How did you decide on the intelligent beings?

[Ngo]

So you pronounce extant the same as extent?

Just checked the OED; it gives both pronunciations ["Ekst@nt] and [Eks"t{nt], but the first (which matches mine) is given as more usual.

I do not. <extent> is /EkstInt/.

[Mecislau]

So you pronounce extant the same as extent?

Just checked the OED; it gives both pronunciations ["Ekst@nt] and [Eks"t{nt], but the first (which matches mine) is given as more usual.

Hmm... I've never heard ["Ekst@nt] before...

[Jaaaaaa]

So you pronounce extant the same as extent?

Just checked the OED; it gives both pronunciations ["Ekst@nt] and [Eks"t{nt], but the first (which matches mine) is given as more usual.

Hmm... I've never heard ["Ekst@nt] before...

What he said.

[Space Dracula]

So you pronounce extant the same as extent?

Just checked the OED; it gives both pronunciations ["Ekst@nt] and [Eks"t{nt], but the first (which matches mine) is given as more usual.

Hmm... I've never heard ["Ekst@nt] before...

What he said.

I have <extent> and <extant> as [Ek."stInt_}] and ["Ek.st@nt_}], respectively.

[Jaaaaaa]

So you pronounce extant the same as extent?

Just checked the OED; it gives both pronunciations ["Ekst@nt] and [Eks"t{nt], but the first (which matches mine) is given as more usual.

Hmm... I've never heard ["Ekst@nt] before...

What he said.

I have <extent> and <extant> as [Ek."stInt_}] and ["Ek.st@nt_}], respectively.

I've [Iks.tE~n?] and [Iks.t{~n?].

[Salmoneus]

I've never heard someone describe something as /Ek"st{nt/ (or the like) before. My instinct says that adjectives are more likely to be stressed on the first syllable, though its almost certainly mislead.

@kstEnt and Ekst@nt, for me.

[Drydic]

I guess we just realised another difference between American and British.

[dunomapuka]

I guess we just realised another difference between American and British.

Not entirely...I think I say it the British way.

Could just be a weird local thing.

Not that the word 'extant' is used much in conversation.

[Drydic]

Shush, you!

[vec]

OK...


How *** **ll did this simple discussion on intelligent beings turn into a discussion on how you pronounce extant. It's ridiculous!

[Nuntar]

Um... that's what happens around here, I'm afraid.

[Ngo]

OK...


How *** **ll did this simple discussion on intelligent beings turn into a discussion on how you pronounce extant. It's ridiculous!

I think that a general tendency exists for conlang related discussions to degenerate into english pronunciation threads.

[Pthagnar]

I think that a general tendency exists for conlang related discussions to degenerate into english pronunciation threads.

I think this tendency was noted on the CONLANG mailing list. And given an acronym, which is something they're fond of over there. My favourite pair is ANLDIBB and ANLDIBW - A natlang did it but better/worse.

[Mashmakhan]

Whenever I look at the uesti, elcari and múrtani, I sort of have difficulty seeing how they could have evolved from amphibians...they have hair and nipples which are features seen on mammals, but I see no mention of mammals on the Virtual Virduria site and I don't believe there was any mention of them in the Almeopedia either... I haven't read the whole Almeopedia yet though. How do you explain the ears and the finger-toenails?

[bulbaquil]

Retrofitting, if I had to guess.

[CaesarVincens]

Hard to believe humans evolved from amphibians also...

The Almean amphibians just led directly to the humanoids rather than through a reptilian branch as on Earth.

[Matt]

holy thread revival, batman.

[zompist]

Whenever I look at the uesti, elcari and múrtani, I sort of have difficulty seeing how they could have evolved from amphibians...they have hair and nipples which are features seen on mammals, but I see no mention of mammals on the Virtual Virduria site and I don't believe there was any mention of them in the Almeopedia either... I haven't read the whole Almeopedia yet though. How do you explain the ears and the finger-toenails?

Did you see this page? The Intelligent Kinds are mammals, and on Almea these happen to be closer to what we'd call amphibians than to reptiles.

[Mashmakhan]

Whenever I look at the uesti, elcari and múrtani, I sort of have difficulty seeing how they could have evolved from amphibians...they have hair and nipples which are features seen on mammals, but I see no mention of mammals on the Virtual Virduria site and I don't believe there was any mention of them in the Almeopedia either... I haven't read the whole Almeopedia yet though. How do you explain the ears and the finger-toenails?

Did you see this page? The Intelligent Kinds are mammals, and on Almea these happen to be closer to what we'd call amphibians than to reptiles.

Yes, actually, I was looking at it when I typed my last post Must have missed the first bit. Sorry, my fault.

Anyway, I wasn't necessarily saying those species couldn't be mammals if that was what you were thinking. I was just sceptical as to how you could get mammalian characteristics directly from amphibians without some sort of intermediary stage. Especially with those characteristics I mentioned. I think CaesarVincens summed it up pretty well. Characteristics like nails and internal ears would have needed an intermediary reptillian precursor because IMHO an amphibian would have no need to evolve those characteristics.

Amphibians have a tympanum that they use to hear. Reptiles lost it in part thanks to a paedomorphic adaptation that allowed them to grab faster food and hold onto it. All of a sudden, we go from a tympanum to an advanced inner ear structure and an outer ear...?

Amphibian skin doesn't lock in moisture so water is released very easily. Amphibians also breathe through their skin, making salt water not an ideal environment for them. There is only one type of frog that lives in salt water but I don't know how they do it. Conversely, reptiles lock in water with their scales. If you wanted mammary glands, which are a much more specialized structure, it wouldn't make as much sense to have them on an amphibian which can excrete liquid from anywhere on their body than on a reptile which would need to specialize in order to do so. Mammary glands evolved initially to keep eggs wet...if you were an amphibian, would you really need to worry about that?

Reptiles have claws, which eventually led to nails in primates to make their hands more versatile for climbing trees. Claws evolved to aid in traction in a terrestrial environment as opposed to toe pads in amphibians which are more suitable in water. I can sort of see claws happening here if all of these sophont species had come from an ancestor with claws - the ktuvoks did have them so maybe that is a basal/plesiomorphic trait - but I didn't see anything about arboreal lifestyles. I did see something about a sea monkey but how could such an animal evolve nails if it wasn't climbing?

Just a few things to consider, if you haven't done so already. It isn't the apparent lack of notable amphibious characteristics that I am a bit awry about, it is all these other advanced characteristics that just show up all of a sudden, straight from an amphibious heritage. And I might even be able to go on but I don't want to nitpick too excessively. It is your conworld.

[zompist]

We're talking about an entirely different evolutionary tree here. If you want to be scientific, you need to distinguish terrestrial and Almean groups. A-mammals evolved from A-amphibians, not T-amphibians.

Nothing about T-reptiles and T-amphibians is necessarily relevant here. All the facts you mention are facts about T-reptiles and T-amphibians; they are not facts about A-reptiles and A-amphibians.

Why use the same names then? Picture a terrestrial observer visiting Almea, seeing a bunch of animals and plants, and picking what seems to be the closest name for their general appearance, habitat, and behavior. It's convenient, and perfectly adequate for talking about A-humans' history and stories and languages, but it will lead to wrong conclusions if taken as strict statements about biology.

[vec]

It's a weird feeling reading things I wrote seven (!) years ago. My English has clearly improved.

[Mashmakhan]

We're talking about an entirely different evolutionary tree here. If you want to be scientific, you need to distinguish terrestrial and Almean groups. A-mammals evolved from A-amphibians, not T-amphibians.

Nothing about T-reptiles and T-amphibians is necessarily relevant here. All the facts you mention are facts about T-reptiles and T-amphibians; they are not facts about A-reptiles and A-amphibians.

Why use the same names then? Picture a terrestrial observer visiting Almea, seeing a bunch of animals and plants, and picking what seems to be the closest name for their general appearance, habitat, and behavior. It's convenient, and perfectly adequate for talking about A-humans' history and stories and languages, but it will lead to wrong conclusions if taken as strict statements about biology.

Very good point, and I do the same for my conworld. The more advanced traits in the uesti, elcari and múrtani stuck out because I didn't know how they could have evolved in the first place. I suppose they very well could have happened without a reptilian or arboreal primate ancestry. I just needed to lift my suspension of belief(?) a bit more by supposing they evolved at earlier or later times. Hopefully the posts here - mine, yours, and others - have let me do that.