you: the Word file containing the Xurnese grammar was created in June 1988, almost 20 years ago. It's currently 100 pages long.

You were using MS Word in '88? I think they had an early version by then, but not for macs.

Herra Ratatoskr · Post by **Herra Ratatoskr** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:51 pm

Wikipedia says that a Mac version of Word was out by 1984.

ketske · Post by **ketske** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:35 pm

Maybe he's not referring to a .doc?

vec · Post by **vec** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:16 pm

Maybe he has just maybe possibly moved the text between document formats. Just a thought.

Post by **zompist** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:43 pm

Since this seems to engender such speculation... I've had Macs, and Mac Word, since I think 1984. All my Almea documents are in Word; I convert them to html for the web. The Mac long resisted file extensions, and they still aren't necessary, though they do work now.

Newer editions of Mac Word use the same format as Windows Word. But I still use Word 5.1, which is, strangely enough, faster than more modern versions, and has some features which were later lost. If I get an Intel Mac, however, I'll have to downgrade to the latest version.

hwhatting · Post by **hwhatting** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:44 pm

IT progress is strangely reminiscent of the communist progress of old... the theoretical paradise is getting ever better, while the reality leaves to wish for ever more.
Vista = socialism plus the wi(n)dowfication of all operational environments.

Terra · Post by **Terra** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:37 pm

Newer editions of Mac Word use the same format as Windows Word. But I still use Word 5.1, which is, strangely enough, faster than more modern versions, and has some features which were later lost. If I get an Intel Mac, however, I'll have to downgrade to the latest version. Confused

Interesting, but I say the same thing of office 2003 compared to the 2007 version, though my main beef is the layout of the user interface. And out of curiosity, what features does Word 5.1 have that were later lost?

Post by **zompist** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:12 pm

FinalZero wrote:And out of curiosity, what features does Word 5.1 have that were later lost?

One is the equation editor, which allowed overstriking characters; I use this extensively in my numbers collection. There are some three-character combinations that aren't even in Unicode.

The other is the movement keys; I'm so used to them that newer versions are hard to get used to.

vohpenonomae · Post by **vohpenonomae** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:51 pm

zompist wrote:
FinalZero wrote:And out of curiosity, what features does Word 5.1 have that were later lost?
One is the equation editor, which allowed overstriking characters [...]

What!? Why would they jettison a feature as useful as that? I, too, use it a lot; and if there's not a way to overstrike characters in the next version of Word, I won't be upgrading. Screw that.

Post by **zompist** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:18 pm

I think I'm more or less done. For my own amusement, here's roughly how the grammar breaks down, in pages:

7 - Intro and Phonology
13 - Morphology
19 - Syntax
16 - Semantics
22 - Pragmatics
6 - Examples
41 - Lexicon

I still have to read it over again, and probably expand the vocabulary a bit, before converting it to HTML. I have a couple of books on pragmatics I'm still reading; I may or may not change things based on them...

vohpenonomae · Post by **vohpenonomae** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:38 pm

zompist wrote:I think I'm more or less done. For my own amusement, here's roughly how the grammar breaks down, in pages:

7 - Intro and Phonology
13 - Morphology
19 - Syntax
16 - Semantics
22 - Pragmatics
6 - Examples
41 - Lexicon

I still have to read it over again, and probably expand the vocabulary a bit, before converting it to HTML. I have a couple of books on pragmatics I'm still reading; I may or may not change things based on them...

How about an alpha/beta release? I've been waiting to see this for quite a while.