questions

[Moo6]

1. Can I use ' for a ʔ ?

[Aurora Rossa]

1. Is olfas nose have anything to do with olfactory bulb of a human nose.

Almost certainly. Zompist borrowed massively from European languages for Verdurian.

[tezcatlip0ca]

And about the underlined apostrophe, I was severely criticized for it.

[zompist]

Apostrophes are pretty bad in conlanging, because there's no clue what they're supposed to mean. Plus, because non-conlangers use them to weird up names.

If you're trying to represent Flaidish or Uyseʔ and can't use Unicode, I suggest using 7 (which is what I originally did in the Flaidish grammar).

[Pthagnar]

Apostrophes are pretty bad in conlanging, because there's no clue what they're supposed to mean.

I am not sure this is the case, because languages have things called "grammars" to tell you what things mean. Although you have an advantage with the apostrophe since people at least recognise it as being sort of like a gappy eliding almost-not-there thingy, whereas what 7 is supposed to mean is so deep a question that the mathematicians have left it to the philosophers, so really you are left with:

Plus, because non-conlangers use them to weird up names.

which is simple snobbery.

[bulbaquil]

whereas what 7 is supposed to mean is so deep a question that the mathematicians have left it to the philosophers

It means 6.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999........

[Nortaneous]

7 is a number, and therefore looks quite a bit out of place in a word.
' is a thing that goes in words sometimes in English, and therefore does not look out of place in a word.

[Bristel]

7 is a number, and therefore looks quite a bit out of place in a word.
' is a thing that goes in words sometimes in English, and therefore does not look out of place in a word.

I've only seen <7> used in one or two Salishan languages, I think Squamish is an example.

The ʻokina < ʻ > is used in Hawaiian, which is a little more commonly known than other native languages.

[Drydic]

The ʻokina < ʻ > is used in Hawaiian, which is a little more commonly known than other native languages.

Even most native speakers of Hawai'ian don't write the ʻokina. Moreso now since it's not available on US keyboards and purists screech if you use an apostrophe.

[linguofreak]

Apostrophes are pretty bad in conlanging, because there's no clue what they're supposed to mean.

I must confess that I use them for glottal stops when I write up a conlang that has them. (Of course, most of my conlangs never get past a phonology sketch).

[WeepingElf]

I see no wrongness in using apostrophes for glottal stops - but it is entirely a matter of taste.

[Rodlox]

The ʻokina < ʻ > is used in Hawaiian, which is a little more commonly known than other native languages.

and it may become even better known - now that Hawaii Five-0 uses them in episode titles.

[Mashmakhan]

I used to use apostraphes for aspiration but I got warded off for that on another online bboard. Nonetheless, I see no reason why an apostraphe can't be used for a glottal stop as long as it is generally known to represent a glottal stop. The problem in conlanging not so much being the presence of the apostraphe itself but the agreed usage of it. Too many amateurs use it for other unspecified means. Most of which, as zompist mentioned, are used to spice up certain words without carrying any actual phonemic meaning at all. Star Trek comes to mind.....

Does anyone use them to indicate palatization in consonants? The Slavic languages are real-life languages that do so, so I don't see why someone couldn't get away with this for a conlang as well.

[Mecislau]

Does anyone use them to indicate palatization in consonants? The Slavic languages are real-life languages that do so, so I don't see why someone couldn't get away with this for a conlang as well.

What? No they don't. Apostrophes are only found in Slavicists' transcriptions of Slavic languages.



(Yes, Czech has ť/ď, but those aren't apostrophes, they're variants of a haček used with letters with ascenders)

[Mashmakhan]

Slavic languages can be represented in both Cyrillic and Roman. Russian that is written in Roman is still Russian - the actual language doesn't change, only the writing system changes - so apostraphes are still used in this language and most likely in other Slavic languages as well.

[Drydic]

Slavic languages can be represented in both Cyrillic and Roman. Russian that is written in Roman is still Russian - the actual language doesn't change, only the writing system changes - so apostraphes are still used in this language and most likely in other Slavic languages as well.

Show me a Russian speaker who, when cyrillic input is easily available, doesn't use it. And we were going over the various Slavic languages, and no, none we could think of or find (which is all of them) uses apostrophes with any consistency. Acutes, graves, double graves, circumflexes, macrons, ogoneks and hačeks yes, but rarely if ever apostrophes. And no I'm not quibbling and saying that the prime symbol doesn't count as an apostrophe in this case.

[Miekko]

Slavic languages can be represented in both Cyrillic and Roman. Russian that is written in Roman is still Russian - the actual language doesn't change, only the writing system changes - so apostraphes are still used in this language and most likely in other Slavic languages as well.

It is not part of the language, it's an extra-Russian situation; you're an idiot, stfu.

[Mashmakhan]

Show me a Russian speaker who, when cyrillic input is easily available, doesn't use it.

My Russian language instructor didn't use it because she didn't think any of her students could read it. And she was mostly right; only one other student and I could read Cyrillic. But she did use apostraphies when transcribing the spoken Russian.

It is not part of the language, it's an extra-Russian situation;

Correction: it isn't a part of Cyrillic. No verbal language really uses any written characters unless for transcription.

you're an idiot, stfu.

Oh no, ladies first. I insist.

[Miekko]

Show me a Russian speaker who, when cyrillic input is easily available, doesn't use it.

My Russian language instructor didn't use it because she didn't think any of her students could read it. And she was mostly right; only one other student and I could read Cyrillic. But she did use apostraphies when transcribing the spoken Russian.

When ... transcribing.

It is not part of the language, it's an extra-Russian situation;

Correction: it isn't a part of Cyrillic. No verbal language really uses any written characters unless for transcription.

a language is more than the spoken language - it's also a bunch of conventions that come along with it. among those conventions are the fucking orthography. you seem to fail to understand that a language is more than just the spoken word, just like some people fail to understand that language isn't only the written form.

When we speak of Russian, we speak of a bunch of bundled cultural conventions - such as the alphabet and orthography, various manners and assumptions about what connotations words have, how you express certain things politely, how this politeness is expressed ,etc etc. You fail to take that into account, and that's pretty stupid.

Also, whosoever teaches Russian using transliteration/transcription is teaching irresponsibly, and should not teach Russian.

[Mashmakhan]

Show me a Russian speaker who, when cyrillic input is easily available, doesn't use it.

My Russian language instructor didn't use it because she didn't think any of her students could read it. And she was mostly right; only one other student and I could read Cyrillic. But she did use apostraphies when transcribing the spoken Russian.

When ... transcribing.

True, but we could also say that Cyrillic is yet another way of transcribing the language.

It is not part of the language, it's an extra-Russian situation;

Correction: it isn't a part of Cyrillic. No verbal language really uses any written characters unless for transcription.

a language is more than the spoken language - it's also a bunch of conventions that come along with it. among those conventions are the fucking orthography. you seem to fail to understand that a language is more than just the spoken word, just like some people fail to understand that language isn't only the written form.

When we speak of Russian, we speak of a bunch of bundled cultural conventions - such as the alphabet and orthography, various manners and assumptions about what connotations words have, how you express certain things politely, how this politeness is expressed ,etc etc. You fail to take that into account, and that's pretty stupid.

Yes, a verbal language can be understood to mean the same thing as a written language, but there is a reason why we say "verbal language" and "written language." Romanized Russian is understood in exactly the same way in connection with the verbal language as Cyrillic is, so they are either both part of the spoken language or are both seperate written languages that carry the same meaning spoken Russian does. To say that one written form is part of the language and the other isn't is rather silly from a practical perspective. You are implying a cultural connection, not an actual physical or mental connection.

Also, whosoever teaches Russian using transliteration/transcription is teaching irresponsibly, and should not teach Russian.

As coming from a cultural purist perspective, perhaps. But I like to think of it as a matter of versatility. If an instructor is willing to make the spoken language more easily understood by any means possible (BTW this was a course on only spoken Russian), it shows that they are genuinely concerned with helping their students learn the language rather than just showing it to them and saying something to the effect of "my way or the highway." I realize it may seem ignorant but I doubt anyone would want to actually learn a language they are paying to be taught to them if the learning experience is a negative one.

[Jar Jar Binks]

you're an idiot, stfu.

Oh no, ladies first. I insist.

You are attempting to insult a known male by implying that he is a woman. This implies that a man ought to feel insulted by such an implication, which further implies that women are inferior to men. This is sexist.

[Miekko]

Show me a Russian speaker who, when cyrillic input is easily available, doesn't use it.

My Russian language instructor didn't use it because she didn't think any of her students could read it. And she was mostly right; only one other student and I could read Cyrillic. But she did use apostraphies when transcribing the spoken Russian.

When ... transcribing.

True, but we could also say that Cyrillic is yet another way of transcribing the language.

idiot.

It is not part of the language, it's an extra-Russian situation;

Correction: it isn't a part of Cyrillic. No verbal language really uses any written characters unless for transcription.

a language is more than the spoken language - it's also a bunch of conventions that come along with it. among those conventions are the fucking orthography. you seem to fail to understand that a language is more than just the spoken word, just like some people fail to understand that language isn't only the written form.

When we speak of Russian, we speak of a bunch of bundled cultural conventions - such as the alphabet and orthography, various manners and assumptions about what connotations words have, how you express certain things politely, how this politeness is expressed ,etc etc. You fail to take that into account, and that's pretty stupid.

Yes, a verbal language can be understood to mean the same thing as a written language, but there is a reason why we say "verbal language" and "written language." Romanized Russian is understood in exactly the same way in connection with the verbal language as Cyrillic is, so they are either both part of the spoken language or are both seperate written languages that carry the same meaning spoken Russian does. To say that one written form is part of the language and the other isn't is rather silly from a practical perspective. You are implying a cultural connection, not an actual physical or mental connection.

you miss my point, and are stupid about it.

Also, whosoever teaches Russian using transliteration/transcription is teaching irresponsibly, and should not teach Russian.

As coming from a cultural purist perspective, perhaps. But I like to think of it as a matter of versatility. If an instructor is willing to make the spoken language more easily understood by any means possible (BTW this was a course on only spoken Russian), it shows that they are genuinely concerned with helping their students learn the language rather than just showing it to them and saying something to the effect of "my way or the highway." I realize it may seem ignorant but I doubt anyone would want to actually learn a language they are paying to be taught to them if the learning experience is a negative one.

Language is for communication. In our modern world, a lot of that communication is in street signs, labels, textual instructions, notes, etc etc. If you want a reasonably complete idea of what Russian is, you need to know Cyrillic. You can have a reasonably complete idea of what Russian is without much knowledge of the Latin alphabet, the converse is not true, though.

Also, another consequence of your stupid methodology is that you could claim *every* language ever transcribed in the IPA has a phonetic orthography! Don't you realize how fucking idiotic that is?

[Pthagnar]

it's not even *hard*

[Mashmakhan]

This implies that a man ought to feel insulted by such an implication,

Not necessarily. Maybe he likes being called a lady

That aside, the only thing that anyone could really be insulted by when reading that is having their gender and/or biological sex contradicted by the statement. I didn't place any additional connotations in those sentences so whatever you take being a lady to imply is your doing, not mine. The fact that you even assumed I might imply anything derogatory in association with being female just as easily says something about yourself. Not that I am assuming it would, but playing associative blame games can backfire. Just so you know.

which further implies that women are inferior to men. This is sexist.

Hey, your words, not mine. I said nothing of the sort and never meant to imply anything more than what I just described. If what I said implies anything more to you, then that is your problem.

Show me a Russian speaker who, when cyrillic input is easily available, doesn't use it.

My Russian language instructor didn't use it because she didn't think any of her students could read it. And she was mostly right; only one other student and I could read Cyrillic. But she did use apostraphies when transcribing the spoken Russian.

When ... transcribing.

True, but we could also say that Cyrillic is yet another way of transcribing the language.

idiot.

It is not part of the language, it's an extra-Russian situation;

Correction: it isn't a part of Cyrillic. No verbal language really uses any written characters unless for transcription.

a language is more than the spoken language - it's also a bunch of conventions that come along with it. among those conventions are the fucking orthography. you seem to fail to understand that a language is more than just the spoken word, just like some people fail to understand that language isn't only the written form.

When we speak of Russian, we speak of a bunch of bundled cultural conventions - such as the alphabet and orthography, various manners and assumptions about what connotations words have, how you express certain things politely, how this politeness is expressed ,etc etc. You fail to take that into account, and that's pretty stupid.

Yes, a verbal language can be understood to mean the same thing as a written language, but there is a reason why we say "verbal language" and "written language." Romanized Russian is understood in exactly the same way in connection with the verbal language as Cyrillic is, so they are either both part of the spoken language or are both seperate written languages that carry the same meaning spoken Russian does. To say that one written form is part of the language and the other isn't is rather silly from a practical perspective. You are implying a cultural connection, not an actual physical or mental connection.

you miss my point, and are stupid about it.

Unless you actually describe how I misinterpreted your point, then I see no point to be had.

Language is for communication. In our modern world, a lot of that communication is in street signs, labels, textual instructions, notes, etc etc. If you want a reasonably complete idea of what Russian is, you need to know Cyrillic. You can have a reasonably complete idea of what Russian is without much knowledge of the Latin alphabet, the converse is not true, though.

I do realize that Cyrillic is an essential part of Russian culture, but by itself Cyrillic letters are just symbols. So are Roman letters. I could also agree that the culture comes with the language, and to that effect you are right, but it is entirely possible to learn Russian and get a glimpse of Russian culture just by noticing how the language sounds, what its specific meanings are, how the words fit together into a phrase, etc. without learning Cyrillic.

Also, another consequence of your stupid methodology is that you could claim *every* language ever transcribed in the IPA has a phonetic orthography!

No, not really. No language needs to be transcribed into a written form at all. We just do it to represent the language on a different medium. How we transcribe it doesn't matter. If it did, we wouldn't even have the IPA. We would instead be using tape recorders.

Don't you realize how fucking idiotic that is?

A correlation between a written language and just one writing system? Maybe. A correlation between IPA and unwritten languages? Probably. But I am just as happy calling it a difference of opinion. No need to be rude.

[Shm Jay]

True, but we could also say that Cyrillic is yet another way of transcribing the language.

Only if Russian were a language that hadn’t already had an alphabet for about nine hundred years. You might as well say that Cyrillic is yet another way of transcribing English.

I suppose you could learn Russian without learning the Cyrillic alphabet, such as some basic words and phrases, but then your knowledge of Russian would be woefully incomplete because you would be illiterate in it.