The Official ZBB Quote Thread

CandleEnds · Post by **CandleEnds** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:53 pm

That came from my "Conlang Club" thread in Ephemera. I'm starting one at my school, and some people are trying to convince me not to, but I'm not concerned with that, I just want ideas for activities.

Cedh · Post by **Cedh** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:17 pm

TomHChappell wrote:
RHaden wrote:If you had an original sequence of glottalized stop plus aspirated stop, which assimilation would be more likely?

How about the reverse: aspirated stop plus glottalized stop?
Either way the speaker would sound like he/she was about to choke to death.

Whimemsz · Post by **Whimemsz** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:16 pm

<Dudicon> You're actually trying to claim that somehow you are better qualified to discuss a subject *because* you know nothing about it. Unbelievable.
<Szkwier> Dudicon, precisely. Someone who doesn't now about a field is not biased towards that field.
<Szkwier> Not to get philosophical, but let's say that all "knowledge" of a field was made by people supporting that field
<Szkwier> So to be objective, you have to ignore that knowledge

^lol

Drydic · Post by **Drydic** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:20 am

ils wrote:
Tximist wrote:I can't believe even the Bush administration would be that dumb.
Because they've shown some upper ceiling on their stupidity so far?

Sad, yet funny.

Plus this thread needed a bump.

Mbwa · Post by **Mbwa** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:29 pm

I like this, from Klaivas. It's from the nickname thread thing. It's a reply to Sakir saying he didn't mind Wycoval giving him a possibly offensive nickname.

Sakir > Sapir > Sapir-Whorf > Whorf > Whore

Nor do I, Whore.

Sakir · Post by **Sakir** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:44 pm

The funny thing is that I had thought of someone calling me "Sapir" before I made that post

Soap · Post by **Soap** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:24 pm

Nothing wrong with this one but it just really sounded funny to me:

Endymion wrote:I'm trying to reductify my phonology so it's based on feature bundles rather than atomic phones.

Endymion · Post by **Endymion** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:26 pm

I was rather pleased with my reductify coinage. But you're probably referring to the plutonium-powered telephones (as seen in Popular Science ca. 1954). And to think people were worried cell phones might be dangerous.

dunomapuka · Post by **dunomapuka** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:40 am

[in the context of talking about a language that uses "to be bad" and "to be ignorant" as the default roots for the concepts of goodness and knowledge]

TomHChappell wrote:
imploder wrote:They must be pretty pessimistic.
AAAUGGGHH! Whorfian fallacy!

James0289 · Post by **James0289** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 9:49 am

Turtlehead wrote:
Herr Mors wrote:
cromulant wrote:with teeth that bite and claws that shred.
Where did this come from?

"Beware the Jub-Jub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

Sounds a bit like Jabberwocky!

I know, I know: "The jaws that bite, the claws that catch"

Risla · Post by **Risla** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:54 am

Debegduk ing Debegduked wrote:My favourite conscripts are the ones that have just got off the bus and don't know what's waiting for them yet. Then I get to yell at them:

"Step into line, you horrible little letters! I swear I've never in my life seen such a half-graphed bunch of semiotes! Well, by the time I'm through with you, you will curse your own creators for bringing your sorry glyphs into the light of day! You're in the alphabet now! IS THAT CLEAR?"

Drill Sgt. Cenemic, Morpheme Corps

TomHChappell · Post by **TomHChappell** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:23 pm

Matt · Post by **Matt** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:40 pm

From Serali's "I give up" thread:

Azucar, out of the blue, wrote:I got a question, Do boingys make you horny? Like would you get turned on by someone dressed up as a boingy hopping up and down? Sorry for the random question its just been on my mind.

Rui · Post by **Rui** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:07 pm

I figured this was in need of an update (although I've never posted in this thread before

)

In the "Any pipe-smokers?" thread (Ephemera):

pharazon wrote:
Sæm wrote:I smoke pipes, but I don't use tobacco...
To clarify, you perform fellatio.

Qwynegold · Post by **Qwynegold** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:23 am

A weird random comment someone wrote in my ASCII-based logographs/ideograms thread:

Zoris wrote:ASCII stupid question, get s stupid ANSI...

Risla · Post by **Risla** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:12 pm

TomHChappell wrote:It looks like I mis-interpreted "labio-velars". Apparently they mean a co-articulation or secondary-articulation in which one articulation is labial and the other is velar; like a labialized [k] or a velarized [p].
I had thought "labio-velar" meant a single articulation in which the lip and the velum approached or met.

Probably the same applies to the labio-palatals, then.

I can't get my lower lip to meet my velum. I can't even get them close.
And I have great difficulting getting my lower lip to touch my palate. I can get them close, (maybe approximant), but to make them touch (stop) or even perturb the airstream (fricative) I have to lift my lip with my tongue.
A labio-alveolar approximant or fricative or stop, however, is within my competence.

Anyway, that's why I said what I said about "no linguo-supercilials". Z-SAMPA doesn't give us a way to denote those consonants that are made by touching the apex of the tongue to the eybrow.

PTSnoop · Post by **PTSnoop** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:13 am

On the Knowledge of Almea's shape thread...

Mornche Geddick wrote:Wilbur Glenn Voliva travelled around the world several times trying to preach his flat-earth theory.

(My apologies if this has already been quoted. I can't be bothered to trawl through 30 pages to check.)

Bryan · Post by **Bryan** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:10 pm

Soap wrote:Nothing wrong with this one but it just really sounded funny to me:

Endymion wrote:I'm trying to reductify my phonology so it's based on feature bundles rather than atomic phones.

Ahahahah! Delicious gibberish!

(okay, okay, it's not gibberish, but it sounds like the empty utterences of pseudo-intellectuals. A classic quote whatever).

Bryan · Post by **Bryan** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:13 pm

jmcd wrote:
Eccentric Iconoclast wrote:
-Klaivas- wrote:Your language arouses me in a non-erotic manner.
At least quote the rest:
Egein wrote:I wish it were sexual
-Klaivas- wrote:I said it was non-erotic, I didn't say it wasn't sexual

It's funnier without 'the rest'

TomHChappell · Post by **TomHChappell** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:04 pm

LinguistCat · Post by **LinguistCat** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:21 pm

From "Are you a guy or a girl" thread:

TomHChappell wrote:
bricka wrote:This thread has gone from "are you a guy or a girl" to sex and orgasms in only two pages. Don't people talk anymore?
After the sex and orgasms, I guess ... unless you fall asleep ...

Risla · Post by **Risla** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:28 pm

Eddy wrote:
This made me think of the idea of each state developing a state ceremonial script for writing English, or even state ceremonial conlangs
That would pwn, except for Georgia which would get its lang confused with the other Georgia or have to use the real Georgian as its ceremonial language. I can imagine Atlanta Braves fans shouting "Vprtskvni, vprtskvni!"

Risla · Post by **Risla** » Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:40 pm

cedh audmanh wrote:
TomHChappell wrote:
RHaden wrote:If you had an original sequence of glottalized stop plus aspirated stop, which assimilation would be more likely?

How about the reverse: aspirated stop plus glottalized stop?
Either way the speaker would sound like he/she was about to choke to death.

Oh gosh, yes. Especially if the stop in question were [q].

TomHChappell · Post by **TomHChappell** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:38 pm

TomHChappell · Post by **TomHChappell** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:38 pm

nebula wind phone wrote:I don't care if Abkhaz does it. It's still not naturalistic.